Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-01

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:Roßthal 2010 Schulfest 06.jpg[edit]

Ich habe die Serie "Roßthal 2010 Schulfest", deren Fotos sich alle in der Category:Roßthal befinden, selber aufgenommen und unter "gemeinfrei" in Commons hochgeladen. Warum Nr.06 gelöscht wurde kann ich nicht nachvollziehen, da ich nicht den Bildbeschreibungstext einsehen kann und dadurch nicht weiß was auf dem Bild genau drauf war. Hab meine eigenes Bildarchiv angeschaut und aber nix gefunden wo ich einen Löschgrund sehen könnte. Deswegen möchte ich das die Wiederhergestellung geprüft wird. -- sk (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:bebopvox.jpg[edit]

how come it was deleted?!?! Bebopvox clearly gave me premission through Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamertroid (talk • contribs) 14:14, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to the permission tweet? Normally we would require explicit permission for anyone to use it (permission for Wikipedia or Wikimedia only is not enough), including commercial use. See COM:OTRS for the usual procedure to follow when requesting permission -- we prefer to have an email archived for future reference. However, if someone explicitly licensed an image CC-BY-SA or something in a tweet (so it is OK for anyone to use), that may be OK. It depends on the nature of the permission provided. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/BebopVox/status/285017683710320640 is the Tweet in question; all it was just a permission to use and nothing with regards to a license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Explicit permission needed from source or by COM:OTRS. INeverCry 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gráfico Martínez Alfara.jpg [edit]

It was deleted because someone assumed that a photography of a Spanish sportsman taken in 1930 was still under copyright. But the file was a cover of Argentinean magazine "El Gráfico", and the issue covers the very first period when this sportsman was (lived) in Argentina. Then, is an Argentinian photography, and under Argentinian copyright laws (and the file was properly licensed when I uploaded it) this file is in PD. "(Both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7 (4))."--Coentor (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I think Coentor is probably correct. There might be a question of the image having been first published in Spain, but if the man was living in Argentina at the time, then the Argentine 25 year rule applies to the photograph and there is nothing else on the cover that will have a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored per above. INeverCry 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kozolec-BrdoPriKranju.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It was deleted by mistake, as there was no debate on the deletion request page. Similar files were kept (for example: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kozolec_dvojni.JPG). Hayracks are not generally copyrightable: "kozolec kot tak, torej kot koncept kozolca, v poznani obliki, ne more biti avtorskopravno varovan, lahko pa je avtorskopravno varovan kozolec, ki ima poseben design, obliko ali katere druge komponente, zaradi katerih je poseben in bi ga lahko šteli med avtorska dela skladno z Zakonom o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah, vendar je za presojo kdaj neko delo predstavlja avtorsko delo, pristojno sodišče." (answer from Slovenian Intellectual Property Office).

In other words, hayrack cannot be copyrightable unless confirmed by court. I think the file should be undeleted (so we can see whether there are any such ornaments that would make it copyrightable and renominate it in the worst case) -- Miha (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The questions I have is this. One, for the structure that is shown here, how old is it? Also, is it just the concept of hay racks that are not copyrightable or anything that deals with folk art? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miha here. Finding a copyright in this seems far-fetched to me. It is an old traditional structure. Yann (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Yann. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dino Rossi.jpg [edit]

  1. REDIRECT Target page name

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenlucky (talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

?? There is no record of a file named File:Dino Rossi.jpg and nothing resembling that name from this uploader. There is also no request for undeletion or any reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come back with a reason and we'll talk. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Functions in Excel.PNG[edit]

Request at least temporary undeletion so I can see what this file looks like. I was unaware that it was under consideration for deletion, there seems to have been no deletion discussion, and I would like to have the opportunity to discuss this matter. The deletion request was:

06:39, 30 December 2012 Yann (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Functions in Excel.PNG (Copyright violation: Screenshot of Microsoft Excel. It is non-free and not allowed on Commons.) (global usage; delinker log)

