Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-08

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:Logo SCF.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: El logotipo de SCF (Sindicato de Circulación Ferroviario) ha sido realizado por SCF y tiene licencia libre Juanmascf (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it now? Can you direct us towards tangible, written proof of that? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There doesn't appear to be any evidence of permission for this file. If you do indeed have authorization from the copyright holder to publish this on Commons, please contact COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:08, 31 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 Archivist1174[edit]

Affected:

And also:

Per the original deletion: "The uploader claims to have created all these photos. That seems rather unlikely. In particular, the photos with EXIF seem to be taken with generally cheaper cameras of a wide range of brands (and arguably deteriorating photographic skill) as time goes by. Most photographers would exhibit the opposite development, and most DSLR users would not change brands that often."

I did indeed create all these photos, with my own varying range of cameras (and allegedly deteriorating photographic skill), except the images from the 70s, which are pictures of printed photographs. I can re-upload these images, but I will request undeletion first. In the future, I would be more careful about one-person deletions of U.S. imagery from a nomination by a non-native English speaker, especially when there are no comments on the deletion request. Since the images are all of the same politicians, you easily could have written to us and asked who owned the copyrights rather than trying to ascertain that on your own. Feel free to restore them, or I can go about the arduous task of re-uploading them. Archivist1174 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I begin the response; do not reupload the photos at all until we say it is alright. Doing so could result in a block by other admins. Anyways, judging by all of the uploads, with the exception of two, are all related to Assemblyman Castelli from New York (and all relate to New York politics if you include the Katz photos). However, the problem I see is that, regardless about the exif data and camera models, I have a problem with regards to authorship. Do you work for Castelli's office or for his campaign team? What photos are from his office actually? I count photos from a private photographer, the NY GOP, unknown authors and other various sources to where I know for a fact that you yourself probably didn't take most or even all of these photographs. If you do work for Castelli, please read COM:OTRS and get in touch with us through your work email and we can sort this out. Until them, we cannot restore any of these photos. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, NYGOP, etc are all the same staff photographer for the GOP minority conference. An OTRS time ticket has been initiated via the official email but I'm not certain how to post confirmation or the time ticket #. Archivist1174 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For more context, our photos (official and campaign) go to a conference photoshelter, then to each members Picasa. Sometimes they are sent out with a press release which is why you are seeing them on a site like lohudblogs. But outside of the shots of photos I actually did take them all, from the parade, to the redroom. We do not release every photo, only certain stock images. Please check for an OTRS request from the Assembly. Thanks. Archivist1174 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An email at OTRS has been received and I am dealing with the case right now. Some photos I am going to restore now, but others I am asking the emailer about before I will restore those. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not create the photos from the 1970s, why did you claim that File:Trooper Robert Castelli.jpg and File:Sergeant Robert Castelli in Vietnam.jpg were entirely your own work and that you were the author and copyright holder? Even as a non-native speaker, I at least know the meaning of those words. I'm not sure why those files have been restored with those untrue claims still on the file description pages, nor do I think it was "careless" to consider all your authorship claims to be unlikely when some of them were admittedly untrue. In fact, I remain skeptical. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The files are being restored because I got documentation on OTRS that proves the ownership belongs to the uploader (and we got a release from the copyright holder, so all of that information can and will be fixed.) I do understand your concerns LX and they will be addressed, but everything is being sorted out at OTRS and I got it taken care of. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OTRS 2012072910001043 (will plug in details when I got time). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Efr265-001-MF - Zaho.jpg[edit]

Hi, This file is a promotional picture. And as explained by email, the French label company (us) has the rights to use it on Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emfrance (talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

True however, Wikimedia Commons hosts only files that are published under free licenses (for everyone to use, remix, even commercially) which is probably not the case for a promotional picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:55, 30 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, your files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Impastato-Dolci.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files have been deleted for lack of information about themselves. In addition, the was not used correct license template. Now there is source, date, proper license. I ask the recovery, because while I was loading the same file, but under another name, the system crashed. These files tag: {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|Italia|1 gennaio 1996}} . Data on these two files available from [1] and [2]. Thank you. raul (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Franko I. Vol. 52. (P. 747).png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is good version of file which was deleted with bad version by mistake Максим Пе (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Apologies -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MVSR Engineering College.jpg [edit]

MVSR Engineering College i.e., Maturi Venkata Subba Rao Engineering College, was established in 1981. It is one of the earliest of the colleges in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India, that pioneered engineering education in private sector. The college was founded by Matrusri Education Society, whose members distinguished themselves as engineers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, businessmen and administrators. The college is also popularly known as Matrusri Engineering College. After completing two decades of excellent service in Technical Education, the college has celebrated its Silver Jubilee year in February 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaramula (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

That is all fine and good, but it is not important here. The problem here is that the logo of the college is copyrighted and you may not simply copy it from the college's web site without permission. In order to keep it on Commons, you must have an appropriate officer of the college send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:78th Homeland Response Force.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Public use, due to it being a work by the federal government. GeorgiaGuardsman (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Many National Guard members are state employees, and not federal, aren't they? It may come down to the actual photographer; many are federal employees. I can't see the image, so I can't tell if a photographer was named, or what the source was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a graphic made by Department of Defense employees, and therefore owned by the department.

✓ Done The file is available on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ganatlguard/5373746126/in/set-72157624939096107 under the CC-BY 2.0 license. Carl is right most of the times a work of a National Guard unit is done by the state (unless explicitly made by the Army Institute of Heraldry). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Officiallogowarmi.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Last week, I have uploaded this same document myself. Unfortunately, I am unable to find it in the database, and therefore I tried to upload it again. However, this did not work. Hopefully you can help me out and allow me to upload the file again. Thanks in advance, Tipo Chaudry TipoChaudry (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is a copyrighted logo and there was no assertion from Centro Integral Warmi that we have permission to upload and use their logo here under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above. If you do in fact have permission from the copyright holder, please send evidence of that permission to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, your files may be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saud good one.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: no specific author . YouTube video published by same same website above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUQ6MfoMIB0

http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/pages/5c2f6a14-d44d-4c7a-bf79-c567ed38b2ae Saudmukhtar (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 30 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 and File:2344203474_106f0097ef_b.jpg[edit]

The photograph of this work of art has been done by Geneviève Pinçon, responsible of scientific research conducted at the site of Roc-aux-Sorciers, with the agreement of the french Ministry of Culture (Le Roc-aux-Sorciers : art et parure du Magdalénien http://www.catalogue-roc-aux-sorciers.fr/). She wants to publish it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License. I uploaded the file for her in 2008. She sent an email to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org on july 2012, the 21th in order to allow it. Please undelete [the files]Two messages merged. --Dereckson (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC) --OlivierAuber (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Thank you both for your contribution.
I'm checking with an OTRS volunteer if we've well received the mail I will then restore the pictures. --Dereckson (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Sunday June 29th, she should have received a mail reply asking her a full authorization.

Meanwhile, we can't restore these pictures. --Dereckson (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prelude 3 2 Rach playing.ogg[edit]

File:Prelude 3 2 Rach playing.ogg Unilaterally speedy deleted by User:Ahonc with comment "Rachmaninov died in 1943, so it will be in PD in 2014". Recorded for Edison Records in the US in 1919, making the performance recording {{PD-US}} ({{PD-Edison Records}} would be equally appropriate); the underlying composition en:Prelude in C-sharp minor (Rachmaninoff) first published in Russia in 1892; to my understanding making it {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Both copyright statuses were noted on the file page, I think correctly. I have pointed this out to the deleting admin and have not gotten a reply. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened is the admin used {{PD-Russia-2008}} where the cut-off date is January 1943 (Rachmaninov died in March 1943). He did have compositions in 1941, which was during the Great Patriotic War period. Yet, I did see in the Wikipedia article that he became a US Citizen before he passed. If we could find out when he became a US citizen, that would help me a lot to see if we use American or Russian copyright. However, I would agree that a speedy delete was not the best decision here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD-US doesn't apply to sound recordings. They're protected by state copyright, not federal, and are protected no matter how old they are. PD-Edison Records is questionable ... but at least Florida law 0540.11 and Nevada law NRS 205 Sec 217 refer to the owner of the masters, which may be the people claiming they're PD now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I believe the recording was made at the Edison Studios in Orange, New Jersey. (All Edison discs were made in either New Jersey or New York; checking matrix # can confirm which if that makes a difference.) If you think that PD-Edison Records is invalid, that's an important point of much wider relevance than this recording and should be brought up elsewhere. Yes, old US copyright law on recordings is somewhat of a conflicting mess -- but it seems to me that Edison Records abandoned any claim on their part in the transfer to the US Gov't after they left the record business. (Again, on some Edison recordings there may be separate copyright considerations regarding copyright status of the underlying composition and possibly musician performance, but these seem not to be relevant to this particular recording.) I note no one seems to have challenged {{PD-RusEmpire}} for the underlying composition. Note: I believe at the time of the recording Rachmaninoff was officially "in exile" and not yet a US citizen, but the recorded performance aspect should be under US law as it was recorded and published in the USA. As a side note, as I mentioned to the deleting admin, I would imagine some of Rachmaninoff's work would likely still be under copyright -- but his later works and recordings, not this early one. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute {{PD-RusEmpire}} for the underlying composition at all, I agree it is very old and ideally should not have any copyright issues. Yet, Russia has restored a lot of copyrights in the past 4 years and things that would have worked with {{PD-RusEmpire}} will not work anymore due to that clause of the Great Patriotic War. Since he died in 1943, I know we do not have a lot longer to wait before his works become PD due to the 70 year rule, but the Russian copyright code is a tough nut to crack. As for the recordings themselves, I would believe only NJ and NY would matter in the terms of any kind of law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would only NJ and NY matter? Why are the Florida and Nevada laws I pointed to irrelevant? I haven't checked all of them, but they seem pretty universal across the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many states have either laws or court precedents over sound recordings... that was the only protection available to the record companies until 1972 so it did become pretty universal I think. The laws of each state would matter in terms of possible infringement done in the state in question; doesn't matter as much where they are made. The Edison Records case is interesting though as it involves (very) possible copyright transfer as well. Transfer of common-law copyright can be different than transfer of statutory copyright, and is subject to state laws, which can differ, thus I'm sure the NPS is reluctant to fully claim "public domain". Looking at a compilation of state laws on the matter here, it looks like almost all of them define the "owner" of the copyright as the owner of the master recording, so in most jurisdictions it sounds like the NPS would be the owner. Also, common law copyright is subject to a bit more common sense than statutory copyright; it's not as automatic. While it appears that the term can be unlimited, it may depend on the owning company still commercially exploiting it -- if the company gave away the masters over 50 years ago and has not exploited the works since, courts could deem the copyright lapsed. Given the combination of factors, I'd lean towards thinking PD-Edison Records is OK (and the only possible tag really), one of the rare cases we can have U.S. sound recordings here. As for PD-RusEmpire... sounds like it should apply, particularly as the composer left Russia right at the revolution and apparently spent the rest of his life in the U.S. and Europe. Became a U.S. citizen shortly before he died; not sure of his citizenship prior to that, but does sound like he was never really a resident of the Soviet Union. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done because there doesn't seem to be strong consensus to restore the file and no real proof that this file is licensed under a commons-accpetable copyright. If anyone has any objections to this, I can restore it for a DR. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sämtliche in den letzten Tagen wegen angeblichem "fair use" (schnell)gelöschte Dateien und die Benutzerseite von User:Kulturagent[edit]

