Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-11

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:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg[edit]

I'm also asking for the review and possibly undeletion of File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg. This file has been deleted despite the consensus to not delete it at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ljubljana Central Market. The elongated white series of arcades, visible just above the centre of the image, which have been created by Plečnik, have been agreed to be de minimis. Other buildings and the square have not been designed by Plečnik. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jastrow -- no, I can't. See my note a couple of days ago at ANB. You can always restore it temporarily to take a look. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored per above. INeverCry 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EnerpacBirdsNest.png [edit]

This is a photo of the Beijing Bird's Nest. It's a photo purchased and released by Enerpac--a division of Actuant Corporation, where I am employed. There a couple of other similar photos which have been deleted do to supposed copyright violations.

We would appreciate if these changes were reversed.

Please e-mail me at david.elster@actuant.com and I can validate these photos.


Delster2 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you follow the procedures outlines at COM:OTRS? Since accounts here are essentially anonymous, we typically require such a procedure for any photos previously published on the Internet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tom_Lees.jpg[edit]

This work is strictly my own. It has been reused without my permission on http://www.lufctalk.com/forums/index.php?topic=5027&limit=0#p88924 via another forum prior to upload on here.

 Not done You'll need to provide COM:OTRS permission before this image can be restored. INeverCry 20:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Legendarychildcapa.jpg [edit]

This file it's to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. It's only to be used in the brazilian article for "Legendary Child" to identify the work. The english article for "Legendary Child" has the same file.

--Jeff N. H. (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The file (an album cover) is used on en.wiki under fair-use, which isn't allowed on Commons. If you want to use it in an article, it must be uploaded on the local wiki that hosts the article you want to use it in. INeverCry 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Liliane Grace.png[edit]

Hello,

I was emailed regarding the temporary deletion of this image. I was informed that it may not comply with the copyright rules of the site.

I replied stating that I got the image from the owner, with permission to use it on the Wikipedia page.

I was told that it would be put back up however it hasn't yet.

Could you please update me on the status of the image?

Kind regards,


Jazztay89 (1st November 2012)

Who did you speak to? Permission for the file should be sent to COM:OTRS by the copyright holder befor the image is restored. INeverCry 01:20, 1 November 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, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Illayathalapathy vijay, at thuppakki shooting spot, Oct 2012.jpg[edit]

Hello wikipedians admin this a picture of actor vijay during shooting of his film Thuppakki released by the producer of the film without watermark to the media and all social networking sites therefore I have uploaded it as its a good looking picture of the actor and the famous actors article Vijay does not had a good photo like this for this purpose I have uploaded this picture as it is relesed without watermark .please dont delete this photo. thanking youStylishedit (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but even if the image was released to the media, the owners retain copyright on it. Providing an image to the media is not the same as releasing it under a free license; please read Commons:Licensing. Powers (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Daniel Schwerd (2010).jpg[edit]

Das Foto stammt nicht von Tobias Eckrich, sondern wurde von Thomas Brühl geschossen. Ich habe das Recht, das Foto zu veröffentlichen. Habs zwar nicht hochgeladen, aber gelöscht werden muss es auch nicht.

Daniel Schwerd, 01.11.2012 10:10

 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) 20:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AHBVPA-Quartel05.jpg[edit]

Please upload that this:

OTRS allowed. Thanks.+PrinceWilly 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Chuck Colby and the "Syzygy" prototype Atari Pong.jpg[edit]

I received permission to post the image from the photographer, Bruce Damer who is owner of the DigiBarn Computer Museum. It was deleted only because it previously uploaded it under a difference license (after wading through 10 pages trying to find the closest one resembling "public domain"), rather than the individual first verifying it with me or Bruce Damer.

If you verify the information through COM:OTRS, it will make it easier to get the image restored. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 05:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Example.jpg Johannes Nepomuk- Kapelle (Kitzbühel).jpg[edit]

File:Johannes Nepomuk- Kapelle (Kitzbühel).jpg

Hallo an alle. Herzi Pinki hat 6 meiner eigenen Fotos gelöscht. Hier soll eine zweite Diskussion darüber statt finden. Es kann nicht die zweite Diskussion sein, da die erste überhaupt nicht statt gefunden hat. Herzi Pinki hat mich vor der Löschung in dieser Sache NICHT kontaktiert. Ich bin der Meinung, dass man Beweise haben muss, um jemanden des Diebstahls beschuldigen zu können. Und es wäre so einfach: hätte er mich zuerst gefragt, hätte ich ihm ohne weiteres beweisen können, dass es meine Fotos sind. Ich erwarte, dass die Fotos wiederhergestellt werden und dass Herzi Pinki auf meiner Diskussionsseite sich offiziel entschuldigt. Ich wünsche allen eine schöne Zeit. --Gliwi (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC) PS. Hier sind die anderen gelöschten Fotos: Im Innern der St.-Margaretha-Kirche (Altenmarkt an der Alz).jpg Orgelempore der Frauenkirche (Günzburg).jpg Kirche Maria Himmelfahrt (St. Johann in Tirol).jpg In der Liebfrauenkirche (Kitzbühel).jpg In der Pfarrkirche st. Andreas (Kitzbühel).jpg[reply]

✓ Already done by Reinhard Kraasch -FASTILY (TALK) 09:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michele Gorman.jpg[edit]

Hello, I am Michele Gorman and I give permission for this file to be used publicly in all circumstances. Can you please undelete the image?

Thanks Michele Travelbug81 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question is actually File:Michele Gorman.JPG -- note that upper and lower case are different on Commons.
The image appears at http://www.amazon.com/Michele-Gorman/e/B003AWEM4A, so we will require permission from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Permission from Gorman is not required as she is almost certainly not the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Science_Tradition_North.jpg[edit]

I request undelete because:

  1. License was in template
  2. Own Work
  3. I got no notification of problems. (Why not?)

-- Portolanero (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose until #2 below is answered satisfactorily, then  Support.
  1. Although the words are there, you did not use a license template, so the license apparently was not seen by the person placing the no-license template.
  2. Normally we take "own work" on faith, but did you actually draw the "Modern Map" at the bottom of the compilation? If not, who did?
  3. The person placing the no-license template did not use it correctly and the person who repaired it apparently did not realize that you had not been notified.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I often used that my template. Could you please help me and fix it in a way this will not repeat.
(2) Yes I did. Please visit my other user pages on portolans in en WP. You will see that I did such more often. Its the base of cartometric research.
-- Portolanero (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Arraial-dajuda.jpg[edit]

Eu mesmo bati a foto, ela pode ser reproduzida por quem quiser.

--Webarthur (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If this is your own work, please send permission for it to COM:OTRS. INeverCry 21:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg[edit]

Hi together! Jim suggested to come here to get some kind of 'policy decision'. Main problem of this file seems to be that I used facts (district outlines, course of an river and location of some municipialitys) to create an own map. Caused of the long time since the creation I can not specify where from I took the informations. But the same problem is not only in this map, nearly every map in Maps of Austria (and many other regions) does have this problem. I am the oppinion that simple, factual elements like outlines are not copyrightable, Jim is other opinion. I have no problem to redraw this single map using OSM (where I am contributor as well), even if the map would be pretty the same. But we need to have a guideline for all maps using just simple elements, there are hundreds of thousends on commons... Some related Links:

Best --AleXXw 22:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we don't know your sources it's difficult to have a clear answer. However here is why I do think maps are copyrighted: even the simplest elements as rivers and borders on a 2D map are the results of a complex interpretation (call it projection, simplification, whatever) which can make it copyrightable. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to being a little unsure here, which is why I suggested that Alex bring this here from the long discussion on my talk page cited above. Maps clearly have a copyright in the USA and, I believe, in most, maybe all, other countries. German case law and EU statue has extended that beyond the graphical presentation to include the assemblage of data in the map. Therefore you cannot trace a copyrighted map, either digitally or with pencil and paper, without infringing the copyright. In Germany you certainly cannot and in the rest of the EU you maybe cannot even take the data points off the map by lat/lon or grid and create a new map.
Alex has said many times that "I used facts to create an own map". Facts cannot be copyrighted in the USA and many other countries, so using just the facts could be OK in such places. If he did not work in Germany (he is Austrian) then the database question need not arise. However, he has not said how he used the facts -- tracing, just taking points off, something else -- and that is the crux of the question. In the US, he could take locations off of a map or a collection of maps and create a new map, but he could not trace it. But what did he actually do? Remember that copyright law depends on specifics, so that is the unanswered question. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that this is a decision that will potentially affect many (hundreds?) of Alex's maps, so I would appreciate leaving it open for thorough discussion. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim: Normaly I do copy the outlines point by point into a GIS-program, export it to svg and start editing at Inkscape. This decision may not just affect my files, there are thousands of other files... Some examples: 1, 2, 3 or 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8. I found within short search some FP and QI which we have here for several years... Best --AleXXw 22:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex's method would be OK under USA copyright law as the locations of points are facts that cannot be copyrighted. I'm not sure about Germany, though, or the rest of the EU, as they apply copyright to large collections of facts in a way that the USA does not. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the GIS program puts a transparent window over the source image, and you click on the position of each point in the path that you want to transcribe? Then you retype any name associated with that point? (So far I'm leaning toward undelete per Commons:Derivative_works#Maps, but more info would help.) --99of9 (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I klick every point in source, take its coordinates and add the coordinates to GIS. This sounds like a horrible amount of work, but is has to be done just once per country. So every of mine map of Austria are based on one such process, I just take different layers of that work, ie country, state, district, highways,... Best --AleXXw 05:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I definitely  Support undeletion, unless someone shows me that Austria has very strong database rights (and even then, the likely original owner of the regional boundary database is the government, and it was probably created quite a long time ago, so PD on the database is also arguable). --99of9 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored per 99of9. Anyone who disagrees may take this to COM:DR again, which would focus on the real issue involved (database rights in Austria). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jiwasraya-nillmij.jpg This is my photo, and I was permitted to take one[edit]

File:Jiwasraya-nillmij.jpg

The panoramic law of Indonesia is "grey" in nature, and it is outdated. With the current political nature of Indonesia, there is little or no effort in revising the law.

Many photos of Indonesia are of this nature. If we would abide strictly to this outdated law, then all photos of Indonesia (including picture of skyscrapers, etc.) should be removed.

The photo is my original photo, and I got a permission from the owner of the building. The building itself is historical in nature, and is part of Jakarta's Cagar Budaya (cultural heritage).

This is my second deletion of a photo which I consider an "unfair deletion" because of an outdated rule and because the person who deleted the photo has little knowledge about Indonesia in general. The first photo that was deleted is not even my upload, it's a 1970s photo that was donated by Tropenmuseum to Wikipedia, and to think that a photo from Tropenmuseum can be deleted without questioning, it baffles me. And now it's my photo. This really upsets me.

I hope this photo would be undeleted. Otherwise, all my contributions to Wikimedia will be futile and I would consider not to upload any more photos into Wikimedia because my interest is in architecture, and it seems that no Indonesian architecture should be posted in Wikimedia, if that's the case.