This deletion summary strikes me as highly exaggerated, My recollection of my design of the Excel illustrations is that they were stripped of any artwork that might be copyright violations. Brews ohare (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I agree that it is probably not a copyvio, but, as an experienced Excel user, I also think it is out of scope as having little educational value. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brews ohare: If a file has just been deleted, try searching for the file name (File:Functions in Excel.PNG) using Google Images. In many cases, you will be able to find a thumbnail of the image in Google's cache. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to look at the image and it is a composition of two screenshots of excel. It has the spreadsheet and the function table below it. It also has a few arrows explaining what each element is. I still believe it is a derivative work of a copyrighted computer program. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThWKacHkdRL5tcD_JRFuUxOuTWf1VPg1tvM5cgc-Cg5KT5RKP6SH4Pf7NU is the image in question.
There is nothing here that is a copyright violation. It must be born in mind that the discussion is about Microsoft Excel, so naturally it uses the terminology and organization of that application. The listing of the function is standard code, the spreadsheet column labels A, B, C, ... are found in any spreadsheet as are the row labels 1, 2, 3, .... The labels designating the various aspects of using a formula with this spreadsheet are of my construction, and the organization of the parts of the figure are my construction. The columns in the portion of the figure labeled 'Name Manager are those used by the so-called name manger in Excel, but there is no copyright violation in listing four columns with plain alphanumeric entries.
Saying this file should be deleted because it is of "little educational value" is, of course, a different matter than a copyright violation. I would, however, disagree with this assessment; the figure makes clear several features of Microsoft Excel that are very handy in using functions and in showing the reader what is involved in coding their own function for use in Microsoft Excel. These matters are non-obvious to the novice and could affect their interest in using this application.
This file should be reinstated in all the articles that originally used it. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but why the file was restored ? It's a blatant copyvio of a copyrighted software. No Corel vs Borland does not apply, this ruling was only for software menu! Please read before the ruling before restoring such files. Screenshot of Excel are under fair-use on enwiki for a reason. --PierreSelim (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Not copyvio. Please start a new COM:DR if you feel that it is out of scope. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:視障旅客等候椅.jpg [edit]

圖片為本人親手拍攝後上傳，放置台北捷運頁面，這是因為台北捷運在2012年新的服務用品，供候車的視障旅客坐著等候列車User_talk:捷利 2012/12/21 (一) 08:43 (UTC)

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Shanaya Fastje.jpg [edit]

Aloha, This picture belongs to me and there is no copyright on it it is my property and I decided to give it to the commons to support an article of the exact name. Please undo the deletion. Sincerely Choniz

 Not done This says otherwsise. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter Janssen, Kaiser Friedrich II.jpg[edit]

Deleted as a photo of a three-dimensional artwork. But en:Peter Janssen was a painter and he died in 1908. All his works are public domain in all countries. Maybe it was done by his brother en:Karl Janssen was a sculptor, he died more 70 years ago which makes it public domain in Germany (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Germany). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain work then OTRS means nothing. The nominator, and closer of the deletion request should have provided some evidence of their assertion, we can not have a system of delete anything just because someone makes an assertion when nominating for deletion. The precautionary principle requires significant doubt, not just any doubt raised without evidence. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC) (this was a reply to a closing statement by User:Fastily that he has for some reason now deleted. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Restored This is a painting, so {{PD-Art}} applies. Yann (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tramvaj Ljubljana.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Undelete it so we can upload it to Slovene Wikipedia to use it as fair usage. It is essential in the article about Ljubljana tram. Tram was abandoned in the late 60s so it is impossible to create a free substitute. Miha (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Screen Shot 2011-10-06 at 10.24.11 PM1.png [edit]

It said it was deleted because of a copyright violation but I took the picture from a screen shot on my computer so I own the rights to the picture.