bitte sämtliche in den letzten tagen wegen angeblichem "fair use" (schnell)gelöschten Dateien und die Benutzerseite von User:Kulturagent wiederherstellen. angeleiert wurde das anscheinend von User:Motopark. die dateien lagen seit jahren unbeanstandet mit passendem lizenzbaustein vor, ebenso gibt die website des users an dass die Dateien allesamt unter freier lizenz stehen. es liegt somit kein grund für eine löschung vor. --Muscarix (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the jpeg covers fit in scope but the ogg-files (spoken wikibook) could be useful. -- Rillke(q?) 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wenn die cover unter freier lizenz stehen, wo liegt das problem? sonst wird jeder dreck mit freier lizenz behalten. --Muscarix (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, could you explain what exactly make you thinking the files were fair use? Thank you :-] -- Rillke(q?) 17:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things actually:
  • User:Kulturagent uploaded numerous album covers and whole songs to Wikipedia, claiming authorship over all of them. This seemed like a highly dubious copyright claim (granted that recording companies just about never release their content under free licenses).
  • Each of the file description pages of Kultureagent's uploads appeared to be an advert - for example, see [3] (admin only), so, the files appear to be out of scope.
  • User:Kulturagent also posted what appears to be a legal threat here, indicating that the files are indeed copyrighted. I don't know enough German to be certain, but based off what Google Translate tells me, it sure seems like it.
Hope that helps to clarify things. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of them were recordings of old music (musician: Konstantin Popov, Christian Mantey) and most of them voice by Hans-Jörg Große and Christian Mantey(very likely User:Kulturagent, just see the websites linked from de:ws:Benutzer:Kulturagent)
Regarding the legal legal threat: I think it means he is upset because all his contribs were deleted without any note or at least with a wrong deletion-rationale and now attempted to revoke the license he gave. -- Rillke(q?) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then these files are definitely non-free/copyrighted derivative works until we have written authorization from both the artists at OTRS. Until then, these are, at best, missing evidence of permission. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but now you can't expect them sending permission! After all pages have been deleted, ... And Hans-Jörg Große has published his works with a PD-notice (but it also contains work of Konstantin Popov and therefore you may want permission from him). All in all, too late I think. -- Rillke(q?) 09:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both authors (Hans-Jörg Große and Christian Mantey) have websites that states that there work is cc-by-sa 3.0 unported. That should really be suffient. Even if we assume that Konstantin Popov (music) did not agree to that licence (which is unlikely; as you hint yourself above the work looks kind of proffesional, so they would have thought about that licencing stuff) that only affects a small part of the uploads as most of them are only readings (as far as I can tell). All in all I think mass deleting all the files without dr or further notice was a huge mistake. --Isderion (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of copyright issues, but the fact a DR wasn't used should be noted and probably be conducted in the future. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision suspended after discussion on user talk page and the statement by the uploader below. --Isderion (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, vielleicht können wir, die Urheber (Hans-Jörg Große und Christian Mantey), einige Fragen zur Urheberschaft und zum Copyright beantworten. Alle von uns hier bereitgestellten Medien sind hier unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht und auch auf unseren Internetseiten mit diesen Lizenzen zur Verfügung gestellt worden (cc-by-sa 3.0 unported). Wir haben unsere Medien auch mit Wikimedia verknüpft und nicht versäumt, entsprechende Lizenzhinweise zu geben. Werke von Kontantin Popov wurden nicht bei Wikisource und auch nicht bei Wikimedia veröffentlicht (die Verlinkungen führen zu entsprechenden Videos). Lediglich zwei sehr kurze Sequenzen (unter 20 Sekunden) bei den Ansagen "Franz Kafka - Betrachtung" und "Franz Kafka - Das Urteil". Alle Bilder und die dabei verwendeten Motive liegen als gemeinfreie Werke zur Verfügung. Auch hier wurden alle neugeschaffenen Werke (CD Cover, Postkarten etc.) unter freier Lizenz veröffentlicht. Uns ist vollkommen unklar, weshalb hier eine Schnelllöschung mit der angegebenen Begründung "Urheberschaft und Copyright" in Gang gesetzt wurde. Einige Medien stehen mittlerweile schon vier Jahre zur Verfügung und es wäre wünschenswert gewesen, auf eventuelle Probleme oder Widersprüche hingewiesen zu werden. Sollte eine Wiederherstellung der Medien möglich sein, wäre dies eine sehr erfreuliche Wendung. Mit besten Grüßen Christian Mantey und Hans-Jörg Große (User:Kulturagent) 12:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it was because of this post by you, where you requested a deletion of all of your uploads. This could perhaps be called a bit overhasty, but you requested it. As I see now you changed your mind and like to get the images undeleted, which I appreciate. But I would realy recommend that you confirm the release through COM:OTRS as well. A list of your upload you find here. All these filenames you should state in your email to the Wikimedia support team. Thanks and regards --JuTa 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done as stale (no comments for a week) and with general consensus that OTRS permission is necessary for the restoration of these files. If anyone objects, I'll restore them for a DR. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Erichouseofblues.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took that picture on House of Blues Orlando 2010 on a rehearsal with a sony cybershot camera/ Carlalune (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. There are also 8 other deleted pictures, could you tell me what I should do with those? --Dereckson (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information. The photo has also been published to http://jburne7.wix.com/uno. --Dereckson (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you are indeed the copyright holder, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jalachhayam Was Announced By Sathish Kalathil, The Director Of Jalachhayam At Kottayam Press Club, Kerala..jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: nil Sathish kalathil (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done not a valid reason to undelete -FASTILY (TALK) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nova Roma Flag.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Previously I did not give licencing information. Now, the information is added, I request undeletion. Gonda Attila (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You never did add any licensing information. You're welcome to re-upload the photo, but be sure to specify a license tag at upload, otherwise you run the risk of having the file re-deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:04, 31 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 Musikfest 2012 Poster.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File does not have a copyright and is available for free download on the official website. Undeadozzy (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be protected by copyright? All creative works are automatically protected by copyright upon creation (see en:Berne Convention). As explained to you in bold on your user talk page: unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here (see Commons:Image casebook#Internet images). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 31 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 Lswmovies[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All subjects in the aforementioned images have given me explicit verbal permission and requested to add their pictures to their respective Wikipedia pages, and therefore have given permission to release these images under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) license. Lswmovies (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not restore. Multiple issues.
1) Permission is required from the copyright holder, the first copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject, so likely you got permission from the wrong people.
But wait, permission? 2) You got permission for reuse in Wikipedia article, thats what you asked for. You not "therefore" got permission for a Creative Commons license. For publishing something under a Creative Commons license the copyright holder must agree to exactly this license.
3) Permission for reuse in articles is unsifficient permission, and so is
4) permission to a NonCommercial license insufficient permission because restrictions on where a file may be used or for what purpose it may be used aren't allowed on Commons. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.
--Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. CC licenses restricting commercial use are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:LogoFinsGout.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the owner of the logo Pibewiki (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you are indeed the copyright holder, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 02:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Datuk Amin.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: new file 19 MNA 69 (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY (TALK) 08:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leater logo 300.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: wrong copyright Nikolai leater (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a part of this company, get in touch with COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Zscout370 said. Send an email to COM:OTRS if you represent the company. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:張龍首張同名專輯封面.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: made by me. Mantogogo (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Judging by this search, this photo looks like it was taken from a Taiwanese TV broadcast that uses the same watermark and modified. It is a COM:DW and we cannot take it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bhargavi C.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have permission mail from the person whose picture was uploaded. Mysilverkey (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org please. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Zscout370 said. Send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scan0023.tif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is an image taken during the first year of Paramarsh and there are no copyrights to it. Aseemdreams (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You never did add any licensing information. You're welcome to re-upload the photo, but be sure to specify a license tag at upload, otherwise you run the risk of having the file re-deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carta al mundo ... planeta sustentable.pdf[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Amor para Todos necesitamos Sembrar Conciencia, Informacion importante para Todos, Mundo Sustentable. Ekosmunidad (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete -FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Alan Arkin - poster.jpg and File:Teri Garr - publicity.JPG[edit]

According to their DRs (Arkin and Garr), Denniss tagged both of these for deletion before the DRs were started; he voted to delete one of them; and then he deleted both of them. Please restore both images and reopen the DRs, because Denniss is obviously involved and not qualified to take administrative action on these images due to his participation in the deletion process for them beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done All taken care of :) -FASTILY (TALK) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plaque on Wimbledon Court No. 18 to commemorate the longest match in tennis history between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut on 22-24 June 2010.jpg[edit]

Not eligible to copyright. Logo is de minimis. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plaque on Wimbledon Court No. 18 to commemorate the longest match in tennis history between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut on 22-24 June 2010.jpg. Yann (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Agreed with TwoWings. Not enough original text to get a copyright. The logo is de minimis. Yann (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torcida jovem americana.jpg [edit]

A imagem em questão é a imagem da TORCIDA JOVEM AMERICANA que é a Torcida Organizada do América Futebol Clube (Teófilo Otoni), a criação da imagem foi de autoria da propria torcida, eu sou Diretor da Torcida Jovem Americana, e peço encarecidamente que recoloquem a imagem disponivel para visualização afinal ele faz parte do artigo da http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcida_Jovem_Americana. obrigado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielvicious (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean File:Torcida Jovem Americana.jpg (Capital letters are significant on Commons).
This file is the copyrighted logo of a sports club. In order to keep it here we will need formal permission from an officer of the club, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uffie+Emporio+Armani+Paris+Store+Opening+iNUdK5EuDrWl.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A picture for Uffie needs to be on her page, this is the most recent of hers in 2012 and the last one was from 2007 Theyatemyheart (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Press photos are strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 23:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mao Badge 11 Back.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted as part of mass deletion of Chairman Mao badges (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Badge 12.jpg), but this image only shows the back of a badge, with a written inscription, and so is not a derivative work of a copyrighted image, which is the reason the other badges were deleted. BabelStone (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Seems reasonable -FASTILY (TALK) 08:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mao Porcelain Badge.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted as part of a mass deletion of Chairman Mao badges (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Badge 12.jpg) as derivative works of copyrighted images. However, the image of Mao Zedong on this particular badge is itself a derivative work of a photograph of Mao Zedong made when he was at Yan'an during the 1930s (see File:Mao.gif), and therefore covered by PD-China. BabelStone (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 08:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mao_Badge_12.jpg[edit]

{{Request temporary undeletion}} Please temporarily undelete this file for transfer to enwp for fair use in the article en:Chairman Mao badge. BabelStone (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Let me know when you're done -FASTILY (TALK) 08:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:姜大聲本人的中文簽名.jpg [edit]

This is a signature by Dae-Sung.I made a request to delete this file couple months ago.Plese see here :File:%E5%A7%9C%E5%A4%A7%E8%81%B2%E6%9C%AC%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%B0%BD%E5%90%8D.jpg.
Now I read the Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. I understand that This signature of typical signature is allowed here as it is not eligible for copyright protection either in Germany or in the US.Therefore,Please Undeletion this file. I might use this file again because I need it now. thanks a lot.--Znppo (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the signature, it is written in Hangul (Korean) and we need to find out what does the South Korean copyright law state on signatures (since neighboring countries have rules copyrighting signatures). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done; no response in over a week. If you still want the file to be restored, please make a new request -FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Izeste[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Already done -FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Democratic Party HK Logo.svg [edit]

I should have added the Non-free logos license.--Lmmnhn (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos are not allowed on Commons. Please upload them on Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free materials are not permitted on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pushkarsky I Ya.tif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-RusEmpire}} {{PD-US}} Hunu (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 10:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ODS Logo.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Civic Democratic Party logo Ojinek (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos are not allowed on Commons. Please upload them on Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above. Fair use materials are not allowed on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lys (Pyrénées-Atlantiques)[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Notdone}} Just recreate it -FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about history, and credit to original contributors? Croquant (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Already done -FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamburg S-Bahn 2008.jpg [edit]

wrong file deleted! dublicat AND "original"-image have been deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamburg Zukunft 2.jpg only File:Hamburg Zukunft 2.jpg should have been deleted but File:Hamburg S-Bahn 2008.jpg was deleted as well. --Flor!an (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I have restored File:S-Bahn Hamburg 2008.jpg --PierreSelim (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

All of my images please[edit]

  • Can someone please help me, an editor called Denniss just deleted all of my images for no apparant reason! The editor has said whilst deleting the images that its a "Mass deletion" and yet I know that he's clearly not looked at my images at all and has just deleted all of them even though they were sourced, referenced and attributed to either {{OGL}} and {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. I don't know what to do as I worked so hard and for along time to upload all of the images including the much needed and updated version of an image of Ed Miliband and other politicians, so I think it is unfair for an editor to delete everything that I have just uploaded and whilst he was deleting the images I asked him why was he doing it and he just ignored me and continued to delete everything, even though I have uploaded them the correct way, using the correct information. I mean other editors had a discussion to see if the OGL was allowed (Commons:Village_pump#Open_Parliament_Licence) and then an editor wrote on my wall saying: Your images should be fine though, since the Open Parliament License is practically identical (Commons:Village_pump#Open_Parliament_Licence). We just need to make a new template and tag them. —innotata 22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please i'm begging can someone help me out, as the editor who deleted my images has neither given me nor wikimedia any reason as to why he has deleted the images, as it looks as though he is abusing his power by just deleting them without saying why! If someone could help i'd be eternally greatful! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images are mostly at the top of http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions/Slytherining_Around32&offset=&limit=250&target=Slytherining+Around32 (there are other images below that might not be a part of these two licenses). I noticed for some of them that you included a source for the images, yet were tagged and deleted for no source. A lot of these do not make sense, but I must admit I never heard of the Open Government License before. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For I believe six image were tagged for no source, I am unable to access the link you posted as I am not an administrator, however to delete every single one of my images without looking over them I think is unfair. The Open Government License, is the same as the Open Parliament Licence and is used on wikipedia when uploading images of British politicians as here is the OGL: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ and since the images were realised under this licence and as the debate involving other editors shows, I was allowed to upload them because its a recognised wiki license. I went onto the editors page and realised that I am not the only editor who is complaining about having their images deleted for no apparant reason, yet he seems to not be responding to our questions as to what reason he has for deleting them. Can someone please un-delete the images please. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to look into the images and restore what I can, but I ask for your patience because of some things I will have to deal with in my personal life. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Government is licensing many of their works freely; see {{OGL}}. However, the Parliament has their own version, the Open Parliament License, which is under debate on the Village Pump right now (basically the same thing, but a couple folks are worried about a slight change in the wording). However, it appears the images are a) not directly available on the source website as given, and b) the source website specifically mentions a different, non-free license for the photographs on that site (it appears most portraits are done by private firms). Unsure about the PD-USGov ones, and how accurate those were; the entire lot may have been mass-deleted to avoid looking through all of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged several images for no source as the given source had either a completely different image or a similar image but of very low res. As you removed the no source tag despite warning I deleted the images from this source (and some other valid images that I have restored now). --Denniss (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand, I thought that if it was a higher resolution of the same image then it could be used as its the same picture. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If an image is a work of the U.S. government, that is true no matter what resolution it is. (But images under a free license, including the OGL for a few agencies, can only have the small versions released as free.) —innotata 18:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any congressional images you uploaded on Commons that are still deleted though (in fact, the only images of yours recently deleted are those below and the Parliament images). —innotata 18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On OGL images: File:Lord Hill 2.jpg, File:Nick Gibb 2.jpg, File:Sarah Teather 2.jpg, File:Tim Loughton.jpg, File:Vince Cable 2.jpg should all be fine under the Controller of HMSO's Offer. I can't see anything of File:Mike O'Brien 2.jpg, File:Ed Miliband.jpg, and File:Joan Ruddock.jpg but they likely are as well. —innotata 18:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Lord Hill, Nick Gibb, Srah Teather and Tim Loughton images I got them from the Department of Eductaion website and they have been released here http://www.education.gov.uk/help/legalinformation/a005237/use-of-crown-copyright-material under the OGL, whilst Vince cable is from here http://www.bis.gov.uk/site/copyright also released under the OGL and the Mike O'brien, Joan Ruddock and Ed Miliband images, were released here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/photographs_of_ministers_46#incoming-295448 under the OGL. So if these images could be un deleted i'd much appreciate it. I will also be posting the more sources for the rest of the images that have been deleted aswell. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody? —innotata 21:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done. No clear consensus to restore all of the files. It seems that the files which are obviously permissible on Commons have already been restored. As for the rest, if anyone feels that any specific file should be restored, they are invited to create a new request for that file. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hugo Swire.jpg[edit]