Kind regards.

--Rochelimit (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia. Your personal belief that a law is improper does not entitle you to violate it on Commons, a collaborative project which observes and respects the copyright of files and laws of the respective jurisdictions said files originated under. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BT2012.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The band has authorized public use of the photo Bubblept (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(note: a message from the band was sent earlier today to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) Bubblept (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes the email you claim to have sent, they shall restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Recidiva post-stripping.jpg[edit]

Please upload file bellow and all others files uploaded by Nini00 (talk · contribs) deleted as copy from this site. OTRS request allowed for those and another files from the user. +PrinceWilly 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Please restore only these files and configure these with {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012102810002529}}. Do not restore File:Maria do Rosário Bago d'Uva.jpg (unrelated to the OTRS-ticket/copyvio) and File:Material 002.jpg = duplicate of File:Material de ecodoppler.jpg. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored and OTRS added. INeverCry 22:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CYMPH - DOPE Magazine Cover PRINCESS - Fall 2k12 AMBITION.jpg[edit]

Undelete above and File:- SOULJA - DOPE Magazine Cover KING - Spring 2k12 HIGH RISE Onyx Edition (Issue 009).jpg from user Arialyssa (talk · contribs). OTRS received for processing. Thanks. +PrinceWilly 18:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 22:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:RuPay.svg[edit]

I believe this one is simple enough to be out of copyright. Its mostly text and two triangles. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored: {{PD-textlogo}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Özlem Gürses.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As Elmalma Brand Communication Services, we have completed the permission procedures for all of the images that have been deleted.

The permissons for all of these files were sent to info-tr@wikimedia.org and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

They were noted and recorded by Tahsin Özün. (The correspondent for copyright related issues/requests in Turkey)

The images are our own work and the persons involved in those Wikipedia articles are our clients.

Please kindly undelete those files.

Thank you. Elmauser (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BT2012.jpg[edit]

Please undelete above. OTRS Permission allowed. Thanks. +PrinceWilly 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 16:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Памятник Губкину.jpg [edit]

File:Памятник Губкину.jpg This photo is property of Russian State University of Oil and Gas, because the sculpture was purchased from the sculptor, together with the rights to it. And I'm the official representative of this University. Please, restore this photo. RSUOG (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send proof of the above to COM:OTRS. If it checks out, the image can be restored. INeverCry 21:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Otto Fleischer.jpg[edit]

grund: der fotograf war damals fraglich, ist jetzt bekannt. ein verstorbener verwandter. das foto ist im familienarchiv, und ein familienmitglied wird die CC-erlaubnis an permissions mailen. dauert aber noch paar tage.

es wäre für mich kein problem, das foto neu hochzuladen, aber warum die doppelte liebesmüh?! Maximilian (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, in english: the photographer was unknown, now his name is known; a late member of the family. the photograph is from the family's archive, and a member of the family will file the CC sonsnt to permissions@

 Not done This will have to be confirmed through COM:OTRS before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Robert Salaburu Infobox Image.jpg [edit]

The Robert Salaburu Infobox Image was taken from the site from which I uploaded the following image: Greg_Merson_Infobox_Image

If that latter was uploaded successfully, then why didn't the first one work? I know the authors of the site personally and they let me use these images. The site is: www.pokerfacepr.com

Best Regards, Frank

6th November 2012


--Frankrowley (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was taken from the explicitly copyrighted http://www.pokerfacepr.com/robert-salaburu/ without any indication in the description of permission.
In order to have it restored, please have a responsible party send a license from an e-mail address at pokerfacepr.com using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HowardCoble.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am feeling good to use this file of the page. 24.16.69.221 23:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No valid reason given. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Upsilon Xi Clocktower Nov 2011.jpg[edit]

The reason given for the deletion was: "Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras." I took this photo myself, i.e., with my own camera, and my own hands, and clicked the button with my own pointer finger. There was nothing wrong with the resolution, although I did decrease the size of the image with Photoshop before posting it. I don't know anything about EXIF or different cameras - I'm not a camera or a computer expert, so I can't help you with that. However, I can assure you that I took the photo myself. Which brings me to another point, how is it that one user can just haphazardly delete another user's images because he "SUSPECTS" that the photo is not their work? That sounds awfully unjust and unfair to me. Joe "Highrock" Giove (talk)

Nothing was done haphazardly. This file comes from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joe "Highrock" Giove. File:1963 Vindagua UpsilonXi Original.jpg comes from a yearbook and includes the dubious claim "1963 Vindagua yearbook of Lee College. Image should be useable for non-profit means". File:1994 - Upsilon Clocktower.jpg is small, has no EXIF, and looks like it was taken from the internet. File:Keith Jeffords 2.jpg is a professional-looking portrait taken with a high-end Nikon camera. File:2008 COG Overseer transition.jpg is taken with a Canon and is of a small size. The file above is taken with a Canon and is the biggest of the 3 files with EXIF. Two experienced users looked at these (myself and the nominator) and found them suspicious, for good reason. INeverCry 03:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:trofeu_liga_europeia.png[edit]

This is a picture of the trophy of European League organize by CERH and taken in one of the many finals of this competition. Same situation like File:CoppaCersHockeyPista.jpg which is a picture of a trophy of other competition of CERH.

12:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Rui Castro

 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Restoring images uploaded by Rootbeerlc[edit]

(Moved here from AN.) INeverCry 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I see that my last request was archived without anything happening, so I'm trying again: I am requesting an administrator to restore the images uploaded by Rootbeerlc (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rootbeerlc), as per OTRS Ticket#: 2012081110005839, and I think the image descriptions can have the following information:

  • 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)
  • Author: Byron Randall
  • and the additional tag {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012081110005839}}, for reference.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Images restored and OTRS ticket added. Licensing and author/description info needs to be added. INeverCry 19:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pigeon Breeds (EE)[edit]

The page was meant for maintenance. Mainly to get to know which breeds need files and which have. And Second to provide names for translation tables. --84.181.55.190 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That may be, but Túrelio and I agreed that it was not a valid Commons gallery. If you created a user account for yourself, it could be a user subpage as in User:YourUserName/Pigeon Breeds (EE), but it is out of scope as a gallery. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was ment like List of dog breeds but with linked Categories than Files. Or should there be Files than linked Categories? But see the number of breeds... --84.181.55.190 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is in scope because of: Educationally useful, classified collections of images or other files, along with small amounts of explanatory text as long as you think of linked Categories as of collections of files and of the 3 to 4 languages a breed as explanatory text, that helps non-english-natives to find their pigeon. The breed list is nether an Encyclopedia article, News, nor lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material. --84.181.55.190 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Out of scope. INeverCry 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antonio brito03.jpg [edit]

The photo was taken by me and is free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipecampos87 (talk • contribs) 10:26, November 8, 2012‎ (UTC)

 Not done. The photo was shown to have been previously published on atleast 2 websites. INeverCry 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kjærsti Elida Guseck, Por 118.jpg [edit]

This and all other files posted by me is MY OWN WORK....!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawwwen (talk • contribs) 11:34, November 8, 2012‎ (UTC)

The files haven't yet been deleted. Also, the deletion nomination has to do with COM:Scope and not whether these are your own works or not. You should post any further comments at the deletion request page: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rawwwen. INeverCry 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CLOSED TO FLASHBACK-MEMBERS.jpg [edit]

This file --- and all other files posted by me --- is MY OWN WORK!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawwwen (talk • contribs) 11:55, November 8, 2012‎ (UTC)

 Not done. The underlying logo of the cat is the property of https://www.flashback.org/ and not your "own work". INeverCry 20:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file has been deleted for POLITICAL reasons....and now I'm deleting all my contributions to Wikimedia!

File:Процесс управления качеством в рамках компании.jpg [edit]

File:Процесс управления качеством в рамках компании.jpg был размещён на Викискладе как наглядная схема из проекта статьи "Управление качеством", которую я направил за получением разрешения на публикацию. Эта схема объясняет, как организовать управление качеством на предприятии. На Викисклад я её направил по рекомендации сохранять такие файлы сначала на Викискладе, прежде, чем вставлять их в текст статьи. Удаление этого файла считаю ошибочным, но если я что-то сделал не так, прошу объяснить. Кстати, на Викискладе я размещал и файл "Принцип обеспечения качества продукции jpg" из статьи "Обеспечение качества", размещённой на странице обсуждения этой статьи, куда мне не удаётся её вставить и я уже давно прошу мне помочь в этои. Может и этот файл тоже уничтожен? Что-то слишком много технических сложностей разместить статью со схемами, а до помощи не достучаться. Получается проще написать статью, чем разместить. С уважением Vitaly yurjevich (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the above linked filename has never existed. INeverCry 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No deleted file linked. INeverCry 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Helnwein at Lentos Museum.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder, I took the photograph myself. Bchulmers (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think, all your other uploads of photos of artworks are copyright violations too. The main things you show at the images are copyright artworks. --Kürschner (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Per above, these are derivative photos of modern artworks and so COM:OTRS permission from the artist/s is needed. INeverCry 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helnwein "Poems".jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder, I took the photograph myself. Bchulmers (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is a photo of a modern artwork on a wall in an art gallery. Permission from the creator of the artwork itself would have to be sent to COM:OTRS in order for this image to be restored. INeverCry 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Процесс управления качеством в рамках компании.jpg[edit]

File:Процесс управления качеством в рамках компании.jpg был размещён на Викискладе как наглядная схема из проекта статьи "Управление качеством", которую я направил за получением разрешения на публикацию. Эта схема объясняет, как организовать управление качеством на предприятии. На Викисклад я её направил по рекомендации сохранять такие файлы сначала на Викискладе, прежде, чем вставлять их в текст статьи. Удаление этого файла считаю ошибочным, но если я что-то сделал не так, прошу объяснить. Кстати, на Викискладе я размещал и файл "Принцип обеспечения качества продукции jpg" из статьи "Обеспечение качества", размещённой на странице обсуждения этой статьи, куда мне не удаётся её вставить и я уже давно прошу мне помочь в этои. Может и этот файл тоже уничтожен? Что-то слишком много технических сложностей разместить статью со схемами, а до помощи не достучаться. Получается проще написать статью, чем разместить. С уважением Vitaly yurjevich (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the above linked filename has never existed. INeverCry 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No deleted file linked. INeverCry 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Helnwein at Lentos Museum.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder, I took the photograph myself. Bchulmers (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think, all your other uploads of photos of artworks are copyright violations too. The main things you show at the images are copyright artworks. --Kürschner (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Per above, these are derivative photos of modern artworks and so COM:OTRS permission from the artist/s is needed. INeverCry 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helnwein "Poems".jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder, I took the photograph myself. Bchulmers (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is a photo of a modern artwork on a wall in an art gallery. Permission from the creator of the artwork itself would have to be sent to COM:OTRS in order for this image to be restored. INeverCry 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