But you do not own the copyright to the software and to the operating system that you are showing the interface for. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come there are pictures of the software on other pages

Because the software itself (not just a screenshot) is under a free license (like Firefox, Open Office). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Screenshot of copyrighted software. INeverCry 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various images with OTRS permission[edit]

Please undelete the following images which now have OTRS permission:

otrs:6704419 (id 2012100310000587)

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mohammad_Kamrani-40th.JPG [edit]

I just came back here after a while and found out this photo that was taken by my own hands using my own camera has been deleted just based on a baseless accusation of a user who claimed it was not my own work! The concerned moderator deleted it afterwards, without no exhibition that proved it is not my work... I am deeply sorry for the user who accused me of theft at the beginning and also for the moderator who believed him without provision of any exhibition from the accuser:-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by یوشیچی تویوهارا (talk • contribs)

 Oppose I am the Admin who deleted the file. Did you really take the original photograph of the young man, write all the text, and produce the poster? Or did you simply take a photograph of the poster? The first would make this "own work" and therefore OK, the second is an infringement on the copyright which belongs to the author of the poster.
And, although it does not really apply in this case, it is not up to the DR nominator or the Admin closer to prove anything. It is up to anyone who wants to keep an image on Commons to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD or correctly licensed.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Non-free derivative works are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portada Revista Horizontes 4 2012.jpg [edit]

Hola, dentro del tiempo estipulado envié la nota de autorización de uso en el formato sugerido, no han borrado la imagen pero el rótulo de advertencia sigue en la página de discución. Agradecería fuera borrado. Un saludo de año nuevo. --Axxis10 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes the email you claim to have sent, they will add the proper documentation to the file preventing deletion on no-permission grounds. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

alexhooperhodson.jpg please undelete[edit]

This image is not copyrighted. I took the photo myself and have specific permission from the subject of the photo to use it on Wikipedia.

You cite the reason that it breaches copyright by linking to a list of pages that also use this image. These pages have all acquired the images without my consent from my original blog post in 2008 (http://moblog.net/view/181242/mr-alex-hooper-hodson)

If you actually bother to check any of the sources you sent me then you can see they are all bogus web pages that have been automatically compiled using bots of some sort.

What do you need for me to prove I have permission to use this image? I can produce written proof if that's what it takes. As an acquaintance of the subject of the photo I know he is very keen to have it visible on Wikipedia.

Can you let me know what to do next?

Jim

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) 21:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helsingborg montage 2.png[edit]

This file was removed due to "copyright violation" but it was just a sort of montage made up by pictures previously uploaded to Commons, where most (if not all) of those pictures had been released in public domain... --Kigsz (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the six images have CC-BY licenses, so your putting a PD on the montage is a violation of the rights of the owners of the three images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but that is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason to fix the license. CC-BY does not preclude any license on derivative material; the compilation copyright can certainly be PD, just note the license of the originals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite true, but -- policy says that the only person who can change the license is the uploader. I certainly can't, it's not my work. Since the uploader chose not to change it, we have no choice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He can only license his own work (the compilation), which he said was PD. Simply correcting attribution to others' work anyone can do. The only reason for deletion would be a derivative work of incompatible licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point -- as you certainly know better than I, the montage cannot be PD if it has CC-BY constituents. Therefore the license on the whole must be CC-BY, not PD, and only the uploader can make that happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright of the derivative portions can be whatever the person wants. CC-BY is not CC-BY-SA. Even if it was, I think deleting something which must be CC-BY-SA when the uploader said "PD" is a bit silly -- just change the license in that case (but perhaps not if the uploader specified a different, incompatible license). The uploader can only license the additional work they added to the derivative, and that much is apparently PD. They cannot change the license of the underlying works, no, but that is simply a matter of fixing the attribution. There is no reason to delete on that basis; it is a simple technical licensing mistake. I can't see the montage so it's hard to say how much expression was added in the derivative.
I agree with Carl here. Can we undelete this? Yann (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, licensing of derivative works is not obvious to most people, and the uploader is almost always just licensing their contribution. We can of course not relicense someone elses work, but I myself (or any of you) can reupload (unchanged) the collage with a new license derived from the PD contributions and the CC-BY-SA contributions - and license this work as CC-BY-SA. I have made a null contribution that is not copyrightable. To be practical about this, there is no point in doing the physical re-upload of an identical file with our new license, just relicensing the file in-place has the same end result. I would suggest {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Collective work with components by [[User:Mikael Parkvall|Mikael Parkvall]], [[:en:User:Hakandahlstrom|Hakandahlstrom]] and other authors}} --Tony Wills (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete this logo, so that I can upload it on de.wiki Brackenheim (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you do this ;-) --Brackenheim (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored this temporarily so that you can transfer it. You can either let me know when you're done, or I'll re-delete it tomorrow. INeverCry 00:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tank you! The file is now on de.wiki: de:Datei:Logo des Menschenrechtskommissars des Europarates.svg. Regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. INeverCry 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Robert Kehlmann Berlin Triptych (detail), Checkpoint Charlie (2003).JPG[edit]