This image was released by the NIO under [4] it clearly states on Crown Copyright "We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" and then if you go onto OGL [5] it says "The Controller of HMSO has authority to license Information subject to copyright and database right owned by the Crown." and on Crown Copyright it states "The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) at The National Archives manages Crown copyright and Crown database rights on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in the following ways: We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence." so the images in question as they come under Crown Copyright, also come under OGL. Another editor put: The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer. —innotata 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC) and later: A more specific link is [6] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO. (The "any public sector bodies" bit refers to non-Crown bodies like local government bodies.) —innotata 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) By the links I have posted you will see that the Crown Copyright clearly states it uses the Open Government Licence, and yet on another image Owen Paterson.jpg, whose deletion I will also be contesting the editor who deleted both the images wrote: No it's not under OGL as every state body decides independently what to release under OGL and what not. This body decided against OGL. As said in other DR the HMSO officer statement is a general statement that Crown Copyright elements may be released under OGL if the copyright holders agree. They don't agree in case of NIO so image has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The editor talks about states deciding independently [7], but what does this have to do with the images, especially when Northern Ireland is a Country not a state of the United States which Denniss evidently thought it was, also Government departments in the United Kingdom may not opt out of Crown Copyright as all departments fall under its jurisdiction as the Crown is Sovereign to Parliament. So where does the administrator get "This body decided against OGL" from as there is no evidence to support this especially since CC and the OGL cover every department, instead he has created a strange idea that The State of Northern Ireland has opted out of the Governments Copyright! So since the image has bee released under the Crown Copyright and the CC uses the OGL, this image is legit and lawful, though for an administrator to believe Northern Ireland is a state in the U.S. is quite strange! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These images should be undeleted. They are clearly under the Open Government License, as I stated in the deletion requests. They are crown copyright, and they are not covered by exemptions in the OGL, they are not software, nor are they by an agency with a delegation of authority, so they are covered by the Controller of HMSO's offer [8]. —innotata 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't undelete. The "arguments" pro undeletion are not in the least convincing. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that they are not convincing when we have outlined all the available data and have shown that we are correct, when it comes to the images being released under the Open Government Licence. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my post seems to indicate that I think you're wrong about that, doesn't it? --Rosenzweig τ 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I wrong? I'm getting this from the site of the National Archives, the responsible agency, which I've linked, and James Forrester, who worked on the OGL (I've asked him to comment). —innotata 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just say someone is wrong and then not back it up with any evidence! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than enough evidence posted on the multiple DR you are involved in with your uploads. You are wrongly assuming all Crown Copyright Material automatically becomes OGL - that's wrong. CC material may be released under OGL but must not be. It oblieges the issuing authority/legal body to decite what's released under OGL and what not. --Denniss (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does DR mean? Denniss I don't mean to be rude, but that is not how British Law works, Crown Copyright covers all the Government Departments, individual departments are unable to pick and choose which bits of law they would like to implement. You mention legal bodyand the legal body is the Crown Copyright. Maybe in Germany, individual departments can decide what to release, but in Britain they cannot as its one rule for all. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you is quite right: the OGL automatically applies to many, but not all crown copyright materials, thanks to the bodies responsible for crown copyright, HMSO and the National Archives. The deletion requests (DRs) do not establish whether these are under the license—Commons users can be wrong. These two images are fine. —innotata 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to wrap my head around this, so here is my attempt: According to this , the NIO is a body that produces their works under Crown copyright. Here doesn't list them as a governing body that have asked for a Delegation of Authority] to re-license their own works as they see fit. So, this would mean to me that their ability to relicense is under the National Archive. At here is the OGL, in which the main licensing agency is going to put works under the OGL except under certain circumstances (either in the license itself or through a DoA granted by the HMSO). In short, I think this image would be fine under the OGL and will have no issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Exif data at [9], the photographer of this image is Aaron McCracken of Harrison Photography, and copyright for this images rests with Harrison Photography Belfast. That sounds to me like a case of section 4.3, Acquired rights, in the licensing framework: "For example, a public sector body may have obtained the rights to publish a photograph for educational and non-commercial purposes only. In these circumstances, the public sector body would not be able to license the re-use of the photograph for wider use." Unless someone provides some proof that NIO did acquire all rights of this image, we'll have to assume otherwise. --Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that previously (and the below image is different). The NIO website (which hasn't been updated to reflect the OGL, though—many UK government websites have incorrect copyright pages and agencies appeared to believe they controlled the copyright when contacted around two years ago …) says non "crown copyright protected" material should be specifically identified as such (which is standard if not required). I'd assume it is crown-owned (different from crown copyright but equally eligible for the OGL), which I'd expect anyway. —innotata 02:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only solution is to ask the NIO and have them clarify the situation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might work, but they could be unhelpful—their website is wrong, most agencies contacted earlier over these issues did not help. We might want someone in Britain to do this (I think some agencies did earlier), and I hope we don't need to explain the OGL to people at a crown body. I think this image is clear without further information, thr one below more clearly is. —innotata 02:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done . No consensus to restore. If someone contacts the NIO and receives confirmation that this file is indeed acceptable for Commons, then that confirmation should be forwarded to COM:OTRS so this file can be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Owen Paterson.jpg [edit]

This image was released by the NIO under [10] it clearly states on Crown Copyright "We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence and the UK Government Licensing Framework" and then if you go onto OGL [11] it says "The Controller of HMSO has authority to license Information subject to copyright and database right owned by the Crown." and on Crown Copyright it states "The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) at The National Archives manages Crown copyright and Crown database rights on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in the following ways: We license a wide range of Crown copyright and Crown database right information through the Open Government Licence." so the images in question as they come under Crown Copyright, also come under OGL. Another editor put: The NIO doesn't get to choose what license this is under: it's under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer. —innotata 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC) and later: A more specific link is [12] All crown copyright material, with a small number of exceptions, that do not apply, is under the OGL thanks to the Controller of HMSO. (The "any public sector bodies" bit refers to non-Crown bodies like local government bodies.) —innotata 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) By the links I have posted you will see that the Crown Copyright clearly states it uses the Open Government Licence, and yet the editor Denniss who deleted both the images wrote: No it's not under OGL as every state body decides independently what to release under OGL and what not. This body decided against OGL. As said in other DR the HMSO officer statement is a general statement that Crown Copyright elements may be released under OGL if the copyright holders agree. They don't agree in case of NIO so image has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The editor talks about states deciding independently [13], but what does this have to do with the images, especially when Northern Ireland is a Country not a state of the United States which Denniss evidently thought it was, also Government departments in the United Kingdom may not opt out of Crown Copyright as all departments fall under its jurisdiction as the Crown is Sovereign to Parliament. So where does the administrator get "This body decided against OGL" from as there is no evidence to support this especially since CC and the OGL cover every department, instead he has created a strange idea that The State of Northern Ireland has opted out of the Governments Copyright! So since the image has bee released under the Crown Copyright and the CC uses the OGL, this image is legit and lawful, though for an administrator to believe Northern Ireland is a state in the U.S. is quite strange! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't undelete. The "arguments" pro undeletion are not in the least convincing. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that they are not convincing when we have outlined all the available data and have shown that we are correct, when it comes to the images being released under the Open Government Licence. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that there is an indication, namely that the NIO website doesn't mention the OGL. Simply assuming that they would indicate images they don't own all rights to is not good enough in this case IMO, so per the precautionary principle I'd not restore the image unless more convincing "evidence" is presented. --Rosenzweig τ 22:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though the NIO might not mention anything about the OGL, from the discussion above, I have noted that their works are a part of this license (since they are a Crown office and not have been given an authority to relicense their own work). Yet, as you noted with the above discussion, that image was taken by someone else and given to the NIO. Is that the same case with this image? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be marked if it's not crown copyright (which this one appeared to be if I remember right—it looks like an official photo, taken by a government employee) or crown owned (though there is the lack of clarity with the other image). These are very probably under the OGL, though I suppose we can't be completely sure about either and ought to contact the NIO. If nobody else does, I'll try. —innotata 21:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Rozenzweig The grounds for keeping this deleted that the NIO doesn't mention the OGL are very poor—the work of this agency is under the license. —innotata 23:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure this image is the work of this agency, see above for my reasons. --Rosenzweig τ 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you gave any reasons to why you think it is not Crown Copyright -- you just said "arguments pro undeletion are not in the least convincing", which doesn't explain much of why you think that. In order for the NIO to have the right to license the copyright as they see fit, they need an explicit delegation of authority from the Crown -- otherwise, the HMSO controls the copyright. The list of such delegations of authority is here; I don't see the NIO among them. The NIO's copyright page seems to date from 2010, which was really before the rollout of the OGL. On the other hand, the HMSO's definition of which material is under the OGL is here; they do say that information must usually be made expressly available under the OGL, which it would seem is not the case here. The same page though does include a general offer of Crown copyright information under the OGL, which does include any information offered under the click-use PSI license (even if not expressly mentioned), and NIO works are also not included the list of works which are explicitly excluded from the general offer. You could read the offer (The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence which does not mention the "expressly" part at all) to basically be all information which is not in the excluded list. It may be prudent to avoid material which does not have an explicit OGL or PSI license (though the NIO copyright page gives pretty liberal rights), but it helps to explain why you think the NIO material is not included in the HMSO's offer. A second reason to be prudent, as you sort of mentioned, is that it seems that many UK government photo portraits are in fact done by outside firms and not government employees, meaning such photos (at least ones taken since 1989) would not be Crown Copyright at all, meaning the OGL is not applicable. That was made clear on the UK Parliament web page I think, but no idea about the NIO. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem not to have found the sentence in question, I'll repeat it: I wrote “Simply assuming that they would indicate images they don't own all rights to is not good enough in this case IMO, so per the precautionary principle I'd not restore the image unless more convincing "evidence" is presented.” That's why I wrote “I'm not so sure this image is the work of this agency.” That and the Hugo Swire image with copyright clauses in the Exif data. --Rosenzweig τ 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James Forrester says the offer of the Controller of HMSO means all crown copyright and crown-owned copyright materials not specifically exempt are under the OGL. Some photos of government employees are specifically said to be crown copyright (presumably excluding crown-owned copyright)—those of Number 10 and the Cabinet Office, identity photos obtained in the freedom of information requests. I assume these images are crown-owned if not crown copyright (wouldn't this be at least usual for portraits?), which would make them equally eligible for the OGL, and they ought to have notice if they are not. —innotata 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the offer part. It's not completely clear, but that does seem a reasonable interpretation (as it does say, in contrast, that the OGL must be expressly given in the case of works under a delegation of authority, which could imply that express listing is not necessary for works not under the delegation). I think though if a photo was made by an outside firm, it's not Crown Copyright, rather it would be regular copyright. Not sure if there is a transfer in that case; may depend on the contract -- the government may simply have a license rather than own copyright. Prior to 1989, the definition of Crown Copyright included all works made under the direction of the Crown, but I think the Copyright Act 1988 changed that to be more similar to the USGov definition, employees in the course of their duties type of thing. You'd hope the websites would point out non-Crown works though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will put in a freedom of information request to the Northern Ireland Office under the OGL so that they can release the images! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore. A request has also been put in to the Northern Ireland Office asking that the file be released under the OGL. If the file is released under the OGL as a result of that request, evidence of that request and subsequent answer should be forwarded to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 06:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-01196, Plakat der SPD zur Reichstagswahl.jpg[edit]