User_talk:Caro_Scheilegers:)_y User talk:Leitoxx[edit]

tengo datos muy importantes y quieros recuperarlos190.110.152.183 18:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC) sobre conversacion con Leitoxx y con migo Caro_Scheilegers_:)[reply]

If you refer to the massive spamming at User_talk:Leitoxx: No, no need to restore that. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Talk pages are not for general chatter per Commons:Talk page guidelines#What may talk pages be used for?. INeverCry 19:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kubraca.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Because i have it Dhakand (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is a screenshot of a copyrighted website. Please don't re-upload this image again. INeverCry 19:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mercury_City_Tower_25th_July_2012.jpg[edit]

What the heck with this photo? It's don't break any laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BpbAlonka (talk • contribs) 11:25, November 10, 2012‎ (UTC)

The file hasn't been deleted. Any questions or comments should be posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mercury City Tower 25th July 2012.jpg. INeverCry 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haytap Logo.jpg and others[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Picture is available in a web site of a non-governmental animal rights organization because the aim of the organization is to inform and reach as much as people for animals so they confirm pictures in website are free of copyright, this is confirmed in their web link below,however it is Turkish language, hope this clarifes why undeletion requested,please respond accordingly. http://www.haytap.org/index.php/200907163393/site-yardimci-sayfalar/afis-brosur-ve-cikartmalar VikiPicture (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited web site says:
"HAYTAP HAYVAN HAKLARI FEDERASYONU , Türkiye’de doğanın , çevrenin ve hayvanların haklarının korunması için bu konuda aynı görüş birliğinde olan derneklerin bir araya getirmiş olduğu ilk federasyondur. Federasyonumuzca hazırlanmış olan kampanya görsellerini oluşturmaktaki amacımız, sınırlı sayıdaki insana degil, milyonlarca kişiye ulaşabilmektir. Kampanya Görsellerinin gerek internet ortamında, gerek basılı afiş, poster vb. çalışmalarda kullanımları için ayrıca Haytap Federasyonundan izin alınmasına gereky·yoktur. Afiş ve broşürleri çalışmalarınızda kullanabilir, ilgili belediyelerle kullanımı için görüsebilir, medada görseller desteğinde röportajlar verebilirsiniz. Bu görsellerde yer alan mesajları daha çok kişiye ulaştırmak dileğimizdir. Görsellerin kullanımında Federasyon logosunun yeri degişmemelidir. Basılı materyallerde kuruluş, dernek veya ilgili belediyenin logoları da eklenebilir. Bilboard ve panolar için zorunlu durumlarda biçimsel degisiklikler de olabilir. Üye dernek ve temsilciliklerimizin dışındaki kişi ve kuruluşlar bu görselleri internet ortamında, basında, çeşitli standlarda ve bu amaçlar kapsamında başka etkinliklerde kullanmakta da özgürdür."
"HAYTAP Animal Rights Federation, Turkey, the nature of the environment and to protect the rights of animals of the same opinion on this issue is brought together in the unity of the federation of the associations. The campaign was prepared to exert images of our Federation, our goal is not a limited number of people, is access to a millions of people. Campaign visuals and the internet environment, the need to print banners, posters and so on. Federation also seek approval for their use in studies gereky · Haytap available. Posters and brochures to use in your work, I speak to for the use of relevant municipalities, interviews medada visuals can support. This is the image we wish to deliver messages to more people. The use of visuals where the Federation's logo change. Printed material, organization, association or logos can be added to the relevant municipality. Billboards and banners may be necessary for changes in formal situations. Member associations and representations of individuals and organizations outside of these images on the Internet, the press, the various stands and other activities within the scope of these objectives also free to use."
translator: Google
While the Google translation is very rough, it does not seem to say anything about commercial use or derivative works. It reads like a typical press and educational use permission, which is far from enough for Commons. If my reading is correct, we cannot restore the images. If my reading is incorrect, please say so and we will get a Turkish speaker to read it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked User:Takabeg to take a look at this -- he or she has 190,000 edits on WP:TR and 45,000 here -- plenty of experience to deal with this. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked User:Rapsar about this. His response can be seen here: User talk:Rapsar#Need your help. There still isn't a direct release under cc-by-sa-3.0. I would think that OTRS is needed in order to get a 100% clear release for these images. INeverCry 20:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I understand, every person and organization can use these images and change except the place of the logo of this federation. Moreover, this federation prepared these images for the purpose to be used freely by everyone. As to "commercial use", they doesn't mention. But normally most of all organization don't mention "commercial use", they prefer to use the term "freely". However,　I also think that Commons:OTRS is best way. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Consensus is that COM:OTRS permission is needed. INeverCry 01:26, 12 November 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 GosGroc[edit]

All files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GosGroc have been asked for deletion because of no evidence of PD. I have argued that they are PD because they are Spanish Laws. Then it has been deleted because of MOst PDFs of text (...) are out of scope. If the page Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats is right, then the files are not out of scope. Just read:

  • A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons.
  • Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts: Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason.
  • You could say "it's raw text", but Note that scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance are not excluded on this ground, even if they contain no images.

Please, undelete them and understand they are part of the peer-review and proofread page systems working on Wikisource. Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I said, "Most PDFs of text... are out of scope." [emphasis added]. That is certainly true. Almost all PDFs of text that exist in the world are from non-notable authors, are on non-notable subjects, or both. I would venture a guess that 99.99% of everything that exists in PDF format is out of scope for any WMF project.
"A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons." That tells me that any Masters or PhD thesis by any person is in scope, which is plainly not the case. In fact, we delete them on a regular basis.
In order to get restoration of these you will need to show both that we have a suitable license -- which is not at all clear -- and that they are actually in scope for Wikisource. I think these fail on both counts. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, license and scope.
License. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#Spain states that Legal or ruling dispositions and their correspondent projects, resolutions of jurisdictional organs and acts, agreements, deliberations and reports of public organizations, and so official translations of all these texts are not subjected to "intellectual property". The files are legal dispositions of Generalitat Valenciana government, that is, from Spain.
Scope. Your comments suggest me that Wikisources are not very well known WMF projects. I'll focus on English Wikisource (but it also applies for the rest, not only legal dispositions in English). Wikisources accepts legal dispositions (e.g. s:Wikisource:WikiProject Law, etc. I can add 50 more links). Wikisource contains raw text, not PDF files (the reason is the existence of Commons). It's some years since the Proofread Page extension has been developed for helping in the proofreading system. Scans of books, loaded in Commons as DjVu and PDF, are being transcripted page by page, and thanks to that extension the whole book is transcluded in the main namespace, allowing important advantages (...).
99,99% of DjVu and PDF files used on Wikisources are in scope there, so they are in Commons.
-Aleator (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to my understanding of this if you would give me a definition of what you are calling "dispositions" -- that is not a word that I am familiar with in this context. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Spanish disposición [legal o normativa] has not the exact meaning of English [legal or normative] disposition and I've fallen into a false friend. What I call dispositions can be replaced by [Spanish] laws: Constitution, Organic Laws, ordinary Laws, Legislative Royal Decrees, Royal Decrees, Decrees, Orders and less jerarchical "laws". The files are decrees. -Aleator (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support undeletion of these files. What worry me most if to be sure that there are accurate copies of the original texts, if the PDFs have been produced by the uploader. Yann (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming that these are texts of Spanish laws... those are definitely in scope for Wikisource, no question. They are also automatically PD in the United States (ineligible for copyright). Not all countries have that stance, but many do, including Spain. If they were deleted for copyright reasons, that was definitely an error -- the original nomination reason wasn't great if they are in fact laws. They would be {{PD-SpanishGov}} (and {{PD-EdictGov}} for the U.S. side, though that is mentioned already on the first tag). Wikisource typically wants scanned PDF source documents to base their text on; if these files suffice for that, then yes Commons should be the one to host the PDFs and they are easily in scope. If they are not suitable as source documents though -- perhaps if they were from unofficial sources, where they don't represent any additional verifiability that the text is correct over and above simply uploading the text to Wikisource -- then they may be out of scope (on Commons, anyways: Wikisource definitely wants the text). If personally-made PDFs there would have to be some particular advantage to the PDF format over having the text on Wikisource, I think -- definitely possible in some situations, but it's not assured. But if they are scans of known good sources of the law text, they are in scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those PDF files, as far as I know, are the original and official ones, made by the own Valencian Government, so the most accurate I can imagine. One example can be http://www.docv.gva.es/datos/2010/04/20/pdf/2010_4251.pdf I thought paper edition was the official one (it always was, i'm becoming old... :S), but I read an extra argument supporting undeletion, which is that only exist one official edition: the online one (that makes me impossible to scan the paper edition, which is a copy of the online edition; ref: http://www.docv.gva.es/index.php?id=40 El Diari Oficial de la Comunitat Valenciana es publicarà en format electrònic, com a única versió, que tindrà la consideració d'oficial i autèntica). -Aleator (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Carl, I withdraw my objection. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as Jim withdrew his objections. Yann (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MimiSoCFDA.jpg was contributed with written permission of the original exclusive owner, Mimi So Intl.[edit]

This original photo was produced by and was the property of Mimi So International LLC. It was given to me directly by the owner with permission to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This means your initial claim that it is your work is untrue. Also at all your other uploads such as File:Mimi So in Her Studio 2012.jpg you still make false claims. --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the author/owner tags for all the images I uploaded yesterday (my first uploads to Commons ever) to reflect the correct attributions. Thanks for your help - I assume that I can correct the tags for this particular file only when File:MimiSoCFDA.jpg is back on Commons?--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. COM:OTRS permission is needed for this and other uploads credited to Mimi So. INeverCry 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:J560x390-117356.jpg Copyright[edit]

Hallo, ich habe die Copyright violation geklärt. Das Recht am Bild hält die Nick Roericht Stiftung, auch wenn einer der Studenten, Claus Wille, an der Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm Ende der 50er Jahre das Bild gemacht hat. Deswegen der Antrag auf Entlöschung. Denn dieses Bild zeigt sowohl Nick Roericht als Entwerfer des Geschirrs als auch die gesamte Geschirrlinie. Was Sinn hat, denn es ist ein Systemgeschirr mit vielen Teilen nicht nur eine Kanne! Dank und Grüße, Sik berlin

Die Nick Roericht Stiftung ist eine deutsche Stiftung, daher bezweifele ich mit Verweis auf die Nicht-Übertragbarkeit des Urheberrechts in Deutschland dass die Stiftung das Recht am Bild hält. --Martin H. (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. COM:OTRS permission needed from copyright holder. INeverCry 01:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Example.jpg[edit]

esta imagen la subí por es el logo del torneo que se hizo al cual le haré un articulo en wikipedia por favor deshagan el borrado o si no facilitemen imagenes similares a esta que no viole derechos de autor. Gracias --Oxcar salvador (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que te refieres a File:Brasil-2014.jpg. No puedo restaurarla porque es violación de derechos de autor. Si hay otras imágenes que violen los derechos de autor, lístalas en COM:DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 01:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Subsecretario_de_RREE_de_Chile_Embajador_Silva_Navarro.jpg [edit]

Page with pictures for the press:

http://www.minrel.gob.cl/prontus_galeria/site/artic/20100511/pags/20100511161120.php

At the bottom it says in Spanish: "Las fotografías contenidas en este portal son públicas y sin costo para el usuario. Se autoriza su uso citando la fuente y no alterando su contenido original".

and...