Undelete these files. Please insert {{OTRS|2012122710010947}}.

Thanks. Willy Weazley 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Douglas&District.jpg[edit]

Hi, user Rapsar deleted this image as it is 'Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)'. It's the logo of our football club, Douglas & District FC from the Isle of Man, so why was it deleted? The logo features the Barclays Bank logo as the club was originally Barclays. Please see this link on our web page: http://www.douglasanddistrictfc.com/clubhistory.htm, I am the secretary please see this page for proof: http://www.douglasanddistrictfc.com/clubdetails.htm, we created the logo and image ourselves in 2008.

The same happended in 2010 to our D&d.jpg image, deleted by 99kerob.

Please advise.

--Davemathieson (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (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) 00:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Robby Robinson Wikipedia.png [edit]

File:Robby Robinson Wikipedia.pngRRWM (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The image comes from http://robbyrobinson.net/index.php. In order to host it on Commons we would need an explicit declaration of a free license at the source or for permission from the copyright holder to be sent to COM:OTRS. INeverCry 04:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paper_MetroCaracas.JPG [edit]

I request a temporary undeletion in order to move this file to a new project, in commemoration of the Metro de Caracas' 30th Anniversary (January 2nd, 2013).

Staalwart (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored both files temporarily so that you can transfer them. You can either let me know when you're done, or I'll re-delete them tomorrow. INeverCry 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ssr[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Correct OTRS permissions for these files were sent by OTRS email from "sashkina", please undelete, these files were heavily used but were uploaded too early to previously have correct permissions. ssr (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. The files have been restored. INeverCry 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cydia_corriendo_en_iOS_6_con_un_iPhone_3GS.png [edit]

I take the image from my iPhone 3GS, inspired in the English Wikipedia (i use Spanish)

Inspired in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ScreenshotofCydia.jpg

And that image is from MY IPHONE.

✓ Done: Freely licensed software. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:46, 5 January 2013 (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]

File:Example.jpg --Nappeun11 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your request? The file has not been deleted or even edited for the last nine months. It is widely used. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Malformed request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Imi-Lichtenfeld-&-Ami-Niv.jpg [edit]

Hi! I work with Ami Niv a long time and all his own matherials I have all rights to use in my internet publishing. In his own site Aiki Krav Maga Ami Niv in metateg <autor> you can read my name and my own e-mail address. Thank you!

 Not done: We must have proof that you are who you claim to be. Therefore, please send an email to COM:OTRS to verify your identity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mumbai Monorail (11).jpg [edit]

I want to undelete me file File:Mumbai Monorail (11).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naikshweta747 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 5 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file is watermarked www.team-bhp.com which suggests that it may not be your work. If it is your work, please have www.team-bhp.com confirm that using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MaloneHoard.JPG[edit]

Deleted as part of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ulster Museum. The closing admin (User:Jameslwoodward) stated, "the stones, as laid out, would qualify as a sculpture in many places, including both the UK and the US". However this is a photograph of a hoard of neolithic stone axes laid out as thery were found. In no way should such a museum display be considered a work of modern art (and even if it were, it would be allowed under {{FoP-UK}}). BabelStone (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the museum display is laid out as the stones were found is completely contradicted by the description in the image file, which says:
"When they were found during work on the land surrounding Danesfort House some were standing upright in the ground which also indicates ritual."
Notwithstanding that, I am persuaded by your point that the display is covered by the UK's very broad FOP. It is too bad that no one brought this up in the DR and that I completely ignored that possibility. Sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