If the German Bundesarchiv claims it has the necessary rights, that has to be enough for us. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but could you clarify what you mean by that? -FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-01196, Plakat der SPD zur Reichstagswahl.jpg) said that the author died in 1942, and that the image is not yet in the public domain. But this file wasn't tagged as PD at all, it was marked as having a CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE license from the German Federal Archive. So it should be restored, because the DR was beside the point. If anyone thinks the archive is wrong in granting said license, they should make a new deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original upload said that the author is unknown. The file is a reproduction from repository Bild 102 - Aktuelle-Bilder-Centrale, Georg Pahl. Unlikely the image agency of Pahl owned the copyright, they distributed it. From their stock it came to the BArch. They assesed that it is an work of unknown authorship (wrong), older 70 years and in their stocks. So they can claim a copyright (at least for the scanning). But they are wrong, the artist is not unknown. They unlikely own the copyright on the original work because they are obviously (author=unknown) not aware of the facts. If they hold the estate of Gottfried Kirchbach they would know it. --Martin H. (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amateurs such as we are less qualified to assess copyright statuses than professional archivists, who deal with copyright issues in their job every day; trust the professionals and restore this image. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexandra Garces Borrero y Jorge Garces Arellano.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My personal File Ronaldofranco (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done "All rights reserved" is not a valid license on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erick Barrondo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: esto no entra en la categoría de "PD-ineligible - Para obras demasiado triviales como para tener derechos de autor." ya que al ser un evento deportivo y no una primicia mundial existen demasiadas fotos de esto Lewatoto (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs are virtually always copyrightable. There are many photos of the event, and each photo has its own copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Press photos are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

[File:Ulu Moskee in Bergen op Zoom, Netherlands.jpg][edit]

The photo is made by me. See my photography portfolio at facebook: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.363966084719.150791.752414719&type=3&l=6b2c00068e I live in the city where the Mosque is located (Bergen op Zoom), the photo was made by myself.


 Not done If you are indeed the copyright holder, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madonna-Celebration.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: New image/Correct Image Dbmelo123 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use materials are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 05:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BumpyBigBadaBoomSatyajit.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

I hereby affirm that [I, (Satyajit R Padhye)] is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [File:OmiVaidyaBigBadaBoom.jpg.] & [File:BumpyBigBadaBoomSatyajit.jpg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Satyajit R Padhye] [05/08/2012] Indiapuppet (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This needs to be sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 06:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Loris Uzan Creation Signature.jpg[edit]

See image at [14], Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Loris_Uzan_Creation_Signature.jpg, current company homepage. Was nominated in December 2011, no comments, I closed as keep. Was renominated in Jan 2012 ("Because the Loris Uzan Wikipedia page doesn't exist and this logo is no longer valid"), no comments, Fastily deleted with no other explanation. Not copyrightable. Personality rights may apply to a signature in some jurisdictions but that's immaterial. I could see it as a COM:SCOPE deletion, but we don't normally delete historical logos of companies, since they could be used to illustrate the history of the company. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Eh, because you asked... -FASTILY (TALK) 08:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eric Pickles Official.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is clearly under the Open Government License, as stated on the deletion request by James and I. —innotata 21:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Innotata and an Administrator both clearly stated that it was released under the OGL, so could be used and yet it was deleted, once again the editor Dennis is ignoring the correct information he is shown and given and instead proceeds to delete the image. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The Flickr image comes from http://www.flickr.com/photos/communitiesuk/4624682386/ which is owned and managed by the "Department for Communities and Local Government." This, along with the Delegation of Authority not listing this body, the image is indeed under the OGL. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Brian J Dooley.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: got copy rights of the photo AhlamOun (talk) 10:41, 5 August 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) 00:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aloys Fleischmann 1958 photo by Rory Frewen.jpg[edit]

Deleted 01:33, 21 April 2012 by Fastily due to missing license. OTRS has received cc-by-sa 3.0 (ref #2012061610007519). Asav (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple files[edit]

OTRS is requesting undeletion of these files deleted 27 April 2012 by Fastily due to missing licenses:

OTRS has received cc-by-sa- 3.0 (#2012070210006099). Asav (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done except one which is an exact duplicate. Yann (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple files[edit]

OTRS is requesting undeletion of these files deleted 18:53, 6 July 2012 by Martin H. due to copyright violation:

OTRS has received cc-by-sa 3.0 (#2012071910001722). Asav (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This screenshots contain transcriptions of third party content or whole websites and screenshots of e.g. google maps (File:Rovas.info site in Carpathian Basin Rovas, on the topic of Rovas Place Name Signs.png). The whole point is to demonstrate a tool for transcription in some old script and advert this tool in Wikipedia. Neither is the uploader allowed to publish third party content under a free licenses, nor is this promotion in scope of Commons. If he wants to promote the script in Wikipedia he should simply add weblinks. --Martin H. (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Thank you. I have alerted the uploader to your message. Asav (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liedson Muniz.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Not Copyright. Steven185 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is a copyvio, taken from here. We need a permission by the copyright holder through OTRS to keep this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Multiple files[edit]

OTRS is requesting undeletion of these files deleted 00:00, 21 July 2012 by Fastily due to missing licenses:

OTRS has received cc-by-sa 3.0 (#2012072110007034). Asav (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. You may add the permission to the files and close the ticket now. Trijnsteltalk 13:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple files[edit]

OTRS is requesting undeletion of these files deleted 01:49, 31 July 2012 by Fastily due to missing licenses:

OTRS has received cc-by-sa 3.0. (#2012072310010697). Asav (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RockyDawuni.StevieWonder.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: CC-by-sa 3.0 filed with OTRS (#2012072310012631) Asav (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unternehmensbroschüre 1938 S.41.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please remove the picture because has no relation to the article. We don´t know who uploaded the picture and where it´s used in wikipedia. Or is theree the possibility to link it to our article?! Bierbaum Proenen (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking for. This is a page for requesting undeletion of files (restoration of previously deleted files). Commons:Deletion requests is the place for requesting deletion (removal) of files, but this file has already been removed.
If you don't know in which article it was used, how do you know it that it had no relation to the article? And who are "we"? Is your account used by more than one person? Anyway, the file's log will tell you that User:Harald Goost was the uploader and delinker log will tell you that it was used in de:Bierbaum-Proenen. I don't know what you mean by "possibility to link it to our article", but it's not possible to use a file in an article once it's been deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not an undeletion request. Please go to the help desk. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Passi chez John Foster.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Obligation d'utiliser ce fichier dans un article Celia91 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It might be good to use this file in an article, but that does not change the fact that it comes from a copyrighted source without any evidence of permission for use here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said -FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 6 August 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 Ariotama[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Newest Logo Is Already Upload Ariotama (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose It is possible that some of these might be restored, but certainly the reason given is not sufficient. At least some of them are taken from airliners.net which has an explicit copyright warning. Others are so small that "own work" is unlikely. Still others have no source..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Not a valid reason to undelete. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sila o Tonga - Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg[edit]

I don't normally get worked up over deletion discussions, but this one is really problematic. It was nominated as a duplicate of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg (it isn't, and neither image is more correct than the other) and because it has a tortuous history. Nobody pointed to any grounds at Commons:Deletion policy to justify the deletion. Instead, the file was ulimately deleted because:

  1. It is not used anywhere - This is not a valid ground of deletion. Commons exists to serve more than just Wikipedia projects. Lack of usage ≠ out of scope. The question ought to be whether the image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Nobody argued that it wasn't - instead the focus was on the sordid history. While it is appropriate for a closing admin to decide against consensus when copyright and licensing issues are involved (where consensus is not correct) or to lean towards delete where the answer is unclear (as per the precautionary principle), there should be (in most instances) clear rationale and/or regard to consensus on a subjective matter like usefulness for an educational purpose. There was no such consensus here - in fact, several editors, including the initial closing editor, suggested the opposite.
  2. It is included in the history of File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg - With all due respect, this is asinine. It isn't a duplicate, so it is baffling why the history is relevant. Moreover, the suggestion that this image can be found in the image history of another file, so can be deleted, is the most user-unfriendly thing I have ever heard. It's unhelpful to users who are not familiar with Commons editing and the Wikimedia software. It can't be found through categories or searches. Commons instructions to members of the public on how to reuse content outside Wikimedia make no mention of digging through file histories. If we acknowledge it can dug out of the file history, isn't is easier/more straightforward for users to simply keep the file???
  3. It is inferior to File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg - This is also not a valid ground for deletion. Nobody suggested that the file was sufficiently inferior to be out of scope or that these technical issues render the file unusable.
  4. As per Tony Willis - Tony's rationale was (and forgive me, Tony, if I have misparaphrased) was that it's not used in another Wikipedia project and it exists in the other file's history (neither of which are grounds for deletion). Tony concluded by saying "little gained by keeping this file, but little gained by 'deleting' it either (now that it's here), this is one file I'm not going to worry about either way".
Where an image meets our copyright/licensing requirements, and is not clearly out of scope, we should be letting users pick which one they prefer when we have two or more images of the same subject. Commons does not have limited disk space - we are not unduly impacted by having more than one image of a subject.

Ironically, if this file had been newly uploaded recently, we wouldn't have had this deletion discussion as it would be simply one of many variations we have here on Commons of subjects such as these. So to delete it now because of its upload history seems like a triumph of Commons bureaucracy over the objectives of building a varied image repository and being as helpful to users as possible. Would it just be easier for me to upload it again today, without the historic baggage? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Normally I'd completely agree with you -- the original upload was a different rendition, and we normally want to have all the separate renditions available under different filenames. Simply being in the version history is not enough. Perhaps the alternate crown would be useful in some other work, for example. If this version was transferred, that seems to indicate it was available on a local wiki, and probably used there, and keeping just for historical purposes is also usually enough for me. The reasons given in the deletion summary don't cut it for me either. All that said... the substantive change in design was done and re-uploaded by the original author. I would absolutely support undeletion and splitting them if the over-upload was done by someone else, but perhaps the original user prefers the current version as the one his or her name is associated with. Although apparently the original version was still available on a local wiki.... hrm. So... not completely sure. On balance, there's not much harm in keeping both, and potential harm in deletion, so I think I would lean for undeletion to have both versions available, unless the original author expressed a preference for only keeping the newer one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done It was sent to DR twice before this current incarnation and it was kept on all accounts, even if the reasoning did not change. The only major differences between the files is what shade of red is used and there is no definite source either way to say which one is correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I was thinking it was the same as the initial upload of the other file, which had more significant differences. Still, this name *was* in use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Owyhee River Canyon.jpeg[edit]

It looks like this was an accident by the administrator, User:Fastily. I requested that a similar file — File:Owyhee-river-canyon.PNG — be deleted; it was an inferior version of File:Owyhee River Canyon.jpeg. But Fastily ended up deleting them both, not that he thought there was anything wrong with the latter file, but probably just as a mistake. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done my bad -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARCTIC Accelero Hybrid picture.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Fail to upload other files Sachreeko (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nguyễn Linh Nga và Ngày ban mai Album-1999.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my own work. Homealone1990 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 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) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BumpyBigBadaBoomSatyajit.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The permission for the same file has been obtained by sending an email.Here is the copy of the permission.

I hereby affirm that [I, (Satyajit R Padhye)] is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [File:BumpyBigBadaBoomSatyajit.jpg.]