Creative Commons: Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Thak you for takinf your time to review the validity of this picture.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisciliapriscilia (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC license is not allowed on Commons. INeverCry 20:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Helnwein "Poems".jpg[edit]

OTRS: Got permission from the artist for this file. OTRS-ticket, thanks.--Wdwd (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 23:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schmidjd Helipro QR.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image in question was created by SETQR Japan. I work with SETQR Japan, and they asked me to upload it to Wikicommons. The image is the original work of SETQR Japan, and should not have been deleted. Schmidjd (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is the case, please have them send an email to COM:OTRS giving permission for the file. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. INeverCry 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Schmidjd Marc Jacobs QR.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image in question was created by SETQR Japan. I work with SETQR Japan, and they asked me to upload it to Wikicommons. The image is the original work of SETQR Japan, and should not have been deleted Schmidjd (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is the case, please have them send an email to COM:OTRS giving permission for the file. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. INeverCry 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Schmidjd The Last Ocean QR.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The images in question were created by SETQR Japan for their clients. I work with SETQR Japan, and they asked be to upload them to Wikicommons. They are the original work of SETQR Japan, and should not have been deleted. Schmidjd (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This means your intial information provided with the upload - the files are entirely your own work and anyone can reuse them anywher for any purpose including commercial purposes as long as your name is credited - is untrue. --Martin H. (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is the case, please have them send an email to COM:OTRS giving permission for the files. If everything checks out, the files will be restored. INeverCry 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trujillo, Cuna de la Libertad.JPG [edit]

It is not duplicate file and it is not promotional, it is an adaptation of the original file and the original author of the work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trujillo_Perú_PZ.jpg authorizes that by the licence CC BY-SA 2.0 given so there's no reason to deletion.Please I request undelation, Thanks. Cmonzonc is a vandal that hates Trujillo and all about that city see here, He was reported in english wikipedia. --Showlydark (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What realistically educational purpose does the image with text written all over it have? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image informs to the user about historical denominations to that city tha are referenced by government sources. See here--Showlydark (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I am the deleting Admin. Commons is not a place for people to write text -- even if that text is on an image. There is no reason why we should keep your text and no one else's. Also, as a general rule, we prefer images that do not have text on them so that they can be used in many languages. If the text is important it should be placed as a caption, in an appropriate language, and not defacing the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope per above. INeverCry 17:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kim Sisters with Dean Martin.jpg[edit]

Permission by the copyright holder for the subject file for the file to be cropped, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license was e-mailed to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" on November 10, 2012.

Wthtvofdm (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request is being handled at Ticket:2012090410002166. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Per OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Firebird Sculpture.jpg[edit]

The source of the image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/finey9/8174237591/) now has an updated license that should be compatible with Wikimedia Commons

--Finerrecliner (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license seems ok now. But there is another potential problem with COM:FOP#United States. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Sorry, but it is still not acceptable here because it is a derivative work of a copyrighted modern sculpture. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fresh Hare[edit]

The files in this Category were deleted when discovered that the copyrighted character Bugs Bunny appeared on it. But Bugs Bunny didn't appeared in all the files. Considering that Fresh Hare is a PD-Warner Brothers Cartoon (its copyright wasn't renewed), I demand to restore this, this and this one.--Coentor (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As We can see in Wikisource for Copyright renewals: "To search for a renewal, you need to know the year in which the work was originally published. While renewal was required in the 28th year after publication, you should also look in the 27th year. Just in case the records were published late, checking the 29th year is also useful. For example, for Book A, published in 1930, you should check the records for 1957 and 1958 (and maybe 1959)." For this very films, We should consider 1942+27 books, this is 1969 (& 1970 & 1971). The film Wasn't renewed 1969 and neither appears a mention in the books of 1970 nor 1971. (For the year 1969 there are Twoo books, but "Fresh hare" doesn't appears as renewed in any of it: as We can see.)--Coentor (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored all three by default, due to the bug that does not allow viewing of undeleted files until they are actually undeleted. If another admin agrees with this, please close it as done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fresh Hare title.JPG should be okay, based on the rationale provided by Coentor, but I would question whether the other two were used in other, renewed, works? I seem to have seen the Merrie Melodies screens in a lot of cartoons - that this particular film wasn't renewed isn't evidence that the copyright on this image wasn't renewed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, But I believe I can prove that the titles weren't reused: as We can see in the :en article of certain DVD collection, some cartoons are said to have "their original titles" restored. The WB cartoons had a different opening sequence for each cartoon, at least the very old ones. I mean, the design was the same, but every cartoon had its own opening "redone". But some of those openings were "cut" when WB sold its library to APP, which used the very same "Blue Ribbon" opening for every cartoon. Here We can see that in the very last release of WB shorts, the original opening and ending sequence (the famous "THat's all folks!") in some Cartoons appears as have "been restored for this release, replacing the Blue Ribbon reissue titles.". If the origjnal opening and ending of each cartoon was "the same", there could have been restored much earlier, Beacuse it would have been enough with adding a normal opening taken from whichever other cartoon. Here We have other rare example of different endings which were not seen in TV.--Coentor (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know that. But if the same general design was used, if the image(s) they was based on were copyrighted, that would be enough to cause Commons:Derivative work trouble, even if these particular images aren't copyrighted. Do we know what the original version was? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not listed every-else-where (maybe a Web), The only way to find it should be by looking all the cartoons chronologicaly. And in that case We would be acting as a primary source, I'm affraid. Doesn't is? Some special cases are listed in :en, as the Bugs "Thats all Folks", but those opening-endings are not affected, because the design of this very opening/ending is quite different.--Coentor (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by Commons acting as a "primary source" - distinctions such as that aren't relevant to a copyright determination. As for the rest, I'd appreciate another opinion on this UDR - I realize that requiring "evidence of absence" would be difficult, but I'm about equally unhappy with just assuming that they're okay. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't host "possibly free" files. I think these should be re-deleted per COM:PRP. INeverCry 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ljubljana2_087.JPG[edit]

As per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ljubljana2_087.JPG de minimis applies for the copyrighted work. It was deleted together with other works in category (Commons:Deletion_requests/Works_by_Vladimir_Šubic), but it shouldn't be. Such general requests should be disallowed, each photo should be treated separately. --Miha (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The building on the left side of the street is certainly not de minimis and appears to be modern. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if I could see the photo... --Miha (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it so that you can view it. That said, I have to agree with above. Someone can close this request after 11/14 (to allow time for viewing) if no more opinions are raised. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The building does look modern, and it's the main focus of the image, so not de minimis. INeverCry 18:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PendrefRhuthunFfenestLliw.jpg[edit]

Re:

The following text comes from here:

That was way out of order. "Non-free" images are images which are [1]], and are of a small size. You should know that. Secondly, you should have taken the deletion off until the issue was resolved. Third, They were only used on the Welsh Wiki, and I, as a Bureaucrat on Wiki-cy asked you for more information. Fourth: I suggest that the next time you leave an answer you also inform that person on his Talk page, as I informed you. Lastly, only now do you mention the lack of EXIF! That should have been stated immediately on the 5 November. Reinstate the images immediately. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question was in regard to the full phrase "fine as with non-free": non-free/fair use images aren't allowed on Commons. The files were deleted because you gave no valid evidence that these images were free. I commented at the DR, which was the appropriate venue for comment. The uploader was informed by bot of the DR, which is standard practice here. The lack of EXIF was part of my rationale for the DR on 5 November, and so this part of the issue was stated immediately. I still don't see any reason to restore these files, as there's no evidence that they are freely licensed. INeverCry 21:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Llywelyn2000 -- I was not involved in this DR. My numbers match yours.
First, I don't understand this:
""Non-free" images are images which are [2]], and are of a small size."
Non-free images are images that are not freely licensed according to Commons requirements. Size has nothing to do with it, although small size and lack of EXIF is a good indicator that an image was taken from the web without permission. Also, your quote was from WP:EN. This is Commons and our rules are different.
Second, the DR ran four days after the last comment. We do not usually stop a DR because someone has made an objection unless, of course, that objection raises a valid concern.
Third, the last comment was made by INeverCry. The ball was in your court.
Fourth, there is no requirement or usual practice on Commons that a user be informed of every comment made that might affect a DR on which he has commented. You were certainly aware of this DR and it is up to you to keep it on your watchlist and respond as necessary. Please remember that Commons Admins deal with several thousand images every day. Ten of us, including INeverCry, do half of those and we are barely staying ahead of the backlog. There is no way in the world that we can take responsibility for notifying users except at the beginning of a DR as it would more than double the effort required to manage a DR.
Last, the original nomination was:
"possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF"
which includes the mention of lack of EXIF which you claim was missing.
There is nothing in your comments at the DR or above that addresses the only question here -- are these images actually the uploader's own work as claimed? The uploader, User:YGraigArw, has uploaded seven images, of which five are above and the other two are claimed as "own work" but plainly are not, although they are probably PD. He or she has not chosen to comment on the DR. Since all of his or her uploads are from October 3, 2011, that is not surprising.
Unless I am missing something badly, everything appears to be perfectly in order here, except the tone of your comments and your peremptory demand. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. The president for the acceptance of small sized images is on that page: "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger."
2. My objection "raises a valid concern". The DR should have been stopped.
3. You ask: "are these images actually the uploader's own work as claimed?" Of course they are! Why else would I dispute the DR and waste my valuable time hear arguing for them to be kept? Not only have I known Phil (User:YGraigArw) for over 20 years, but he also happens to be secretary of Wici Cymru - the Wikipedia association in Wales. I don't think this exercise will stop him from uploading again to Commons, but it certainly does not give positive vibes in any way whatsoever.
4. You say, "There is no way in the world that we can take responsibility for notifying users except at the beginning of a DR as it would more than double the effort required to manage a DR." Then in my humble opinion, I think it's about time you did. We do it continually on Wici=cy and should be done on Commons. It could be automatically generated. No I didn't check it as I believed that common sense would dictate that the images should be kept.
5. The "oiginal nomination" did not contain the words which you quote: ""possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF""; see here. That information should be on the user's Talk page. I saw the EXIF mention of the link on that page and corrected it by adding cats. This, surely, should have been enough. Nothing in INeverCry's subsequent note (18:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)) mentions the fact that he was still awaiting further information. He should have answered my question and list which elements he was still waiting for.[reply]
The "tone of my comments" on 08:05, 6 November 2012 was fine ("Many thanks for your keen eye! I've now added cats to all images...") Deleting images without giving exact reasons turns people against Commons. Now let me reiterate: undelete the images. If anything User:King of Hearts' tone is very, very inappropriate. Doing a 'sanity check' casts doubt on an user, not only the process.
Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) As I said, your quote is from WP:EN where the rules are different. On Commons, exactly the opposite rule is in effect. We prefer larger images, up to a maximum of 100MB, and will delete the smaller one when two images from the same shutterclick are uploaded. That's actually true of the two versions of File:PendrefRhuthunJDJones.jpg which YGraigArw uploaded -- I have deleted the smaller one.