The photo is not in violation of any copyright. It was taken with express permission for use on Wikipedia.[edit]

The Fenway photo you deleted is not a violation. I have express permission to utilize this photo for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croonerman (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean File:Brian Evans at Fenway Park.jpg. The image appears on MySpace, which is all rights reserved. Note that "express permission for use on Wikipedia" is not a sufficient license for use on Commons or WP:EN. Both projects require a free license to use anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Please have the copyright holder (probably the photographer) provide such a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Not a violation![edit]

I added this photo to coincide with the story, and to provide confirmation that this music video for which I was speaking of did actually take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croonerman (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please do us all the courtesy of providing links to the images you want restored instead of making us guess. Please understand that we delete between 1,500 and 2,000 images every day. Also please sign your posts, using four tildes ~~~~ which adds your signature and a timestamp.
I think you are requesting restoration of File:Helen Bousquet and Narada Michael Walden.jpg. This image appears at this site. In order to have the image restored, please have the copyright holder (usually the photographer) provide a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:IMG 2602.jpg[edit]

It was simply a redirect to File:Kenroku-en, Kanazawa.jpg. This existed (whether as the file name or as the redirect) from 2007 to 2012, when it was deleted as an "unnecessary, unused redirect". First off, deletion isn't helpful because it makes it possible for someone to upload another image under this name, so it's necessary. Secondly, it was used at en:Monuments of Japan. Thirdly, it may well be linked from elsewhere on the Internet; it's not helping reusers if we break their links. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:riachuelo.jpg [edit]

Quiero usar la foto que YO saqué. Stanleyharveyeisen (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The image comes from http://www.innovar.gob.ar/blog/in-blog/urbano/entrevista-alberto-gauna-innovar-2009. Explicit permission at the source, or OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:RLBRUNOHEAD.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hold the copyright. I took this photograph myself. Gspat1185 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The image comes from http://postpoliolitaff.org/postpolio/2011/spp-no-se-ocasiona-despues-de-una-caida/. Explicit permission at the source, or OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Alcatraz Island Lighthouse.jpg[edit]

I originally uploaded this file (International Digital Document ID xmp.did:0180117407206811B1A4C72DECC8C330) to the en:Wikipedia in mid 2009. It is a digitally enhanced illustration which I created on January 26, 2004 from an original digital photograph that I took on December 31, 2003. I am the sole creator and copyright holder of both the original digital photograph and of all elements I used to create the final digital illustration which I then released and licensed to the Public Domain. The file was apparently later transferred to Commons by another user.

At 19:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) a notice was posted on my Commons talk page that this file had been deleted with no advance notice whatsoever that there was a problem with its permissions or copyright status. (No such notice was posted on my talk page until six minutes after the first notice that the deletion was already a fait accompli.) As the file and its host page are no longer visible, I have no idea what the alleged issue is with the image file so I have no way to address it.