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]

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

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

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

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

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

[Satyajit R Padhye] [05/08/2012] Indiapuppet (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please give OTRS a few days to process your email. Once they do that, the file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Glossop North End Logo 125.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: these are football club crests and are being supplied and used with full consent of the football club, they should not have been deleted. GNEbandit (talk) 16:28, 7 August 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) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iva Zanicchi.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is under license: {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|Italia|1 gennaio 1996}}. Image description: "Iva Zanicchi a "Canzonissima" nel 1972" These licenses do not require necessarily information about the author or source. The important thing is the year 1972. If I find a source in the future I will put it. raul (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license tag is {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|Italia|1 gennaio 1996}} and the source is flickr.com. I don't see the problem. raul (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done In order for a file to be hosted on Commons, it must, at minimum, have a source and license tag, no exceptions. Unless you provide that information to us, this file cannot be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marshmallow World 59 & Winter 63 w- cross bear.ogg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own this file. I made the tape at a high school show in 1960. Tigertwice (talk) 02:50, 8 August 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) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giuseppe meazza 1937.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is now under {{PD-Italy}}{{Italia}}. Before now, there is no information about it but now i have all information to add the proper license tag. Without these template tags the file doesn't can stay in Commons. Thank you raul (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we have evidence that the source information we have - "Inter Club Sydney" - is a source first published in Italy, maybe yes. --Martin H. (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I plan to load it with another source: Gadlerner.it. --raul (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously not the source of first publication, which is what is needed. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The year of publication of the photo is 1937 in The Football Illustrated or Il Calcio Illustrato, 1937. In this pubblication there were also other football (soccer) players (of old time) and I want to upload, as soon as possible. In order to make you understand, I link you a page of the same journal (available online only for certain dates). Il Calcio Illustrato, 1938 raul (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? raul (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the "Inter Club Sydney" as a source of first published in Italy. :) raul (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If so, that would seem to qualify for {{PD-Italy}}. I think I'd  Support undeletion. Clindberg 02:59, 8 ago 2012 (UTC)
Ideally the PD-Italy; would be enough in practice to enforce the PD-Italy; in the USA (where servers are located) needs PD-1996. Moreover, in my opinion sysop should restore all deleted files with Pd-Italy.
In fac theyt can be of Commons all the photos of people who have license PD-Italy because Italian law guarantees it. However, because the servers are located in the United States, we must also use URAA license which applies directly to the PD-Italy. Theoretically you can upload on Commons with these two license tags all photographs of people, landscapes, TV shows and film shoots. In practice there's a lack of those who do it. raul (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would qualify for PD-1996 as well, by virtue of being first published in Italy before 1976. Careful about posed photos like portraits; I think indication those are photographic works (70pma) and not simple photos there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photos like portraits are simple photos for license tag PD-Italy too. (Art. 87) This is a photographic work of this image. raul (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Renate Winter.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Renate Fischer is a Justice in the Court for Child Rights in Sierra Leone and I just want to upload this picture to finish the wikipedia post Watchwings (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are many images which it would be nice to have to complete articles, but that does not overcome the fact that you do not have permission from the source to upload this image to Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Please see COM:PERMISSION -FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nancy singer.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is photo of Mr. Md. Sabur Khan. Which is given by him. There is no copy right problem with this photo. I dont know why this photo was remove. Alam5131 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TV ALEPA.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Because I need use my picture. Clausil12 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY (TALK) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Austin 3 16 WWE '13 box art.png[edit]

Claramente explique la fuente, las licencias y el permiso, no se que traen con las imagenes que yo subo a commons, a todas les pongo todos los requisitos y aun asi las marcan y las borran, solicito el borrado ya que he visto imagenes que no son trabajo propio y aun asi las aceptan.

Gracias por su comprension, User:WWEJohnCena. 14:42 8 Ago 2012

 Not done Fair use images are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gatito Lindo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Mi razón es que me gusta está foto Angelica Orzolek Ortiz Ortiz (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyvio -FASTILY (TALK) 01:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Excite bike.jpg[edit]

Image was deleted while discussion was still open and no consensus had been reached. --Bensin (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. The deletion was done with reference to the deletion discussion, which had been opened for more than a week, so it was due to be closed. The deletion was James' last edit on Monday, probably because our servers went down around that time, which would explain why he didn't mark the discussion as closed. Your argument about copyright content "happening" to be included are not particularly convincing, as this was not a case of incidental inclusion. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it's a good idea to close the discussion before deleting the file. If the discussion about the file is to be moved here instead of keeping it where it belongs (which I oppose), it should be mentioned that I was quoting former general counsel Mike Godwin. --Bensin (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a particularly good idea to have discussions closed as deleted where the files aren't actually deleted. Any inconsistent state is undesirable really, but as it's not possible to make multiple edits atomically, they will occur as long as servers aren't 100% reliable. This discussion was closed according to standard procedures for all intents and purposes, which does make this page the place to discuss the outcome if you disagree with it. In my opinion, your quote was out of context. Godwin did not comment on this file. The copyrighted content was the subject of this photo. It did not merely "happen" to be included. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative of a copyrighted work (Excite Bike video game from Nintendo). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis_Losada_Pescador.jpg Own work La foto es mía.[edit]

Luis_Losada_Pescador.jpg es mía. Es una foto mía. Own work 

(Mariamartinezlopez (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done Please, upload a version with Exif/Metadata Ezarateesteban 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wikinews-logo-endirect.png[edit]

file temporary restored to ease discussion

Wikinews-logo-endirect.png

There are several files like this. So what type of permission is missing here? -- Common Good (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again a proof that copyrighting all the logos to WMF is not helpful for the projects :-) (sorry for the troll). To have more copyright and trademark madness I think this logo is awesome File:Current event olympic games-ca.svg --PierreSelim (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is owned by the Foundation, so the licensing is correct on this image. As for the Olympic one, the rings are public domain due to age and perfectly fine to use on the logo in a copyright sense (for trademark, this a discussion that has to take place elsewhere). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Thule_Nation,_Flag.jpg [edit]

Please do NOT delete my uploaded files! There are no copyright violations to any of my files and they are all handmade by me or photographed by me. Please undelete the deleted file.

--SS1970 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per copy of http://www.ace-clipart.com/clipart/american_flag_photos/flag-c.jpg

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

OTRS[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerea Limeira.jpg [edit]

I have reasons to believe that the file Aerea Limeira was deleted incorrectly. The picture is public and it is a free content. If there is any problem, please let me know and I can provide the right information. But please, do undelete this image. Thank you very much. 


Muriloberbert (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There are copyright issues with this photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wolfgang Oberroeder.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is my own picture and may be used under the public domain license. Maybe I checked the wrong box in the license dialog. IWikiWi (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Apparent copyvio. If this is not the case and you are indeed the copyright holder, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yxaiio Logo.jpg[edit]

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung des Files 'Yxaiio Logo', welches den Yxaiio-Hasen mit Claim und Produktlogo zeigt. Ich bin offizieller Repräsentant der Yxaiio GmbH, 1060 Wien, und daher befugt, das Logo hochzuladen. MfG --Dowl (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FEMEN T-shirt.jpg[edit]

If my memory's good, this picture was taken from Femen's official Flickr account so there shouldn't be any problem of licence. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VRM Quick Reference Guide V3R0.pdf[edit]

Please bear with me as I am not very wikipedia savvy. However, on 27 July an 'anonymous' person recommended the subject file be deleted from the 'Value Chain' page. The reason stated is "The image is marked with a copyright ("Copyright ©2007 Value Chain Group all rights reserved") by an organization that does not appear to be the uploader." Please be assured, the authority to post this file is mine. I am Executive Director of Value Chain Group who owns the copyright to the Value Reference Model and for this particular rendition of the VRM. If you will be so kind to let me know how this openly available graphic can be undeleted for public use, that will be very helpful. Thanking you in advance ScottKarl (talk) 15:09, 10 August 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 file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NGC_628.jpg [edit]

This File is published on http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/43/image/a/ (direct link: http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-43-a-full_jpg.jpg) and got there a copyright clearence: http://hubblesite.org/about_us/copyright.php

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative work of non-free content. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 628.jpg -FASTILY (TALK) 09:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NGC 628.jpg[edit]

Due to the fact, that the last request has been closed before I could respond...


This File is published on http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/43/image/a/ (direct link: http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-43-a-full_jpg.jpg) and got there a copyright clearence: http://hubblesite.org/about_us/copyright.php

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative work of non-free content. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 628.jpg -FASTILY (TALK) 09:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the fast response. It is fully understood, that you can't use a image from the Gemini-Website, modify it and claim PD or similar. But I can e.g. show pictures on my website and can disallow further use (as far as possible) and can on the other hand, put the very same picture (or more common: in a different resolution) on commons with a CC-license too. Dual licensing is simply ok. So please judge the picture according to the source. Or do you think, http://hubblesite.org has not the approbiate allowance to publish the picture?

Regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In fact, the Gemini-Picture has a higher resolution http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011004.html

From the very hubblesite copyright page you linked to: This site also contains material generated, authored and/or prepared by individuals or institutions other than STScI, and those individuals or institutions may claim copyright. Should you desire use of such material at this time, inquiries should be made to those individuals and institutions in accordance with the following: [...] If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain as noted above. However, for credit lines listing individuals from other institutions, you will need to contact that institution listed in the credit line to advise you on the copyright policy for that image.' (emphasis mine) The Astronomy Picture of the Day site is basically the same. They obtained rights for their site to display the images, but for anyone else, they must obtain permission from the rightsholders themselves. There does not appear to be any license at the copyright owner's site which allows it to be here; the permissions of hubblesite/APOD do not apply to material owned from outside those sites. You have no right to license someone else's works; only the copyright owner can do that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sons_of_Secret_Logo_-_Alduane_Maño.jpg [edit]

This is the logo of the band I represent : Sons of Secret

This is image is our property (we had pay for this and all the rights are our) and so, this is free of copyright. Please stop delete it for copyright violation. Thanks a lot.

Sons Of Secret (Eltorograndé (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

For this and your other image, please get in touch with COM:OTRS at the email listed there. There you will present information on how you represent the band and what kind of license you will grant us. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the photo of the band I represent : Sons of Secret

This is image is our property (we had pay for this and all the rights are our) and so, this is free of copyright. Please stop delete it for copyright violation. Thanks a lot.

Sons Of Secret (Eltorograndé (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done What Zscout370 said. Send an email to COM:OTRS if you are indeed the copyright holder and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vernon Davis in 49ers Uniform.jpg[edit]

OTRS has received a cc-by-sa-3.0 license for the image. Please refer to #2012072710009174. Asav (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) (OTRS)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arthur Naparstek.jpg[edit]

OTRS has received a cc-by-sa-3.0 license for the image. Please refer to #2012081110006089. Asav (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) (OTRS)[reply]

✓ Done I've confirmed that the ticket is legit, and will undelete now. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Images deleted due to FoP[edit]

The following images of buildings have been deleted from Commons due to lack of FoP:

In a recent discussion, it was decided that on the English Wikipedia, US FoP applies to buildings worldwide on the basis of lex loci protectionis. Therefore, I am asking an admin here to do the following two tasks: 1) Download each of the deleted files, and reupload them on the English Wikipedia, if the image resolution of the deleted Commons files is higher (filenames are the same). 2) Check the license on each of the deleted file descriptions on Commons and update the English Wikipedia description pages with the correct license, while removing {{non-free architectural work}}. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Here you go -FASTILY (TALK) 07:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ConchitaWurst.jpg [edit]

Please Undelete File:ConchitaWurst.jpg. There was a delete-request (from me) for a File with the same File-Name. After the deletion, a new (different) file with the SAME file-name was uploaded. So the deletion is a mistake. It was never intended to delete this new file. Please undelete this file. --BambooBeast (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torre pirelli.png [edit]

File: Torre pirelli.png

The deleted file is a hand drawing of the Pirelli Tower

The Italian law on copyrighted images does not contain any prohibition on hand drawings

Furthermore, this picture is of fundamental importance to Milan, being its most iconic landmark

I suggest that eager moderators should consider to use a little bit of flexibility before damaging insomuch the fruition of wikipedia by millions of users

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a blatant copyvio. The uploader Carlos aliknt (talk · contribs) uploaded it in 2011 but we have it in other websites in 2006 or 2008. --Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that he's not its author? In both the websites cited, no copyright/author indication exist. Would you leave the New York's page without even a hand drawing of the Empire State Building, depriving millions of users of a fundamental encyclopedic function, just for a faint suspicion of infringement?--Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is stealing other peoples photos and someone who is not even able to make own photos will not be able to create architectural drawings. --Martin H. (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: a copyright/author indication is btw. not required for something beeing copyrighted by its original auhor. If you search for it you find a copyright notice e.g. at http://www.designboom.com/portrait/ponti/pirelli.html (published 2002). --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The fact itself that you cited two websites that used the same pictures in 2006 and 2008 is an evidence that no copyright/author indication exist on this picture. You don't have any evidence of what you are backing, causing a huge damage to wikipedia just for a suspicion. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"that no copyright/author indication exist on this picture" is nonsense. COM:PRP applies. There is no reason why the copyright expired, so there is a copyright holder, no matter we know him or not. Second, http://www.designboom.com/portrait/ponti/pirelli.html gives a copyright holder that makes sense. Third it is absolutely obvious that Carlos aliknt (talk · contribs) is stealing from other websites. Fourth it is more damage to have unfree content with untrue author and source claims on the project than having no such drawing. Wikipedia is the "FREE" encyclopedia, its not the "UNFREE" encyclopedia, so unfree content is out of scope and not interesting for us. --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Berne Convention, all creative works – with or without a copyright notice – are automatically protected by copyright upon creation and cannot be used without the explicit approval of the author. The fact that you can find other web sites willing to violate copyright law is not a green light to do the same. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is much simpler -- no matter who owns the copyright to the image itself, the image is of a modern building that is still under copyright, so that the image infringes on the architect's copyright. Although such images are permitted in some countries, they are not permitted in Italy, see COM:FOP. So, unless we can get permission from the architect, this image must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The architecht died in 1979, so it would be quite difficult to ask him for a permission...and the image deleted is a hand writing, not covered by Italian law. So if I understood the terms of the question, the only way to have Pirelli Tower (the very symbol of Milan) featured in this encyclopedia is that I become and artist and make a picture of it? --Conte di Cavour-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.112.155 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
No. Any image of the tower -- photograph, painting, drawing, lithograph, whatever, will infringe on the architect's copyright. Your repeated assertion that hand drawings do not infringe is incorrect, see Article 13, which enumerates the rights of the author:
"Il diritto esclusivo di riprodurre ha per oggetto la moltiplicazione in copie diretta o indiretta, temporanea o permanente, in tutto o in parte dell'opera, in qualunque modo o forma, come la copiatura a mano, la stampa, la litografia, l'incisione, la fotografia, la fonografia, la cinematografia ed ogni altro procedimento di riproduzione."
The exclusive right to reproduce has for its object the multiplication of copies of direct or indirect, temporary or permanent work in whole or in part, in any manner or form, such as hand-copying, printing, lithography, etching , photography, phonography, cinematography, and any other process of reproduction.
translator: Google
After the author's death, the copyright belongs to his heir(s), so it is the heir(s) that must give permission. If there is more than one, we will need permission from all of them.
Also, please log in and sign your posts here and elsewhere on Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo can be uploaded to en-wiki with the en:Template:FoP-USonly tag, as the photo is fine under U.S. law. However, Commons has a more global approach, and we require images to be OK in their source country even for commercial uses, and while using such photos on blogs etc. is probably fine, using them on postcards and similar commercial contexts is likely a problem in Italy. Therefore, we don't allow them on Commons, since by being here they are used in many more places than just encyclopedias, and it must be OK for all such uses. I'm not sure what the it-wiki rules on the matter are, if they allow such images -- see it: Wikipedia:EDP_per_it.wiki -- but it would make sense if they do, because such images should be on encyclopedia articles. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free creative works are prohibited. You are welcome to reupload the photo to enwp, but this file is not going to be restored on Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:WiescherPortraitSchrift.png[edit]