2) Small size and lack of EXIF is an absolutely routine reason for deletion -- tens of images every day are deleted with that reason. That's particularly true of a drive by uploader -- a user whose only contributions are one small batch of images, all of which are suspect. Since you were not the uploader there was nothing in your response at the DR or in your first request above which spoke to the question of whether your colleague was actually the photographer. Also, as I said above, the last response was by INVerCry and you ignored it for four days before the deletion.

3) Fair enough, but why didn't you say that in the DR or anywhere in your original comments? This all would have been avoided if you had said that in the DR. BTW, this does not mean we should keep them. The two that I have seen are very small and not good quality -- I suspect that they are out of scope.

4) I wish that Commons were the size of WP:CY and could do such things. Again, I say that you vastly underestimate the volume of transactions on Commons. Our daily new uploads of images are double the total number you have at WP:CY. We delete 2,000 images every day. What you suggest would require several thousand messages every day. I have been involved in tens of thousands of DRs and this is the first one where anyone -- uploader or bystander -- has asked for such a notice.

5) I don't know what to say to this. I quoted the original nomination correctly above. I just went back to the history of the nomination and the words I quoted are there, as quoted, in the first line in the history (that is the bottom line, as history's are latest on top).

Last) King of Hearts's request was entirely independent of your comments. You misunderstand it entirely. We are currently struggling with a system bug that is frustrating us all and his request is for confirmation that the bug appears for three of the five images above, nothing more. It is his own sanity he is checking, not yours in any way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to do a sanity check on the recent bug affecting ability to view deleted images for admins. Currently, I can see the fourth and fifth images, while the first three give errors. Can other admins confirm this? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me. INeverCry 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Strange bug, but at least it seems to be consistent, not intermittent. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Extremely unclear copyright status, with no clear consensus to restore anything -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfonz Šarh.jpg [edit]

Please temporary undelete the file and use {{Fair use delete}} to be transferred to sl and used in sl:Alfonz Šarh. --Sporti (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've temp restored it for you. INeverCry 17:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The file has been transferred there (see sl:Slika:Alfonz Šarh 1938.jpg), so it should be deleted now. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:COMFORTAｄｄ.GIF[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: By Commons:Deletion requests/File:COMFORTAｄｄ.GIF, one file have deleted. That was consisted by two images of a newspaper's article:京城日報(Keijo Nippo) 26th July 1944 and 毎日新報(Mainichi Shinpo) 27th October 1944.

1. As the argument for deletion, the license tag was not appropriate, because "PD-Japan-organization" and "PD-1996" should have been given to these two.

2. These two articles was published by the Newspaper corporation which Japanese managed at the time of Korea under Japanese rule, therefore the Copyright Act of Japan should be applied.

3. Though the South Korean Copyright Act should be applied, Article 3(4) of the 2011 amended South Korean Copyright Act describes:

even though a copyrighted work is protected under the amended act, if its protection term has expired in the country of origin, the extended term of copyright protection under the amended act will not be recognised in Korea.

— Kim and Chang, in: Recent amendments to the Copyright Act - International Report,Intellectual Asset Management,WebCite®

4.And also the South Korean Copyright Act before the amendments of 2011 made the protected period of copyright 50 years. Since the protected period of 50 years will expire in 1994, two articles already had become a public domain.

The amended provisions on the copyright protection period will take effect on 1st July 2013, therefore the object to which the protected period after amendments is applied is limited to the collective work in 1st July 1963 and afterwards.

So,Those two articles of 1944 is not the object of 20 years of protected period extension.

Or, though "PD-South Korea" should be applied, the condition is the same: The Copy right had expired in 1994. Incidentally, we need Caution: "Template:PD-South Korea" does not refer these datailes of 2011 amended South Korean Copyright Act, and in the new edition just replaced the number of age(50 to 70). PD-South Korea is yet a temporary version.

For these above reasons, I demand to restore this file with the license tag of PD-Japan-organization" and "PD-1996. --AZUCHI (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info De bronnen van deze afbeelding zijn twee krantenadvertenties, niet krantenartikelen. De eerste was door de Japanse organisatie Imai Shōkaijo (今井紹介所) en was in Keijō Nippō (京城日報) van 26 juli 1944, de tweede door een anonieme (maar waarschijnlijk Japanse) organisatie en in Mainichi Shimpō (毎日新報) van 27 oktober 1944.

 Not done Dubious copyright/source information. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:COMFORTAｄｄ.GIF. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forrest Head Shot 1970s.jpg[edit]

Hello. I am requesting that this photo be undeleted but recognize you may need more evidence of the right to use the photo, I'm just not sure what is needed. I reviewed the article and assisted the user to add the photo. The user received permission from Budd Albright to use this photo that also appears on his personal web page. He sent it to her for this purpose and she uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons from her own computer; it was not copied from the webpage. If something is required from Budd Albright to satisfy any concerns about permission to use the photo please let me know (the user who submitted the article and uploaded the photo is very new to Wikipedia and has asked for my assistance to sort this out). If nothing further is required, she is requesting that the photo be undeleted. Best Regards --Snowysusan (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We will require formal permission, not from Mr. Albright, but from the copyright owner, which is almost always the photographer. Please have him or her use the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the required permission is much broader than just for an article at WP:EN -- it must include commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 16:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fayve Carousel.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the marketer for the Fayve app, I work for Vulcan Technologies, this is our content that we are trying to put out. We own the licensing rights to all the material in the product. 425brandon (talk) 21:52, 14 November 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, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fayve Title Page.PNG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As per the last request from this page, I am the marketer for Fayve and work for the company that created it, Vulcan Technologies. We own licensing rights to all the content on their and have followed all the appropriate steps. 425brandon (talk) 21:54, 14 November 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, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pull Down The Moon album cover.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undeletion, as no copyright has been violated. I am the originator and copyright holder of this image.

Creamstick (talk) --Simon Sinclair 23:43, 14 November 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, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:All_Ages_Boston_Hardcore.jpg [edit]

I am the post production manager and have permission from the director as well as the copyright to upload this image. Copyright: http://i48.tinypic.com/692bno.jpg Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.

--Dameville (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Dameville, 11/14/12 07:26 PM[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, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryan_Allen_as_Dr._Bartolo.JPG[edit]

The file,"Ryan_Allen_as_Dr._Bartolo.JPG", was deleted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Allen. The following message was left in the article's history: "Removing "Ryan_Allen_as_Dr._Bartolo.JPG", it has been deleted from Commons by INeverCry because: In category Media missing permission as of 12 October 2012;...)

I am requesting undeletion because I DID obtain permission. I created the file with OTRS. Below I am pasting a copy of the email which was sent to OTRS which contained permission from the photographer to use the photograph:

"Permission to use 'Ryan Allen as Dr. Bartolo'

From

buffobasso buffobasso@aol. Thu, Aug 30, 2012 2:54 pm

To

permissions-commons permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Ryan_Allen_as_Dr._Bartolo.JPG (48 KB)

To OTRS Volunteers,

Re: Permission to use to the photo, 'Ryan Allen as Dr. Bartolo.'

Please find below the permission for Commons to us this photo given by the photographer and owner of the rights, Zaza Bekauri (zbekauri@msn.com).

Thank you.

With best wishes,

Hisland7

Original Message----- 
From: ZAZA Bekauri <zbekauri@msn.com>
To: buffobasso <buffobasso@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 3:08 pm
Subject: RE: Ryan Allen as Dr. Bartolo

We have completed the permission form below.

Best,

Janell & Zaza

Dear Zaza,

The box below is the permissions form I spoke to you about in connection with publishing your photo in Wikipedia.

If you find the information in the box agreeable, would you kindly hit return, type in the information at the bottom of the box which appears in brackets, then hit send?

Thank you very much for doing this.

I hope everything is well with you and your family.

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I, Zaza Bekauri, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Ryan Allen as Dr. Bartolo (see attachment).

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.

[Zaza Bekauri, Geneva, NY 14456] [copyright holder, creator and sole owner of image] [Aug 19, 2012]"

I look forward to hearing from you. If I made a mistake can you please let me know what I did so that I can attempt to correct it? Thank you very much.

Hisland7 Hisland7 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes the email you claim to have sent, they will restore the file. Please be patient. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:griddle-commercial.png [edit]

This image is of my own generation and was provided freely to the Commons. There are no permissions on this work.

 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) 09:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:COMFORTAｄｄ.GIF, re-requesting.[edit]

I am re-requesting the undeletion of this file again because it seems that the judgement made by the administrator Fastily is quite dubious.

As already explained previously, this file is made of two newspaper advertisements which were published in 1944 in Korea under the rule of Japan (Korea ceased to exist at the time as an independent state). The ads were on:

Both of above were major newspapers in Korea at the time, and these copies are regarded as authentic by the historian Mr. Ikuhiko Hata (秦郁彦), who was formerly a professor at Nippon University. (See 「慰安婦募集広告と強制連行命令書の有無」現代史家 秦郁彦氏に聞く②(H19.3.28) at 1m 12-23 second. Please also confirm how Mr. Hata looks like.) The advertisers were organizations, one of which were clearly Japanese (Imai Shōkaijo 〔今井紹介所〕) and the other was anonymous but written in Japanese (There is a name "Mr. Kyo" 〔許氏〕 following the telephone number of the location of appointment in the second ad. But it looks rather to be a telephone appointer than an advertiser himself.)

This file, File:COMFORTAｄｄ.GIF, had been requested deletion twice in the past, and the first of which was overruled by the administrator Jcb as "Commons doesn't judge those issues". Since the licensing problem with this file will be cleared with "PD-Japan-organization" and "PD-1996", as stated by the previous undeletion request, the only reason that User:Fastily rejected seemed to be that he simply didn't like the file for political reasons. This is clearly agaist COM:NOTCENSORED. I would like to ask this case to be judged fairly by an administrator who has a neutral stance on Asian historical dispute. --トトト (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: 1944 + 50 = 1994. OK, appears to be valid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:LAVABO STAINLESS STEEL BY PALMETAL.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my own work. Everything... Photo and furniture Alex Rio Brazil (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Since it has previously appeared on http://www.palmetal.com.br/familia.aspx?&id=1000037, you must send an email to COM:OTRS to prove that you are the owner of that website or otherwise submitted the photo to that website. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mémoriale-16-Décembre-1950.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion reason is "Marking as possible copyvio because No FoP in France...Nothing about it being a memorial nor its creation by a local assiciation precludes copyright." However, the deletion request failed to consider whether there is sufficient originality for copyright. I believe this simple memorial lacks the "imprint of the personality of the author", as required by French copyright law.