If the issue is "permissions" I provided that when I freely licensed it to the Public Domain in 2009 when I uploaded the image to the en:Wikipedia. Please therefore either restore this image forthwith or provide me some explanation as to why it was unilaterally deleted without prior notice or explanation. Centpacrr (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image appeared to be a copyvio because http://scchousing.net/Images/City%20Scapes/alcatraz.jpg has slightly higher resolution and therefore appeared to the deleting Admin to be the source. Copyvios are deleted immediately without notice.
Given your long record on WP:EN and only slightly shorter record here, I am inclined to think that the other image is derived from yours, rather than the other way around, but policy requires us to be careful in such situations. Perhaps you could do a little research and find out what actually happened? You might also want to tell scchousing.net that they must either conform to the CC-BY-SA license or take your image off their site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that altered image is clearly derived from mine and not the other way around. One can easily determine this as the derived image and not the original as the "light" on the top of the lighthouse tower is missing, and it is also cropped more closely on the left and right borders than my image thus could not possibly be the original image. In addition at 94kb it is also not a "higher resolution" image than my original.
Apparently the "scchousing.net" image was taken from Commons and altered without providing credit as to where it came from. However as I released my image in the Public Domain, I effectively gave permission when I did so that it could be used in this way. You can see from a Google image search that this image is currently used on many other sites. (Also none of the others of these versions are missing the "light" on the top of the lighthouse tower nor are they as closely cropped as the derivative image.)
As noted above, I am the original creator of the image, own its copyright outright, and long ago made it Public Domain on my own site (DigitalImageServices.com) which contains a link to its Wikipedia Commons page, and would like it to be restored to Commons so that it can be used to illustrate articles on EN:WP and the many other Wikipedia projects as well as be freely available to others who wish to use it on their own sites in conformance with CC-BY-SA. I would also appreciate if the image could be restored to the four non-EN:WP pages from which it was delinked. (I have already restored a new non-Commons version of my image to the EN:WP pages on which it appeared.)
If you have a suggestion on how to mark this image on WP to avoid this happening again I would appreciate that being done. Centpacrr (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me to be pretty straightforward. Clearly this should be restored. I think the simplest way to prevent this happening again would just be to copy this discussion to its talk page once it is restored. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. Message added to image talkpage per Jmabel. INeverCry 03:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ikarus IO 2.jpg [edit]

File:Ikarus IO 2.jpg --Dusanbasic (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg [edit]

I have been given full permission to use this picture. The owner of this picture is Lawrance A. Bohm. He personally took the picture, posted it on another website, and owns the copyright. Mr. Bohm has given me full permission to use this picture. Bjm99c (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wakemansp.jpg [edit]

I am a photographer and a journalist. I took that picture on a Rick Wakeman´s show in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 21th november, 2012.

I took that Rick Wakeman´s photo. Please, undelete it.

I did not violate any copyright because o took that picture. Please, undelete it. Thanks,

All my pictures from that show are on my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.382946115122082.89685.100002200905572&type=3

If you search that image on google, you will find it on my personal blog (in portuguese, but you can translate it):

http://aureliojornalismo.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/resenha-rick-wakeman-viaja-ao-passado.html

Search on youtube by "rick wakeman sao paulo" and you will find my videos from that show, with the same camera that I used to took that picture, and the same angle, prooving that I took the picture.

Please, undelete it. That´s my legitimate work.


Aureliomoraes30 (talk), 4 January 2013

Wakemansp.jpg [edit]

"Professor Asdrubal" is my nickname on realidade.org forum.

http://realidade.org/forum/index.php/topic,21083.msg355655.html#msg355655 This is my account. And this is my Facebook´s link! https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/604015_382946518455375_1941871319_n.jpg

My full album from that show is here:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.382946115122082.89685.100002200905572&type=3


I sent a hello for Gunnex here:

http://realidade.org/forum/index.php/topic,21083.msg365417.html#msg365417 Please, undelete it.

Aureliomoraes30 (talk), 4 January 2013

File:Wakemansp [edit]

I am the author of that picture, as you can check in my blog.. http://aureliojornalismo.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/resenha-rick-wakeman-viaja-ao-passado.html

or this printscreen of the pictures of Rick Wakeman´s show In Sao Paulo, Brazil. I took this printscreen from ,my computer


http://i45.tinypic.com/28cejy1.jpg DSCN2684 is Wakemansp.jpg! Please, undelete it.