OTRS has received a cc-by-sa-3.0 license for the image. Please refer to #2012073010004547. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kautsky-Kreis (gallery)[edit]

Pictures deleted show gathering of prominent people, most of them with an article of their own in German Wikipedia, at a seminar of an institution that is also featured there. Educational plus documentary aspect is given, gallery not outside project's scope Bilder zeigen prominente Diskutanten mit eigenem Artikel in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia bei Seminaraufenthalt in Hotel.

Examples of people shown Rudolf Burger (Philosopher), Peter Kreisky, son of Bruno Kreisky (1968 personality), Silvio Lehmann (leftist anti-Waldheim activist), Oskar Grünwald (Former head of Austria's nationalized industry) --Robert Schediwy (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Empty galleries are deleted as out of scope. You are welcome to recreate the gallery, but please populate it with some files, otherwise you run the risk of having it deleted again -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:RNZAF-Hercules-1.jpg [edit]

This image is my own work and was taken by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauntless111 (talk • contribs) 13 August 2012‎ (UTC)

 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 file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

OTRS[edit]

Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 00:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Isi Leibler.jpg [edit]

File:Isi Leibler.jpg

Request to undelete file. Copyright holder has sent consent form for Isi Leibler.jpg to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

--Deers3 (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per permission confirmed (2012081410003899) MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theodor Weimer, Sprecher des Vorstands der HypoVereinsbank.jpg[edit]

OTRS has received a cc-by-sa-3.0 license for the image. Please refer to #2012081310003015. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Box Art for the "SeaWorld Adventure Parks Tycoon 2" Computer Game.jpg [edit]

It is box art and fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User 17293261 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is certainly copyrighted box art. There is no fair use on Commons, see Commons:Fair use. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unfree packaging, fair use is not allowed on Commons. If you want to use it on a wiki with a fair use policy that accept this file, you should upload the file localy but not on Commons. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yolle.png [edit]

Solicito a liberação do uso da imagem pois detenho os direitos de uso dessas imagens. Represento oficialmente a empresa GSA - Gama Sucos e Alimentos.

Estou a disposição nos contatos abaixo: <redacted> --Filiperocca (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 08:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cycling journalist Sophie Smith.jpg [edit]

This photo was given to Sophie and she uses it on her official Twitter account. No copyright has been violated. The picture is in the public domain and across a number of websites including her own. It is free work. Please put the photo back on her profile.

 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 10:04, 15 August 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 Slytherining Around32[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These were mass-deleted, and were not addressed specifically at the previous undeletion request The first two should clearly be fine under the Controller of HMSO's Offer, and the other three presumably are, though I can't tell without being able to see them. —innotata 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Just reupload the files if they're acceptable on Commons. IMO, no discussion should be required if that's the case. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pcmcia smart 4mb linear flash.jpg[edit]

copyrighted parts had been removed. was deleted anyways. can be undeleted. Amada44  talk to me 08:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Done}} -FASTILY (TALK) 10:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened this -- although we have no minimum period for UnDRs to be open, it seems to me common courtesy to allow the interested parties to respond -- this was open only 65 minutes.

It is certainly true that the image is no longer a copyvio, but is it useful? It is no longer an accurate representation of a Smart Modular Technologies flash card. I suspect that SMT could bring an action against anyone who actually used the image because it misrepresents their product. It is true that that would be a non-copyright action, but why should we keep an image that invites trouble?

At a minimum, doesn't this need a more obvious warning to any user that this is not an accurate image of the card? The fact that it is modified is shown only in the Comment box and even that is not accurate -- it has not simply been blanked, but overwritten with Xs.

More generally, it seems to me that removing copyrighted material from an image in order to be able to keep it is a strange practice -- it inevitably means that what remains is not an accurate representation of the subject, which is contrary to our educational purpose. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of course its useful. It shows the shape and general looks of the specific card. It would be nice to have the fancy colorful drawing on the sticker of the card but when its not possible because of copyright then I see no problems at all having it without the sticker. IANAL but I really don't see on what grounds Smart Modular Technologies is going to sue anbody using this image.
A note that the image has been altered is important and I have added it to the description. Feel free to alter the text if you like. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's useful -- the point is the show the general form of the card, not necessarily the logo. It's not misrepresentation when the modification is specifically noted. Although I probably would not have considered it derivative of a logo anyways given the Ets Hokin decision -- the photo does not appear to be primarily of the logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I concede -- in fact, I note that while, except for the altered printing, it is exactly identical to every other single thickness PCMCIA card I've ever seen, it may be the best image we have of that category of card. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, and agreement from the nominator is that the file should be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:D-Link Gigabit Cardbus Notebook Adapter.jpg[edit]

Was deleted because of copyright but the image does not reach Commons:Threshold of originality. Amada44  talk to me 17:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angelo Candiracci.jpg [edit]

Não estou entendendo. Eu mesmo sou o escritor deste artigo e as imagens me foram cedidas diretamente da empresa para este uso. O que estou fazendo errado? Na hora de publicar as imagens estou escolhendo corretamente a opção que fala sobre os direitos. Vocês estão acabando com meu trabalho que tem valor acadêmico para os cursos de Engenharia Civil e Arquitetura.

Se todas as fotos eu tenho que ficar defendendo para não ser eliminada, vai ficar difícil de trabalhar, se estou postando é porque conheço o que é permitido. Por favor.

Obrigado. Messias de Sousa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messias de Sousa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 August 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 file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mizo National Front Office.JPG[edit]

I am from Aizawl, Mizoram, I can verify and proof that I have taken this photograph. I may be probably the only person from my small state who is documenting this places. please undelete. --Coolcolney (talk) 15:09, 16 August 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 file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lunglei View.jpg [edit]

I have visited this town Lunglei on a Business trip, which was when I had taken this photograph, please mention why it has been deleted. I verify I took this photograph with my own camera. --Coolcolney (talk) 15:12, 16 August 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 file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS[edit]

Please undelete:

Thanks! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Although I feel iffy about the fourth one. It's not the greatest permission email I've ever seen, and the uploader is Billy Hathorn, one of only a tiny number of users to ever wind up at en.Wiki's CCI for both text and images. Also, ticket 2012080710008675 is locked, so I couldn't tell the client that the request was fulfilled. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files of User:Bhaskar Bhatt Joshi[edit]

Please undelete:

per Ticket:2012081510001621. (Note that this serves as an identity verification of the uploader rather than an explicit license.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Mundell3.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Despite what the source site says, since this is crown copyright (as the source site emphatically states) and not covered by exemptions, this is under the OGL [15], as noted on {{OGL}} —innotata 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually someone from U.K. with deeper knowledge about crown copyright should decide this. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vince Cable.jpg seems to be a somewhat related case. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done for now, per above, pending Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vince Cable.jpg. If someone with more expertise on the matter decides that this photo is acceptable for Commons, we can restore it -FASTILY (TALK) 09:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Monte dos Amantes Vila do Bispo.jpg[edit]

Deleted 25 July 2012 by Fastily due to missing license. OTRS has received cc-by-sa 3.0 (ref #2012071810011688). Asav (OTRS) | Talk 16:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pris sur le fait 93.jpg[edit]

This image is my creation, it is not subjected to copyright.
Thank you for restoring it.
--Comonda (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2008 Vintage Yachting Games Bow Sticker.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There was no copyright violation. The design was made by me personally, chairman of the Vintage Yachting Games Organization, for the use as bow sticker for all participating boats at the 2008 Vintage Yachting Games. The printing company mentioned on the sticker only reduced her rates a bit as kind of sponsorship. VYGOcommons (talk) 08:51, 19 August 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 file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 09:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mailed request to COM:OTRS --VYGOcommons (talk) 10:07, 19 August 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/Files uploaded by Raoli[edit]

See User talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raoli for the reason. raul (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the files serve no apparent purpose, but the larger issue is that the images should be marked as copyrighted by the WMF as derivatives of a logo they own, as opposed to being marked as own work and given a CC license. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please you can change the license tag. But these files were used in project pages. raul (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These were uploaded in April and were in use only on a User subpage (I did not check them all). We do not keep personal art of non-notable people. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
«These files were in use only on a User subpage (I did not check them all)»: Then I don't understand why you deleted them all. It is not way to do. Well then I will send delete all files of a user because I have seen one without a license. You can't put everyone into the same basket. These files are used in addition to my userpage in
raul (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the pages cited above had no edits by anyone except Raoli. They were presumably created recently for the sole purpose of attempting to defeat this DR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No valid reasons give to undelete, and the files clearly serve no useful purpose. It also appears that the uploader has been using illegitimate means in attempt to defeat this DR, so I think we'll end discussion here. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:*****PROFILE PICTURES 013.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the person in the photo 98.112.83.214 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permission needs to come from the photographer rather than the subject. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above. See COM:OTRS for information on how to obtain and submit proof of permission -FASTILY (TALK) 08:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Norsk Kennel Klub logo.jpg[edit]

To whom it may concern, it seems this picture/logo was deleted on Aug. 17, by user EugeneZelenko.

The file represents the official logo for The Norwegian Kennel Club, and was uploaded by me to the organisation's Wikipedia page (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_Kennel_Klub).

The logo is created and owned by us/the organisation - wiki username "Nkkhundesport". We/the organisation ourselves own all the rights to the logo, and hence we believe uploading it to Wikimedia should not be considered a copyright violation.

We strongly request that this logo is undeleted, so that it may once again replace the Norwegian flag that currently is shown on the Norwegian Kennel Club's Wikipedia page.

-- Best regards

JANE ELIN BRATTLAND Communications consultant / Editorial secretary / Graphic designer The Norwegian Kennel Club phone: 924 38 983, e-mail: jane.elin.brattland@nkk.no

Visiting address: Nils Hansensvei 20, Bryn, Oslo. Postal address: PB 163, Bryn, N-0611 Oslo, NORWAY www.nkk.no Nkkhundesport (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple files[edit]

OTRS requests that the following files deleted due to missing licenses be undeleted:

We have received cc-by-sa 3.0. Please refer to #2012082110004581. Thank you. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 14:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I've also tried to restored the COM:DW linked in the files. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DeerPark-ooty-board.jpg[edit]

I am not happy with the deletion rationale given at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeerPark-ooty-board.jpg. The image is a sign board for a Deer PARK and the signboard only says "Deer Park" with its address and phone number. The rest of the text is an exact translation of the English text in Tamil language. The copyrighted image was blurred enough to protect the copyright. If blurring is not adequate, I can blur more. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of Google cache, the sign also included a photograph. If that was blurred, maybe it'd be OK. Not sure if India inherited the UK's very low threshold of originality. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sreejith, I will defer to your reading of the Tamil on this if you want to undelete it -- that's why I asked you to look at it. From my point of view, once you blur the photograph enough to eliminate the copyright problem, the image has gone out-of-scope because it no longer represents the sign as it is. I can't imagine any educational use of such an image.
I join with Carl, in wondering if the TOO in India is not very low -- most of the rest of India's handling of copyright is very similar to the UK. If the TOO is low, then the mere layout of the text is covered. Remember, too, that the UK specifically covers the arrangement of the type on the page. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can read and write Tamil language. The Tamil text in the signboard is an exact translation of the English text it has. Its just a signboard anyways, it cannot be creative. I do not know about the TOO law in India. Indian copyright laws were made 50 years back and were derived from the British laws then. I haven't come across any court ruling in India regarding a similar case. But I confirm that the text is simple enough and is out of copyright. I deliberately did not remove the dear picture and only left it blurred to a point that it is not useful for any other purpose, but still can be identified as deer. If we create an article about this park, this image can be of use, so it not out of scope. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl L. The text is too simple to get a copyright and the image is blurred.