This memorial consists of a plaque with a very short text, short enough not to be copyrightable as a work of text (somewhat akin to short text that might appear on a gravestone). It's in a simple font, on a plain rectangular slab with no decoration or other artistry. This slab is centered on a large boulder that appears to be naturally shaped. All this I believe is below the threshold of originality.

There is a low brick barrier (few inches high?) around the boulder, with decorative corner-pieces, and this might be copyrightable. However, if that is the only copyrightable aspect, it could be cropped out and revdel'd rather than deleting the whole image.

Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I agree that the plaque does not pass any TOO and that the corner pieces may not, or could be cropped. However, you dismiss the stone on which the plaque is mounted. Even if naturally shaped, its choice and orientation would pass the TOO in the USA. On top of that, I suspect it is not naturally shaped, but has had some work done on it -- perhaps even entirely sculpted. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see the image, but... simple choice of material would not qualify for U.S. copyright. You can copyright the selection and arrangement of several non-copyrightable objects, for example the order of songs on an album, and perhaps the selection on a greatest-hits album, but it usually takes more than 2-3 elements. Certainly not a single element. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl L. and INeverCry. Yann (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Le Cannet - Chapelle Saint-Sauveur-1.JPG[edit]

I strongly contest this deletion, since the argument was that the mosaic on the facade of the chapel was made by an artist Theo Tobiasse recently died and therefore under copyright. But one must not forget that the main subject of the picture is the chapel, a centuries old construction and the mosaic a real secondary - if not tertiary - subject displaying less that 20% of the surface of the picture. Plus a photo of the chapel without the mosaic is impossible. Thus, freedom of panorama can be applied, and the image undeleted.--LPLT (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no freedom of panorama to be applied in France and any de minimis argument must fail because the mosaic is certainly the center of interest in the image. While it may be only 20% of the area of the image, it is dead center and brightly colored in the middle of the facade of a grey stone building. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The uploaders description of the file was "Le Cannet - Chapelle Saint-Sauveur - Mosaïque de Tobiasse". So yes, this is the main subject of the photo. --Martin H. (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think the chapel is the main subject. Any photo of this facade will unavoidably include the mural. De minimis. INeverCry 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: The Louvre Pyramid is also dead center and very prominent in any depiction of the facade of the Louvre, but we allow it to appear. Since the photo is showing the entire facade of the chapel, the mural is unavoidable and falls under COM:DM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Photo Rens van de Schoot.jpg [edit]

I am the owner of this photo. The foto is also submitted at Rens' Wordpress website, but I also manage that website. What is a good way to prove this to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiyven (talk • contribs) 14:11, November 16, 2012‎ (UTC)

 Not done. Please send permission for the file to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Skica TNP Burger.gif[edit]

I think this image qualifies as 'own work'. There is no evidence that it would derived from some copyrighted map. --Eleassar (t/p) 00:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that it's "own work"? INeverCry 17:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've come to an agreement here that there should be evidence that a map was derived from some other. If there's no such evidence, the map should be kept. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored per above. INeverCry 18:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Linda Hunt.png [edit]

I uploaded my own version (derivative work) of a file in Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnjt/5184856902/) with Creative Commons license, all this information was in the article. I don't understand why was marked as coopyvio. --Covi (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Oops, sorry, copyvio in Flikr from IMDb http://www.imdb.com/media/rm774473984/nm0001373 --Covi (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Aldo_Bertini.jpg [edit]

I am holding the rights on that photo, as I stated when I've inserted it at Commons. Please undelete the photo. --Firminmaillard (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is an old professionally taken black and white portrait. Permission from the copyright holder will have to be sent to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the image can be restored. INeverCry 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tacna2.jpg [edit]

Buenas, la imagen es creacion propia, no entiendo porque rebota su subida, me parece injusto, no la saque de ningun lugar de internet, rogaria la restauren pues contribuye mucho visualemnte con el articulo, Tacna, en si.

Gracias, saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejuanchop (talk • contribs) 17:30, November 17, 2012‎ (UTC)

The first photo is originally from http://www.flickr.com/photos/araleai/2309409504/, the second photo is e.g. from http://noticias.terra.com.pe/nacional/promperu-lanzara-marca-pais-en-paris-madrid-y-barcelona,633c446d2efe9310VgnVCM20000099cceb0aRCRD.html with credit to a photo agency Andina. They all have one in common: they appear on various postings in Skyscrapercity.com, maybe thats your source. The third file is this photo from http://www.lugaresdelperu.com/departamento/tacna. File four comes from http://www.radiouno.pe/noticias/14962/upt_banner.swf. The case is clear for me: not your work. --Martin H. (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (after edit conflict with Martin) Thejuanchop has had thirty files deleted as copyvios. Eighteen of his files remain, but about half of those have active DRs. It is not clear that this user understands copyright or is willing to follow its rules. This collage appears in many other places on the web in this size or larger. It is a collage made from a wide variety of apparently professional images -- images of much better quality than those uploaded by Thejuanchop as own work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 18:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Russell badge.jpg [edit]

I bought this publicly available badge SEVENTY years ago, in London. There is no copyright or other reason why my photo-scan of it should not add to the significant history of Bertrand Russell which it portrayed. Please reinstate it promptly... along with its rightful place on Russell's website. Thank you. Tony French. (real name) at tony@poemsplease.me (real address) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony in Devon (talk • contribs) 12:20, November 18, 2012‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose Since the badge contains the peace sign which was first introduced April 4, 1958, it must postdate that and cannot be more than fifty-four and a half years old. Although the photograph could have been made long before the badge, the photographer's copyright is in effect until seventy years after his death. It is therefore unlikely bordering on impossible that the photograph is not covered by copyright. . .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 19:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pacaya-smoke-ring-blog by TP.jpg[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I don't understand why this picture was deleted whereas, as requested, I forwarded the private communication I had with the author of the picture who allowed/encouraged me to upload the picture so that it can be shown on the 'Volcanic smoke ring' section of the 'Smoke ring' article. Thanks in advance for your help.

With kind regard, Wikiwanito (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The OTRS ticket, 2012061110011335, which is mentioned in the file description, gives permission only for use on Wikipedia. The OTRS volunteer asked several times for an appropriate license, but the photographer did not give one. This information has been in the file description since July. Note that images on Wikipedia and Commons must be free for all use by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 19:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Coffee Bean Structure-es.png, Image:Coffee Bean Structure-fr.png[edit]

Two files that were some of the last to be deleted by some archaic "superceded" notion. The superceded-deletion discussion was probably on Template:Deletion requests/Superseded but that has been deleted too (add Template:Deletion requests/Superseded as another page, including all history revisions, to undelete so that we can at least see what went on). The SVG that supposably superceded them is a numbered version, whereas these two were translated text versions. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Robert F. LaPrade, MD, PhD.jpg[edit]

Dr. LaPrade has emailed me specific permission for publishing this picture on wikipedia which I have forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

--Dr. huleatt (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Ticket:2012111910013391. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Józef Brandt.jpg[edit]

Improper speedy deletion, likely without notification of the uploader (likely me, as this popped up on my watchlist, and no other user talk page links to this). Commons:Deletion_policy#General:_speedy_deletion is quite clear that speedy deletions should not be carried out in case of copyright issues, a regular week long discussion notifying uploader and allowing interested parties to comment should've been carried out. I may well endorse this deletion, once I see the image and its history - but for now, I request an undeletion; User:Masur is welcome to nominate this for deletion using proper channels. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Józef Brandt.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hiller tract against Paragraph 175.jpg[edit]

Yes, 70 years p.m.a. was false. But the text is very simple, also the design. There is no Commons:Threshold of originality. Not in Germany, and not in US. License should be Template:PD-text or eventually Template:PD-ineligible. Please restore. --Fg68at de:Disk 04:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support OK to restore for me. Yann (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored I agree wtih Yann, below TOO. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Target Israel.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted without valid reason because it does not fit some people's political agenda. The act introduces dangerous political censorship. --Jonund (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The description of the file was "Israel seen through the sight of a gun and surrounded by a funeral wreath, with a card with the text RIP (Requiescat in pace, or Rest in peace). The similraity to the UN flag illustrates the obsession with Israel by the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies." The file was deleted according to the request at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Target_Israel.jpg. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Out of COM:SCOPE - not realistically useful for an educational purpose. INeverCry 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is not the place for anyone's political agenda. It was deleted because it was useless for Wikimedia's purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentIt is obiously realistically useful for educational purposes. Criticism against UN for obsession with criticism against Israel has been recurrent and well-founded. For instance, United Nations Commission on Human Rights devoted one third of its country-specific resolutions to condemning Israel, and a Palestinian UN observer has appealed to its resolution for defending terrorism.
Political topics are well represented on WP and within its scope. If the political message excludes the image, we have to delete hundreds of thousands of images. --Jonund (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Is there any articles on any project where this image is useful?(it does not have to be in the mainspce it could be for a userbox or even just a userpage) If you can find an example, we can quickly conclude the the image is in the scope of commons.MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should just paste it on his userpage for him and close this as done. ;) INeverCry 23:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --Jonund (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking with that, but in all seriousness, I would be concerned that the above image might be found to be intimidating by some users if placed on a userpage. Also, individual users aren't necessarily allowed to further a political agenda in userspace using text or images. As for the image itself, the fact that some people hate Israel or other countries and people, doesn't give educational value to every self-made symbol or visual demonstration of this. INeverCry 16:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete -FASTILY (TALK) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:OHM2009klein.jpg[edit]

Bitte um Wiederherstellung! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.61.101 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is an official promotional poster for an orchestra, and is very small at 235 × 242, so I don't think it's in COM:SCOPE. Besides that, COM:OTRS permission would be needed to host it on Commons, if it were found to be in scope. INeverCry 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:OHMklein.jpg[edit]

Bitte um Wiederherstellung des Bildes, warum wurde es gelöscht? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasszinator (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is an official photo of an orchestra, but at this tiny thumbnail size I don't see how it would be of educational value, and so I don't think it's in COM:SCOPE. Besides that, COM:OTRS permission would be needed to host it on Commons, if it were found to be in scope. INeverCry 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: San_José_de_Oruro_Campeón_1955.jpg[edit]

solicito se recupere los archivos eliminados por tratarse de imagenes muy importantes del club san Jose de Oruro Ndanielitosalinas (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)NdanielitosalinasNdanielitosalinas (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This appears to be an image taken in the 50s/60s, and so COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder would be needed to host this on Commons. INeverCry 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File: San_José_de_Oruro_Campeón_1995.jpg[edit]

imagen muy importante para el club san jose de oruro Ndanielitosalinas (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)NdanielitosalinasNdanielitosalinas (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder would be needed to host this on Commons. INeverCry 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File: San_jose_vs_sao_paulo.JPG[edit]

imagen importante para el club san jose de oruro Ndanielitosalinas (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)NdanielitosalinasNdanielitosalinas (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder would be needed to host this on Commons. INeverCry 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File: La_Temible_Hinchada_de_San_Jose_de_Oruro_2007.JPG[edit]

imagen muy importante para el club san jose de oruro Ndanielitosalinas (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)NdanielitosalinasNdanielitosalinas (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder would be needed to host this on Commons. INeverCry 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hinchada_de_San_Jose_de_Oruro_en_Brasil.jpg [edit]

imagen muy importante para el club san jose de oruro Ndanielitosalinas (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)NdanielitosalinasNdanielitosalinas (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder would be needed to host this on Commons. INeverCry 16:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ATD Hood Aerodrome Masterton 5 May 1949.jpg[edit]