Aureliomoraes30 (talk), 4 January 2013

 Not done: The photo you are talking about right now is not the same as the photo you originally uploaded. The version you uploaded is a head-and-shoulders portrait of him against a white background. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lauren Fix Media Personality and Car Expert.jpg[edit]

We are in the process of updating Lauren Fix's wiki. I have permission to use the attached file. Cengelaer (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ari_Herstand_face.jpg [edit]

File:Ari_Herstand_face.jpg was deleted on copyright grounds by INeverCry but I am the sole owner of this photo and I gave it the standard wikimedia license when uploading it. Puponpup (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I deleted this image because it comes from http://ariherstand.com/media.php. INeverCry 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you, Puponpup, in fact took the photo, please have ariherstand.com/media.php send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS and it will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that won't help, because the website has no publicly available email. You would be better off putting a notice that the photo is licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 on the website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Hi. This image should be undeleted. It was first published in Spain in july 1932 and deleted on May 2012 because, it was said, " That's less than the 80 years required by Spanish law to be into the public domain". Nowdays, 80 years have elapsed so the image is in the public domain. Thank you. Cvbr (Talk) 01:56, 05 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Also

Hi. This image should be undeleted. It was first published in Spain in 1933 and deleted on May 2012 because, it was said, " That's less than the 80 years required by Spanish law to be into the public domain". Nowdays, 80 years have elapsed so the image is in the public domain. Thank you. Cvbr (Talk) 01:59, 05 Jan 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Spanish law requiring 80 years -- the magic number is 70. However, it is usually 70 years after the death of the author. 70 years after publication applies only if the author chose to publish the work anonymously.
Therefore, in order for these images to be restored you must prove in each case either:
  • the author died before 1943, or
  • the author chose to publish the work anonymously. Please note that the fact that we may not know who the author says nothing about this question. "Unknown" does not prove "anonymous".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually according to w:List of countries' copyright length, it is 80 years for deaths before 1987, or in the case of anonymous publication, publication before 1987. If that is wrong, can you point us to a Spanish publication indicating otherwise? It may be in Spanish or English. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at COM:CRT#Spain, it seems that it is always 80 years since death of the author if the author died before 7 December 1987. If the author died before that date, it says that you should use the old copyright law, and the old copyright law lists no separate copyright term for anonymous works, which may mean that the term for anonymous works also is life+80 years if the author is anonymous. Anyway, anything first published in 1923 or later is still protected by copyright in the United States per COM:URAA. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the pictures from the website of the Spanish National Library, (pdf ancient publications): http://www.bne.es/en/Catalogos/HemerotecaDigital/. I think the magazine's name is "Mundo Gráfico" (Graphic World). They were published without author's reference. I do not remember the exact number/month of publication (that information was included in the description...Maybe you could tell me this data if you can retrieve it, and then I'll show you the link to the magazine in pdf). On the other hand there are thousends of photos published before 1942/1933 with no reference to author, and I'd like to know if I an entiltle to publish them on Wikimedia Comons. Thanks!. Cvbr (Talk) 19:59, 06 Jan 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Spanish works made in 1923 or later can't be uploaded. Many Spanish works made before 1923 can't be uploaded either. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please remember that "we don't know the author's name" is not the same as "published anonymously". In order to use the "published anonymously" provisions of any country's copyright law, you need to show that the author deliberately did not take credit for the work at its first publication or any time thereafter. Proving that is usually very difficult. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 19:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DR 1942 820 Postkongreß.jpg and File:DR 1942 823 Postkongreß.jpg[edit]

Request temporary undeletion

It's 2013, so these files are in the public domain in Germany now. Not in the United States, however. So these two files should be

  • temporarily undeleted,
  • given the following license tags: {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} [[:1 January 1996:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA|{{Germany}}]]
  • and then be moved to the German language Wikipedia.

-- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the appropriate templates on DeWiki? Commons templates won't work there. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate template is de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-§134-KUG. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author died 1973. --Martin H. (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not important in this case, because his name is not mentioned on the stamp. See the copyright template. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author does not have to be mentioned on the stamp, I believe. All that is needed is that the author acknowledged creating the stamp some time during their life, in which case the stamps are not PD until January 1, 2044. -- Avi (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion about the introduction of this template in the German language Wikipedia. German stamps are in the public domain 70 years after their edition if the were edited before 1966 and the author is not mentioned on the stamp. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See w:de:Datei:DR 1942 820 Postkongreß.jpg and w:de:Datei:DR 1942 823 Postkongreß.jpg -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded to DeWiki. -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marina (Anna Bonaiuto) e Giovanni (Andrej "Kolya" Chalimon) in "Prima la Musica, poi le Parole".jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is a frame of my own film "Prima la musica, poi le parole" Fulvio Wetzl (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Probably the best way to do this is to go through the process at COM:OTRS (or COM:OTRS/it), because otherwise I imagine someone else will just end up deleting it again for the same (incorrect) reason. Also, in the email that you send per COM:OTRS, you might want to word it more broadly to get a ticket number you can apply to similar uploads in the future, and also reference the situation on your own user page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:منظمة الحرية 1.jpg [edit]