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

File:Schirmmütze marine.jpg[edit]

For some reason, someone deleted both, the dublicat and the original image Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bundeswehr_Marine.jpg. Please restore one of this and redirect the other to the resored. Thanks --Flor!an (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done *duplicate -FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Intel Raid Web Console 2 No01.jpg[edit]

Why is the image deleted? It is my own, and there is no copyright violation in it. WHY???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moesonic (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not yours, it is Intel's and your image infringes their copyright. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion summary appropriately linked to Commons:Screenshots; you should read that page. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free materials are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Images of New York City[edit]

I request undeletion of this harmless category redirect helping in moving files from enwiki (category under this name exists on enwiki and this redirect allowęd bots to perform automatic fixes in categorisation of copied images) Bulwersator (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Bulwersator (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

+2 category redirects[edit]

Category:Images of bridges Category:Images of Indonesia

I request undeletion of this harmless category redirects helping in moving files from enwiki (category under this name exists on enwiki and this redirect allowed bots to perform automatic fixes in categorisation of copied images) Bulwersator (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:BW Einsatz KFOR.jpg[edit]

It seams that User:Fastily don't understand if an deletion request mentioned the dublicat and the original image, that he should NOT delete the original image! Just the dublicat!

Please restor the obove mentioned file. Original request can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Einsatzmedaille.Bundeswehr.KFOR.jpg --Flor!an (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 09:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BW Sommerdanzug (Heer).jpg[edit]

This image was obviously deleted by mistake. The image is PD-BW, because it is from an official document. Even tho the linked document is not fom the official website, but the name of the document is important. In case, remove the link and just keep the text : ZDv 37/10: Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr. Even check the comment from User:Niabot he made to this deletion request: Official document of the Bundesministerium der Verteidigung . See page two of the PDF, even signed by Hartmut Bagger

Deletion Request can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BW Sommerdanzug (Heer).jpg --Flor!an (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I guess; looks like {{PD-BW}} (which I assume is basically a subcategory of {{PD-GermanGov}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your right Carl Lindberg, it is an subcategory. Its just an more detailed description. I don't understand why there is an delete discussion at all if its anyways ignored. --Flor!an (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Misread the discussion -FASTILY (TALK) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Energy Tablets.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We want to release the images with a license under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Grupo Energy (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For images which already exist on the Internet, we typically ask that the procedures on COM:OTRS are followed (i.e. sending a private email confirming the license), as user accounts here are essentially anonymous, even if the name suggests an association with the copyright owner. If that is done, the images will get undeleted as part of that process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Carl said. Have the appropriate permissions sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rajeev kumar varshney.jpg [edit]

Dear Administrator,

Please undelete the file File:Rajeev kumar varshney.jpg for the article Rajeev Kumar Varshney on wikipedia. This picture was taken from Rajeev Kumar Varshney, in Hyderabad, India. He gave the rights and permission to use the picture for this article. please let me know if you need any other information.

--Rachitks (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Rachit

Have him send the permission to the address as specified on COM:OTRS. Please note that the permission must be granted for everyone, for all uses -- it cannot just be for Wikipedia only. If that is done and it all checks out, then the image will be undeleted by that process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Carl said. Have the appropriate permissions sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carl_Van_-_International_Insurance_Institute.tif [edit]

Please restore this file. I tried re-uploading and received an error. When I check the file it says it was deleted.the license is here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/36663716@N06/7776873744/

--Openallnite (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It appears you mean File:Carl Van, President of International Insurance Institute, professional speaker, consultant and author.jpg and File:Carl Van, President and CEO of International Insurance Institute, professional speaker, consultant and author.tif. The Flickr account in question has only the one image, and it appears to have been taken in 2002, and does appear (in smaller sizes) on the web, in places such as here or here. People on Flickr often copy images from elsewhere, meaning they don't have any right to license the image, and such images will be deleted. In this case... it looks like your Flickr account, and it only has the one image. However, it is there in a far, far higher resolution than is likely to be found elsewhere. We often prefer to have a private statement mailed per the procedures on COM:OTRS for images found elsewhere, though we may assume that only someone with authority could have uploaded that to Flickr in the first place. This image has a second issue however; all images here have to be inside Commons:Project scope, i.e. they have to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Portraits of people are not inherently inside that scope, and there appears to be no WIkipedia articles on that person nor their company. In particular, we don't allow images here if their primary purpose for uploading is to be promotional of external interests. How is this image to be used? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Carl said. Have the appropriate permissions sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AHMwwf.jpg [edit]

This is definitely NOT a copyright violation, because about 7 years ago *I* created that image in photoshop.

The file in question is the album cover for War? What For?, an album by A Hopeless Motive. (An image of the cover can be found at the link, for interested readers following along.) Did you create that entire image yourself, including the image of the gas mask and skull? Or did you take those images from other sources for use on the album cover? If (and only if) the former is true, you can send us an e-mail asserting that you own the copyright to this image; follow the directions at Commons:OTRS. If not, then we cannot host the file because it is not free. Powers (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What LtPowers said. Have the appropriate permissions sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo EPQ.svg[edit]

Image was kept per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_EPQ.svg (granted, there was no discussion), but has now been speedied as "fair use". Not sure why this would not be PD-ineligible. Эlcobbola talk 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept, therefore a new DR is needed. And it is certainly PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Velikan_iz_Platonove_1.jpg [edit]

This is cover of the magazine, I have permision to post that on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NektarBL (talk • contribs)

 Not done No, you are not allowed to post this on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KK_Borac_Banja_Luka.png [edit]

This is a crest of KK Borac Banja Luka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NektarBL (talk • contribs)

 Not done Non-free content is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plato-Musei Capitolini.jpg [edit]

I am the owner and the photographer of this photo, and not any other source or website. This photo is here for several years, the process of deletion of this photo was too fast (several hours or less - I do not remember previous intention of deletion of this photo) without involving me.

Yair-haklai (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request was open for one week: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gorgias.gif. Why didn't you answer there? Yann (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gorgias.gif is not my photo, and nobody asked me for my opinion, my photo is File:Plato-Musei Capitolini.jpg maybe it was deleted by mistake. Yair-haklai (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 09:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hadsund Folkeblad.JPG[edit]

Engelsk the picture is a picture I took of the newspaper because we get it once a week and then I took a picture of the newspaper so that the image is not from the web.--Søren1997 (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Danish det billede er et billede jeg har taget af avisen fordi vi får den en gang om ugen og så tog jeg et billede af avisen så billedet er ikke fra nettet.--Søren1997 (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See COM:DW. Taking a photo of copyrighted content does not give you licensing rights over it. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phare de Berck[edit]

Hello,

This is a purely functional design, and there is no originality involved. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Phare de Berck and Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright on industrial buildings. More over, the last 2 images are a general view of the place, and the lighthouse would be de minimis if it has a copyright. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the French law which suggests that lighthouses are not copyrighted -- the law reads "d'architecture", not "d'architecture if.....".
Why don't you try the other way round? Rather than finding a reason for deleting, you should try to find a reason for keeping it. That would be more constructive for this project. Yann (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for "purely functional design", why is it the case that every lighthouse in the world is automatically in scope on WP:EN and here if it were not for the fact that our community clearly thinks that they are something more? Why is it that there are private groups all over the world trying to preserve them as modern technology has made them less and less relevant? Before I became a Commons:Admin, I spent most of my time on WP:EN lighthouses and saw this passion. We do not have that for buildings of "purely functional design" such as the average industrial building. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of being in scope in WP with the criteria for deletion here. First I am not sure every lighthouse in the world would be in scope, but that is another debate. They are other reason that architectural originality for being in scope: the age and height of the building, the importance for maritime navigation, the environment, events during the construction and the functioning, etc. People want to preserve all kinds of buildings, even hughly old factories, so this argument is moot for supporting a deletion. A minimum of architectural originality is required in French law (and I believe in most copyright law), and this building has none. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of the WP:EN scope issue is that it is clear that lighthouses are different from industrial buildings -- it is WP:EN policy that all lighthouses are in scope (and, by the way, the vast majority of lighthouses in the USA have articles). While, as you say, there are some industrial buildings that are preserved because of their features and have articles in WP:EN, if I started taking pictures of the thousands of industrial buildings around Boston, most would (correctly) be removed as out of scope.
You have repeatedly asserted that "a minimum of architectural originality is required in French law" but you have yet to cite anything to support that statement. As I have said repeatedly, the French law calls out "d'architecture", nothing more.
You go on above to say, "and I believe in most copyright law". I say definitively that the US law has no such requirements. As Prosfilaes pointed out in the previous discussion, there are many companies that sell books of plans for very simple buildings, all of which have copyrights.
Finally, I think that the claim that it lacks architectural originality also fails. Phare de Berck is built of prestressed concrete. That is very unusual, perhaps unique for a lighthouse. There are no lighthouse articles in WP:EN that link to the article Prestressed concrete. Since lighthouse articles routinely link to the construction material, that is a strong indication that it is unique.
As someone who likes lighthouses, is a member of WP:EN Project Lighthouses, and has uploaded 170+ images of lighthouses (my own and USCG), I don't like this situation, but the French law is clear and our policy is to honor it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your answer. At least, we discuss the heart of the issue. Lack of originality is when the details are trivial or are not in the plan. I will take some examples from deletion requests on Commons. Also being built in Prestressed concrete is interesting, but it cannot be seen in the picture, so this information is irrelevant for determining originality. in

For complete buildings, we have

You can see that your decision is the opposite of current practice here. Please also note that two of the images show a general view of the place, which is the argument made by the Cour de Cassation in the Terreaux case (s:fr:Cour de cassation - 03-14.820). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dervaux candélabre and Commons:Deletion requests/No FOP in France where some images were kept. Yann (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cite Commons practice without citing any statute or case law to support it. You can cite Commons cases to support any incorrect position -- we have more than 13 million images -- if one percent of them have been incorrectly kept, there are 130,000 images that you can cite.
As for the list above, most of them should be deleted. I do not see how on earth you could say that File:Four solaire d'Odeillo.jpg is not architecture -- it is clearly a building with rooms and offices for people. It happens to have a large mirror on one side as its purpose, but that does not suddenly transform it into something that is not architecture.
So, again, please cite the law, not what Commons has done in the past. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a case law above, on which are based most of the decisions I mentioned. I didn't take random images, but images kept after a proper DR. You may not like that, but it is how we worked until now. Yann (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Terreaux speaks only to the question of whether a broad view infringes on the architect's copyright. Since I have not seen the postcards in question in that case, I cannot offer a comment on whether any of the Phare de Berck images fall within Terreaux -- reading between lines (with my admittedly weak French) I would guess that the lighthouse is the center of attention in each image and therefore Terreaux does not apply, but I agree that it may be a close call. You have not, however, I think, cited any case law to suggest that File:Four solaire d'Odeillo.jpg, Phare de Berck, and other buildings listed above are somehow not architecture and therefore do not have copyrights. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, you should complain about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cazis Steinkirche innen1.jpg, as this does not fit with your PoV. As for Odeillo, I think it is a border case. I don't think you could call that a work of art, but it is technically unique and original, not only in France, but worldwide. There is certainly a lot of scientific research needed to build such a building, if not artistic skills. But that's not the case of a lighthouse in any way. Yann (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case law about the Place des Terraux is very special because the artworks from Buren are hardly distinguishable from the place on a panoramic picture. As said by the judge the artworks fit in with the general view of the place. We are generally not in the same conditions and people cite this case law abusingly because they do not take into accounts (or don't know) the specifics of this case, it's a common mistake, because lots of website misrepresent this court case as an almost FOP victory and mislead lots of goodwilling people.