I uploaded this file in the mistaken belief I was about to receive a formal consent from the source. When I went back to the source I was told it was not necessary, there are no known copyright restrictions on it. I thought I would let it be removed by the system (which it was) and upload it again but it is blocked. Please may it be undeleted. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go here, fill out the requested information, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY (TALK) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of File:Malé divisions.jpg[edit]

File:Malé divisions.jpg is an image I created myself with the satellite photos from Google Maps.--Ushau97 (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps are not free, therefore your image is a copyright violation. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 16:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ciudad Humana.jpg [edit]

This file has been created under license by anyone, anytime, for any purpose, as the novel's author has stated. Please, I actually ask for undeletion of his file. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guripo (talk • contribs) 12:42, November 20, 2012‎ (UTC)

 Not done Please have the copyright holder email permission for this book cover image to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct[edit]

I propose that the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct, which have been recognised as not surpassing the threshold of originality, but have been nonetheless deleted with the rationale that there's no threshold of originality in Slovenia, are undeleted. These are:

From this court case (citing summary): "Architectural author's works are buildings and similar constructions, if they contain individual creative elements [emphasis mine] regarding form, shape or ornaments. In accordance with Article 6 of ZASP [the copyright act] also the composing parts of architectural works are protected if they meet the conditions of an individual intellectual creation (e.g. interior equipment)." It is apparent that these two photographs do not show elements that would qualify as individual intellectual creations. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a language problem here. A "threshold" is something that lies above the floor, so "Threshold of Originality" -- TOO -- implies a level of creativity above the basic level (floor) that is required everywhere for copyright. My example was that both a book and its paragraphs have a copyright, but I carefully did not say that each sentence would have one. There is always creativity required -- a blank canvas is not copyrightable anywhere, nor is a single sentence (notwithstanding the Chilean authorities' decision on the miner's five word message). There is nothing in the cite above which suggests anything more than the barest minimum of creativity is required in Slovenia.
Both of these images show glass slatted windbreaks of a style that I have never seen before on a bridge. It was, and remains, my opinion that these pass the minimum standard described above. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are standard windbreaks, nothing original here. I am also questioning the deletion of File:Crni Kal viaduct construction.jpg. In many cases, we have kept images of buildings under construction. Why not this one? I also restored File:Črni Kal gradnja 2002.JPG where no architectural feature can be seen. Yann (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've verified sources about the windbreaks and it turns out that they're original indeed. They are described in detail in this article.[3]; it is clear that the fence is an engineering achievement. I therefore apologise to James/Jim. I also think File:Crni Kal viaduct construction.jpg shows built columns, which are copyrightable elements. The proposal should therefore be closed as 'not restored'. As for File:Črni Kal gradnja 2002.JPG, I do not object to its undeletion, because I don't see much copyrightable in it. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored File:Črni Kal gradnja 2002.JPG, but Jim deleted it again. No comment. Yann (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to File:Črni Kal gradnja 2002.JPG being restored at the end of this process -- I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything there covered by copyright.
I do object, though, to restoring a file while an UnDR is going on. We are here for the community to decide what to do with all of the files covered by the UnDR. Until the UnDR is closed, we do not know what that consensus is. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Eleassar above. INeverCry 18:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vespa_946.jpg [edit]

The deleted image is under the CC-BY-SA. The Photographer wrote "I give permission for these images to be used under the CC-BY-SA licence" in the bottom line of his post at http://www.vespaforum.de , where he published the image. See: bottom line of the first post at http://www.vespaforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20401 (Also look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biker_Biker , last section) --Zylinderkopf (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and tell them what you told us so that a formal record of the permission can be maintained. They'll restore the file once they process your email -FASTILY (TALK) 23:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adobe Acrobat 6 icon.png [edit]

and File:Adobe Distiller 7.0 icon.png

They are PD-text,But Motopark request want to deleted for it's own OTRS speedy deletion request,However,This file,Which i want keep it,we dont use Request,Because it's not needed for request.I want protect my files from edits from Motopark,which said OTRS request.I can't stop him,so,who is helping me?

Reason:Because,is okay,but Motopark can't stop my job,but they are simple,right? --Jikerd (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. Adobe logos and trademarks are protected by copyright -FASTILY (TALK) 23:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:11th president of turkey abdullah gul.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Evidence about given permission is now available on the official source of image: http://www.tccb.gov.tr/sayfa/cumhurbaskani/portreler/ Emcyaman (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree. ticari olmayan amaçlar için kullanılabilir (can be used for non-commercial purposes) is not allowed on Commons. Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 18:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AbpEdwardWhiteBenson.jpg[edit]

File:AbpEdwardWhiteBenson.jpg was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:AbpEdwardWhiteBenson.jpg. However, this (third row, third portrait) says the artist is Hubert von Herkomer who died in 1914 (confirmed here). I cannot see the deleted image so I am assuming it is the same as on the Canterbury website after seeing this discussion. Thincat (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ADFA Crest Landscape.gif[edit]

Please undelete this and others an insert {{OTRS|2012100510000396}} there:

I was holding the ticket and I thought that the user Didn't upload the pictures, but it was deleted. Permission allowed. +PrinceWilly 15:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 19:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jože Plečnik[edit]

I think the files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jože Plečnik (1943), Zbirka upodobitev znanih Slovencev NUK.jpg should be undeleted, for the same reason that Files in Category:Franc Pribošek has been kept. Otherwise these have to be deleted too. They're from the same collection. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stefan Brunnhuber.jpg[edit]

Undelete this and insert {{OTRS|2012100910004161}}. Thanks.+PrinceWilly 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deleted file with that title. INeverCry 19:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done on enwiki. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must be moved to commons. It's released in CC.BY.SA.+PrinceWilly 19:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing saying it must be moved to Commons. It would merely be better if it were moved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that license of the image applies to commons; I do not understand why it was uploaded at enwiki, and had sent the permission to commons channel, where I picked it up.+PrinceWilly 17:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:BAL Penn station.png[edit]

Please revive to allow transfer to en.wp. Meets en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for use in en:Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), here there is a whole section discussing (with cites) this specific piece of artwork and its reaction to being in this public setting. DMacks (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Another editor has asked for the restoration of this file on my talk (here). Since the statue/sculpture is permanent, perhaps De Minimis would apply, as it takes up only a small part of the frame and is unavoidable? INeverCry 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jameslwoodward. The sculpture is not actually part of the building itself, but is in a plaza in front, so there are multiple ways to get the building without having the non-free component as prominent (or even visible at all). DMacks (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Please complete the transfer within 48 hours. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Image has been transferred to WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:A Szív 2012. október.jpg[edit]

This file was made by the editorial of the review. The use of this file is completely free, all rights are waived. There is no reason to delete it from the Wiki page, on which one can read about this review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedran.b (talk • contribs) 09:19, 23 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The magazine is copyrighted. In order to restore this, we will need a license from the publisher, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Peter Stöger 1.jpg bis File:Peter Stöger 4.jpg[edit]

Liebe Löscher,

nichts gegen Korrektheit, aber die fraglichen Bilder entstammen dem Familienbesitz!

Daß ich da ja wohl jegliches Verfügungsrecht habe, könnte ich z.B. beweisen, indem ich hier mit meinem Klarnamen plus Adresse und Telephonnummer zeichne; das widerspräche allerdings nicht nur meinen Wünschen, sondern ebenso - aus guten Gründen - diversen "Wiki...xxx"-Datenschutzrichtlinien. Die o.g. (und viele andere zugehörige) Bilder sind auch z.B. hier abrufbar. Du liebe Zeit - seht Euch die Photos doch bitte einmal an, das sind ja nun wirklich keine anrüchigen Staatsgeheimnisse. Geht's vielleicht, bitte, ein bißl weniger kadaverbürokratisch?

Also, Frage: Wie darf ich Euch beweisen, daß das Privatphotos sind, ohne meine polizeilich beglaubigten Fingerabdrücke samt Ariernachweis ins Internet stellen zu müssen?

Beste Grüße & nix für ungut, --Avstriakos (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Georgi_Chankov.png [edit]

This is a photograph of my grandfather made for official documents. It was made around 1950 by an unknown photographer. My family owns tangible copy of it. I can provide proof for this. --Сава Чанков (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UEFA Cup the Trophy.jpg[edit]

I just want to ask where the original photo was taken. If it was taken in a country where FoP applies for objects in permanent display (as UK or Spain), they We can readmiss the file.--Coentor (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The image was taken in London, so FOP applies. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 17:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps not -- User:Mtking has pointed out on my talk page that if the cup travels to the home of the winner each year, it is not permanent anywhere and FOP does not apply. I undeleted it on the assumption that the cup stays on display at one location and is removed only temporarily annually to be engraved with the name of the new winner and presented. Someone eho knows the facts will have to enlighten us. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely the picture was taken either in Glasgow, the venue for the 2007 final some two weeks later, or in London on route there. I can find no indication that it is on permanent display anywhere. Mtking (edits) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unless we have written, tangible proof indicating that this trophy is permanently displayed in a public location, allowing it to be covered under FOP, we cannot host it on Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that even despite the original trophy is only one year in the winner club trophy's room, a copy of it remains forever in the trophys room, which is a "permanent exhibition".--Coentor (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedretti_Folio_133v.jpg [edit]

I request undelete because:

  1. License was in template
  2. Own Work
  3. I got no deletion notice. (Why not?)
  4. I only noted the deletion in en WP by chance. How can I check whether some of my many other images were deleted too? -- Portolanero (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose You edited the file after the no license template was added, so you certainly had notice that the file was going to be deleted if you didn't do something. The scan may be own work, but the image is the work of Carlo Pedretti, and your scan infringes the copyright. The only other file of yours that has been deleted is File:Cyprus-1662.jpg which infringes on the copyright of the modern map. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had fixed the template problem. I got no msg that there was still a problem. Pedretti did not publish this image. I did a line redraw from his a 1978 book and transformed it over several stages that it fit the original drawing in Leonardo da Vinci's Codex Atlanticus (Folio 133v) of 1493. That original is the color image you see as background. Pedretti did not publish any color image in his book. Then I created a composite image of F133v and the transformed line redraw. So the black lines are my work now and the color background older than 100 years. The modern part in "File:Cyprus-1662.jpg" is totaly my work, please undelete it. Look at my en WP page and you will see that I`m able to create such maps. -- Portolanero (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Apparently a non-free derivative work, which is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 22:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Photos of Disneyland Paris deleted on FoP grounds while RfC discussion on FoP deletion is ongoing[edit]

Files:

(probably not an exhaustive list)

It seems rather perverse to me to delete various files under a certain criterion for deletion when precisely that ground is the subject of an request for comment happening at that moment. I raised this in the deletion request of the first file in the list, disappointingly this was without response. At the very least, if such files are acceptable on en.wiki, I would like leave to reupload them there. The first four files on this list were uploaded by myself, the remainder were not. Malpass93 (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is about cases where a work is placed in public space and the law allows to make photos and use them commercialy without violating the artists or architects copyright. Here we have photos not taken in public places in a country that disallows this. The RFC is unrelated. --Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The RfC deals with FOP cases that are OK in source country and not in US. This is the case of OK in US and not in source country, which has been prohibited on Commons for a long time. If you would like some of them to be temporarily restored for transfer to enwiki, please submit a new request containing only those you wish to restore. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Asbo blason2011.png[edit]

Request temporary undeletion. In order to transfer the non-free file File:Asbo blason2011.png to the English and French wikipedias. Both the English and French wikipedias have fair-use provisions. Malpass93 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've temp restored it. INeverCry 22:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, see here and here. Thank you very much. Malpass93 (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I'm glad I could help. I've re-deleted the file. INeverCry 00:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cyprus-1662.jpg [edit]

I request undelete because:

  1. License was in template
  2. Own Work
  3. I got no deletion notice. (Why not?)
  4. I only noted the deletion in en WP by chance. How can I check whether some of my many other images were deleted too?

I did this modern map myself. The outline of the Mediterranean Sea was surveyed better than my 1:1 Million 200 years ago and is therefore open source. -- Portolanero (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: You already got notified that the file was tagged, so there is no notification for deletion. In such a case you should just remove the tag yourself upon fixing the problem. I went through your deleted contributions, and restored the only other one that was deleted: File:Pedretti Folio 133v.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sal La Rocca © Johan Van Eycken..jpg [edit]

Hello, about this picture, i don't understand why this picture is removed from my wiki page...i know very well the guy who put His picture on wiki he did it on purpose for me ! can you please tell me exactly all the criteria to recover this picture....THX a lot to help....Cordially ...sal

--Sallarocca (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The person who made this picture must send a statement of permission agreeing to release the picture under a free license to COM:OTRS. See COM:CONSENT for a sample template to use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Olga Scheps @ 50 Years of Culture at Audi.jpg[edit]

I'm sorry! I was to late! Please undelete the image and the photographer send the permission during the next days!

Once COM:OTRS processes the permissions email you claim to have sent, they'll restore the file. If you haven't done that yet, I suggest you get on it -FASTILY (TALK) 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ukraine.LeonidKuchma.fund.jpg [edit]

Hello! My name is Mykhailo Malyi. I am the Press Secretary of Leonid Kuchma's Presidential Foundation "Ukraine". I would like to provide Wikimedia with a recent picture of Leonid Kuchma. Wikimedia can use this pic.It is license free. It was made by Valeriy Soloviyov - our staff photographer on 16.10.12 Link to the page with this picture - http://www.kuchma.org.ua/fund/media/543/?SECTION_ID=543&PAGEN_4=1

You can contact me via mail: mykhailo@malyi.com

 Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama from Green's Lodge Battery.png[edit]

This is one of dozens of files loaded from DiscoverGibraltar.org

This site has been released by cc by sa licence. The wording of the icense was objected to. The wording has been corrected. If you go to discovergibraltar.org then the whole site (apart from identified sections are released under cc by sa). This is what our mission wants us to do! We are releasing whole web sites. Why are we not encoraging this? Please help me and undelete this image. Victuallers (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. The only copyright notice that I find on the site is:

"Aerial photos courtesy of Estoril Ltd. Gibraltar All other photos, video and VR panos by Jim Crone unless otherwise credited. All rights reserved."

If there is another license on the site, then we should document it. If not, then this restoration was incorrect. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of http://www.discovergibraltar.com/pages/mainlogo/mainfrm.htm, under the Gibraltarpedia logo on the left you'll see this link: "Please read the additional information and licence details" - this is where the cc-by-sa license is contained. I don't know how to link to the license directly because of the format of the page. INeverCry 18:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Licensed CC-SA [4], click on "Please read the additional information and licence details" on the left under the Gibraltarpedia.org logo. I tried to get a direct link but the pages are using frames and goodness knows what else, and everything gets me back to the mainfrm.htm page. As its licensed under cc-by-sa and to document the license here is a copy as of 2012-11-23 (NZST):

discovergibraltar.com is used by Gibraltarpedia and Wikiipedia

Please read the following information carefully

Please feel free to copy text and images from this website under the following Creative Commons License

You are free: 

   * to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
   * to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions: 

   * attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
   * share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.


Please copy the following code when citing DiscoverGibraltar as your source for Gibraltarpedia;

<ref>{{cite web|title=DiscoverGibraltar.com|url=http://www.discovergibraltar.com}}</ref>

EXCEPTIONS

1. The discovergibraltar.com website contains links to other websites including a photo library section containing watermarked images which can not be used under the above license conditions.

2. Some images in discovergibraltar.com have text under them attributing copyright to another source, these images are not within the scope of the above license. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have a credits page (go to "Credits/Books" in the main navigation) which says that the principal photographer for the site uses "All Rights Reserved" and a more general notice that gives a CC license for the whole site, but explicitly excludes material which has its own copyright. Although I suspect that their intentions are as we would want them, I read the present status of the site as ARR for all work by Jim Crone, which, we are told, is all photos on the site. Until they fix that -- if that is their intention -- I don't think we can keep anything from the site unless we can establish that Crone is not the photographer. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it is obvious what his attentions are - too make all his material available under a CC license. According to wikipedia w:All rights reserved (ARR) is a deprecated term pertaining to requirements of the w:Buenos Aires Convention of 1910 "which mandated that some statement of reservation of rights be made in order to secure protection in signatory countries of the convention". So basically it is a statement claiming the protection of the convention for all his works on the site - ie asserting copyright ownership and reserving the right (to himself) to decide who can use the material. He then , on a licensing page, explicitly grants a CC license for all these works. The CC license page specifically excludes only works that have watermarks or "text under them attributing copyright to another source". The ARR statement is a single, disconnected, line on a page about credits and sources of further information, the CC license is on a page linked to as "... additional information and licence details". The intention is clear, there is no significant doubt, unless we construe some contorted legalistic meaning that interprets his intention as making everything CC except where explicitly marked as otherwise or items by Jim Crone - ie an infinitley small number (probably zero). The CC page is a non revokable license, I see no reason not to rely on it. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosing as ✓ Done. It appears that this file is licensed under a CC license, based on the description on source website. As always, someone can always request OTRS permission to dispel any doubt. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Hotel Savoy Homann TMnr 20025485.jpg [edit]

As far I can remember this is an image donated by Tropenmuseum to Commons, taken in the Dutch East Indies. The architect left the Dutch East Indies before Indonesian independence. So now Commons is deleting an image received as donation, based on the fantasy that a dead Dutch architect who never lived in Indonesia would claim copyright, under Indonesian law, on an image taken in the Dutch East Indies of one of his buildings, ignoring that the ridiculous idea that a photograph would be a copyright infringement of a 3D architectural work probably did not exist in his lifetime, and still does not exist in the Netherlands. --ELEKHHT 07:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of being a 'donation' does not make a file immune to deletion. By your egregious logic, no files can be deleted on Commons, copyvio or not, because they're all donations. Furthermore, bear in mind that even institutions such as the Tropenmuseum can make mistakes. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed licensable under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't expecting constructive answer, focused on educational scope and collaboration with institutions. Only asking for being restored temporarily for transfer to Wikipedias which do not follow the logic of deleting educational content based on such formidable fantasies. Thanks. --ELEKHHT 07:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted in accordance with Commons policy and international law. Your personal opinion trumps neither of these. You may ask that the file be temporarily restored at COM:AN so that the file may be re-uploaded locally to other wikis as non-free content -FASTILY (TALK) 05:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Evening in green town.jpg[edit]

I personally took this picture with my mobile. I request you to please Undo the deletion of this picture. Toafzaal (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is taken with a Nokia, and is high-res, so I don't really doubt it's the uploader's work. I would question whether or not this file, with that serious sun glare, is within COM:SCOPE though? INeverCry 16:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 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) 05:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Princess Elisabeth of Hesse 2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I don't understand the deletion. I proved the origin from Eduard Uhlenhuth as Public Domain. The discussion is here. The same watermark appears here, here and here and is obviously accepted. Why was "my" picture deleted? Ras67 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 21:13, 26 November 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 in Category:Hotel Savoy Homann [edit]

Six images of the Savoy Homann Bidakara Hotel in Bandung, present day Indonesia have been deleted invoking on Indonesian FOP. But PD in Indonesia is 50 years from death of author, and the architect died in 1961, that is according to Indonesian law his work is now PD, FOP is not relevant. For the US as well as the Netherlands where the author resided, his work is not PD but FOP applies. If the images couldn't be restored per common sense, now please restore these deletions per "international law" to quote a Commons admin. It would be appreciated (although not expected) if those who participated in these deletions would repair all the damage by restoring the removed images in ALL Wikipedias. Thank you. --ELEKHHT 06:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vespa 946.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this and insert {{OTRS|2012112310002474}}. Thank you.+PrinceWilly 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Poly logo seal.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this because the file was created by the university and it was only being used for the university--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The logo is copyrighted by the university, and therefore we cannot host it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cartel de La salvacion.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this file File:Cartel de La salvacion.jpg because it was created by me (Own work). I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. -- Por favor, no borren este archivo File:Cartel de La salvacion.jpg porque fue creado por mí (trabajo propio). Yo, como autor y titular de los derechos de copyright, lo publico bajo las licencias: GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation y la licencia Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

--G\. (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the film have an official website? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has. Please visit http://blog.acrofilms.com/p/la-salvacion.html You can also find it at IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1366435/ --G\. (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, could you update that page to state that the film poster is licensed under those licenses? This is just so we can verify that you are actually the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! It's done, please check it out. --G\. (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ermolaev Simon Afanasyevich2.jpg [edit]

I do not understand why this file was deleted. I added all requested additional information. Sincerely Hunu (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is a copyrighted website. The images are of Russian State Duma members, taken in 1906 by an unknown photographer and labeled pd-old-100. The 1906 date is too late to justify even pd-old-70, never mind pd-old-100. INeverCry 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What INeverCry said - Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eric Bickerton Paralympic bronze.jpg [edit]

The deletion was based on a false premise. Freedom of panorama allows for a the creation of two dimensional images of three dimensional artworks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-11&oldid=165644767"