However there is another case law which is quite hard to understand on the Tour Montparnasse based on this kind of picture File:P1020878 Paris VI Rue de Rennes rwk.JPG where the subject is the street and we can see the Tour Monparnasse, even if the Tour may occupy a great part of the picture, as long as it was not the subject, the subject was the street named rue de Rennes. To my knowledge this important court case was never confirmed or invalidated (remember jurisprudence in France is not as strong as in Common law countries). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clear consensus to restore. Jim brings up a good point: on Commons, deletion discussions are evaluated based on real-world law, and not on decisions made in previous Commons deletion discussions. If there are discrepancies between closures, then the individual discussions should be reopened and re-evaluated with as much scrutiny as possible under the law. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BSicon exABZlg d1e231.svg[edit]

File was erroneously deleted at the same time as File:BSicon exABZrf d1e231.svg. Useddenim (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 25 August 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 Coolcolney[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Mostly deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coolcolney for being copyvios of images from http://miyzone.blogspot.com , but the author of that blog updated the usage terms to show the uploader here is the same person, thus all such licenses should be fine (others were deleted on assumption of bad faith, which at least now should not be the case). File:Tamdil.jpg, File:Reiek.jpg, and File:Serlui B Dam.jpg were deleted as "no permission", but it would be good to check if there actually was a license given, and if not, perhaps the uploader would like to add one if they are undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After undeletion, it looks like File:Tamdil.jpg, File:Reiek.jpg, and File:Serlui B Dam.jpg were copied from a government site, so those three should likely be re-deleted (they are still accurately marked no-permission, so hopefully that will be done at some point). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Jameslwoodward[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Andrew Lewman send email to OTRS at 23 aug. That files is CC BY. Tsuruya (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the DR was over the terms of their *trademark* license anyways, which does not affect copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OTRS received -FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:3D check in screens layout 01.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2012082110002957. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

All files at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tor logo1.png[edit]

Per Ticket:2012082210007567. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Red Hot Chili Peppers.png[edit]

I think that the file I uploaded IS free, because I found it in a website that publishes only free images. I think that the deletion was unnecessary and it must be restored. Ariking777 (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using bold, capitals and big doesn't really help your argument. Where did you find it? I have a hard time thinking of any source that publishes only free images that we can trust without hesitation, and "free" is less then helpful; what license is it under?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wow! I never knew Google was a provider of free images! -FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Misael_the_Anchorite.JPG Artist is R. Ayoub and has consented to upload of photo of painting[edit]

Artist is R. Ayoub and has consented to upload of photo of painting. This photo is an essential part of the article Misael the Anchorite since there is little else information available for this saint. If artist is ok with upload and the owner of the painting, then why delete? --Joe9y (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send evidence of that consent to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mapa PCA.jpg [edit]

Hello,

This image is a properperty of Parque Cultural de Albarracín. You can find it in this Webpage: http://www.parqueculturaldealbarracin.org/p/parque-cultural.html

The image address is: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xGTx7M4KsAg/UBrzN6gPfRI/AAAAAAAAKuQ/oFjnLrch364/s866/MAPA_DEL_PCA_red.jpg

You can also find it in page 10 of our publication: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103006619/Guia-del-Parque-Cultural-de-Albarracin-PCA

I am the Webmaster of this Webvpage, as you can see in this page: http://www.parqueculturaldealbarracin.org/p/contacto.html

Your can also find an evidence of this by reading this post: http://www.parqueculturaldealbarracin.org/2012/08/desde-hoy-estamos-tambien-en-wikipedia.html

The page as a translator tool in the left frame to read it in english

Please, allow to use this image. Regards Manuel Matas

 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, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Victor Nemes - Amckart Racing Team - nr. 100.JPG[edit]

Please undelete this file as it photo was created by me for the subject of the page. It has the sports team logo on it for better identification, there are no copyright claims, it can be used free. For more details please contact violeta@amckartracingteam.ro. --Bruno9432 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

(I consolidated all the requests above, for easier processing and responses). Several things... it appears as though some or all of these photos are available on the web here. Since user accounts here are anonymous, we can't tell the difference between a legitimate uploader and someone who simply copies images off of websites. Therefore, we have a procedure detailed at COM:OTRS, where the copyright holder can send a private email with the necessary permission statements. The images will be undeleted only as part of that process. Secondly, I downloaded one of the photos, and it has the copyright byline of "two4photo", who I see has a facebook page. The copyright owner is the photographer; even if you have a license to display them on your website, only the actual copyright holder can do that -- so be sure you do have the rights to license it before the email is sent (or have two4photo send the email, confirming the licenses). Note that the granted permission must be for anyone, in any context (not just Wikipedia, and not just for websites). Lastly, we would try to remove the logos on the images if at all possible, per policy -- images primarily uploaded to be promotional content may get deleted just for that, but otherwise the logos can be distracting as an illustration, so the typical approach is to remove watermarks if we can. If you still want to license the images after all that, it'd be great to have versions without the logo, if at all possible ;-) Thanks. They are very cool photos, so we'd love to have them, but we are very careful about copyright, particularly when they appear to be photos by a commercial photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Carl said. Please send permission to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, they will restore the photos -FASTILY (TALK) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The cover of How I Braved Anu Aunty and Co-Founded A Million Dollar Company.jpg [edit]

I received the image from the Author and owner, upon request.

 Not done Please have the author send a note indicating permission to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, we will restore the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:General Joseph Jacques Césaire Joffre Place Joffre Avenue de la Motte-Piquet Paris École Militaire in background.JPG [edit]

The request made to delete this file was by a user not logged in. The request appears to be politically inspired making reference to Satre who may well have disliked this WW1 General, but is otherwise irrelevant. Never the less it is an important public memorial in Paris, a quality image taken by me personally, and there is no justification given for its removal. The removal request was de facto vandalism. I ask for an undeletion.

Aspdin (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The fact that the nominator was not logged in is irrelevant. The nominator's statement was:
"Maxime Real del Sarte is dead in 1954. Not in public domain. No freedom of panorama in France."
There is no political or other comment at all on Sarte except for the fact of his death in 1954. It is a statement that any of us could have made correctly.
Since the French law is that copyright lasts for 70 years after death of the sculptor, the statue is still covered by a copyright owned by Sarte's heirs and will be until 1/1/2025. This image infringes on that copyright. While photographs of sculpture in public places are permitted in some countries, see COM:FOP, there is no such permission in France. Therefore both the request and the deletion are entirely correct.
I respectfully suggest to User:Aspdin that he gain a little more experience on Commons before throwing out serious accusations such as "vandalism". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done per Jameslwoodward. FOP is cut and dry, there's nothing we can do, save ask the heir to the artist's estate to waive copyright (although if my understanding of French law is accurate, that's harder to pull of there than it is in most places.) Sven Manguard Wha? 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I accept what you say Mr Woodward, I defer to your knowledge of copyright law. However it should have been obvious to you that I had genuine good intentions to Wiki' in posting this image originally (a few years ago!), in entirely good faith as regards any copyright issues. May I ask, please, that in future you do not use phrases to contributors with less experience than you such as "I respectfully suggest......" when of course you means absolutely no respect at all ! Thank you.

Aspdin (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no doubt -- this type of photograph being deleted is very frustrating, as they are useable in many contexts and people are used to putting them online without much thought, but specific commercial situations have unfortunately proven to be an issue in court cases (both in France, and for sculpture in the United States), and that is unfortunately enough to make them "non-free". The topic is dealt with on the Commons:Freedom of panorama page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kkestrel.jpg[edit]

Image was in use on enwiki's en:Kirby the Kestrel at time of deletion. It was deleted for being tiny and of poor quality - however was also the only picture available of this specific individual bird. Requesting that the image be restored. Thanks. --Commons Shaped Box (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I suggest making it clear on the image description page that this is a specific notable kestrel and not just an illustrative example. Powers (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CincinnatiSwarm.jpg[edit]

This file mentioned in the subject heading was deleted.

This file can be found on flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/navin75/525628045/ This is listed on Flickr has having license “Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons” so it should be allowed to be used on wikimedia with attribution.

Thank you,

Navin75 Navin75 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the file was not deleted because of copyright concerns. It was deleted because it is not within our scope. Files we host here have to be realistically useful for educational purposes. Please see Commons:Project scope. Powers (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What LtPowers said. See COM:SCOPE -FASTILY (TALK) 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JohannesBauerSyllabus.pdf[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a syllabus describing a Wikipedia editing assignment that is used as an example for the Wikipedia Education Program. It was deleted for being outside of project scope, but it is clearly within the project scope: it's a freely licensed media file with a clear education purpose (to educate instructors on ways of doing Wikipedia assignments). It's in PDF form for ease of printing. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Technically, text is supposed to be in article space in a more appropriate project, but I think exceptions can be and are made for WMF event related material -- that has an educational purpose of a different nature. We accept source documents for wikisource to preserve formatting etc; seems like these are somewhat analogous. There are several of them at outreach:Education/The Syllabus#Syllabus_collection_from_past_terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files by User:Supervht[edit]

Many files uploaded by User:Supervht were signed with {{No permission}} although they was uploaded and clearly licensed by their author and the stated source web is their own and also contains a clear permission.

The {{No permission}} spamming was discussed on the page of 1Veertje (announced at Village Pump on August 17) with a conclusion that "no-permissions" should be undid. Previous discussion was cs:Diskuse s wikipedistou:Supervht#dotaz aprosba in 2007 and the authorship of the uploader was proved at that time also.

However, on 25 August 2012 between 0:00 and 0:06 Fastily deleted several tens of photos by User:Supervht. Please, check and restore them. I suppose, this were again some rash proposals and rash deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The footer text of the website reads "All Rights Reserved" which means that the photos are under copyright. Unless the uploader sends permission to COM:OTRS, we cannot restore the files -FASTILY (TALK) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the author proved their identity via other means (change of text on the website, not necessarily a change in license there), then OTRS should not be needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Davao-City-Skyline.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is legal. Xavierhomie (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. The nighttime image is on skyscrapercity here (imageshack URL), and likely pulled from somewhere else. It was deleted from en-wiki in the past (in 2010), and the EXIF has a copyright byline of "JT Photos" and "Jeff" -- so you'd need to identify them and show how that photo is available under a free license. Then, do the same with the daylight photo. And I see you have re-uploaded this at File:Ph Davao City-skyline.jpg, File:Skyline of Davao City Ph.png, and File:Skyline of Davao City.png, claiming "own work" all the time. It's only your own work if you took both component photos, and that is not likely to be the case. We need to show licensing of all photos; we cannot simply take images off the internet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Carl said. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tânia-Gaidarji.jpg[edit]

The image in question will be the official photo and LICENSED by itself (see his official website) ..

It seems that the system actually exists a photo of her, but this is one of her clowning, not Condis SERIOUS work with Wikipedia. but without my farewell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenno CAP (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted because you did not specify which license the photo is supposedly published under. For Commons to host it, the copyright holder must have agreed to release it under a free license. Most photos found on the Internet are not released under a free license. You also did not specify a verifiable source. You need to provide the address of a page that contains the photo and confirms that it is published under a free license. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What LX said. You're welcome to re-upload the image, but please be sure to specify a license and a source, otherwise the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 20:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zakaz Pedałowania.svg [edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zakaz Pedałowania.svg. The file was discussed and deleted by Blackcat with reasons: "Homophobic propaganda, hate speech, out of scope." I think, propaganda as well as homophoby are relevant encyclopedic themes and there is in scope of Commons to document them, especially with symbols used by a well-known political party en:National Revival of Poland. I think, there is not a far-sighted approach to censor all unpleasant people, symbols, events etc. from the project. The file documented a real policy and real symbolism used by a real political entity. --ŠJů (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the deletion reasons in the ending summary are not good ones to delete over. However, the reason stated by the original nominator seems like a valid reason to delete -- the author of the graphic appears to put restrictions on it. I can't see the image, and have no clue of its history, so no idea if the design was in fact older and if that person had rights to make such restrictions in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sign is googleable. Two discussants meant that the image is not copyrightable but I think, Commons practices are very inconsistent and random as regards copyrightability. --ŠJů (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status. We can restore the file if someone can provide tangible evidence proving that it is freely licensed under a Commons compatible license. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

redirect deleted by User:Foroa, again[edit]

Category:Texas maps

I request undeletion of this harmless category redirect helping in moving files from enwiki (category under this name exists on enwiki and this redirect allowed bots to perform automatic fixes in categorisation of copied images) Bulwersator (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stella Hudgens[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: needs to be updated 77.102.195.246 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The gallery page Stella Hudgens was deleted in 2008 because it was not a Commons gallery -- it contained only one line of text and no images.
You could create a new gallery page with that name, but it will probably also be out of scope -- we have no images of her and while her sister is notable, she is not. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete -FASTILY (TALK) 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please[edit]

This picture has more than 50 years old.

This picture is a mix of 2 diferents pictures and was retouched and blended with Photoshop creating a new imagen.

The two imagen has not copyright and were scaned from a book edited in 1960 and 1961.

The new imagen is different than the two originals.

This picture is the principal argument to prove a point of view in the develop of the article.

Thank you in advance.

--Ruland (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The files were deleted because you failed to provide a reference/link to the source of the images you used to create these derivative works. You may re-upload the files, but be sure to include verifiable source information at upload, otherwise, the files will be re-deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LP Technology.jpg[edit]

An email with permission was sent to the appropriate email address. Please read the following permission sent to permission-commons@wikimedia.org on August 23rd:

I hereby affirm that I, Jon Capriola, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all Laser Pegs Ventures LLC images, logo, photographs, patents, etc. (see attached).

I agree to allow the publish of that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0".

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.


Jon Capriola Inventor & CEO http://www.LaserPegs.com The Ultimate Toy for Kids®

Laser Pegs Ventures LLC 8304 Consumer Ct Sarasota Fl. 34240

Fax: 941-894-6474 Cell: 941-587-2111 Toll Free: 1-866-432-3735


8.23.12

Crystal8304 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This needs to be sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-08&oldid=113107058"