I'm the owner myslef !!, I own all the copyrights of this file, as I designed it my self ! --Ne.pas12 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeIf this is a personal logo, then it should not be restored. Such things are out of scope because they have no educational purpose. If the logo is for an organization, then even though you designed it, the copyright will belong to the organization and we must have the organization's permission. Further, since the organization is named only as "Freedom Organization" with no other description, the logo is not useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AbhinayaAnand.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir,

I am Here to promote and there are no copyrights over the file i have uploaded and its completely open available.

Thanks and regards Seshasai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seshasaimaddela (talk • contribs) 2:00, 9 January 2013‎ (UTC)

 Oppose

  1. This image appears on Flickr with All Rights Reserved. If you are the Flickr user, please either change the license on Flickr or provide a license to Commons using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
  2. At first glance it looks like this image is a personal image of a person who is not notable. If that is the case it is out of scope and does not belong on Commons even with a license. See COM:Scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done ARR on Flickr. License change at source or COM:OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 17:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tennessee Cave Salamander.jpeg[edit]

This file should not be deleted because the person to whom this file belongs and the website to which it was uploaded, specified in the file information, clearly stated that as long as the file's origin was attributed to him, the file could be used for any personal or academic purposes. I strongly encourage for this file not to be deleted since the owner's wishes were maintained in regards to the copyright.

This is a direct quote from the owner: "Using this photo The thumbnail photo (128x192 pixels) on this page may be freely used for personal or academic purposes without prior permission under the Fair Use provisions of US copyright law as long as the photo is clearly credited with © 2010 Matthew Niemiller."

Omniscient13 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That is not a sufficient license for use on Commons. We do not accept images under Fair Use, and require that all of our images be freely licensed for any use, anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Please read Commons:Licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 17:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark Van Hoen May 2012.jpg [edit]

I am the owner of this photograph, having taken it myself in May of last year. I am a friend of the person in the photograph. It has not been downloaded from the web, but imported form my camera, edited and uploaded. Here is a link link to the original photograph that the image was cropped from. The original does not appear anywhere else on the web. Kind regards, David Greenfield Gongspoon (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support INC, this looks convincing to me, but it's your deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The Sapphires circa 1965.jpg [edit]

This photo is a privately owned copyright band photo circa 1965, for which I have submitted a WP:CONSENT form. I believe this photo enhances the article. Jacques Koolen (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Jacques KoolenJacques Koolen (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 11 January 2013[reply]

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

File:MLB Licensed photo of Brian Evans and Helen Bousquet.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of the copyright of this photo. It's use online has been provided by me (Reuters, etc). I have sent an email confirming my rights. Croonerman (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the image you should be able to upload it with EXIF information intact which would help validate your assertion? --Herby talk thyme 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old photo, so EXIF information makes no sense here. Could you upload it without the PhotoFile.com watermark at the bottom left and the MLB watermark at the bottom right? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 8 January 2013 (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) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg [edit]

Regarding the below file/image, I was given this response: File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg

I have been given full permission to use this picture. The owner of this picture is Lawrance A. Bohm. He personally took the picture, posted it on another website, and owns the copyright. Mr. Bohm has given me full permission to use this picture. Bjm99c (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see below message from the copyright holder of this image giving permission to use this file/image.

Bradley J. Mancuso


From: Lawrance Bohm Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:04 PM To: Brad Mancuso Subject: Re: BLG: Wikipedia Page

Yes to both ?s

Kind regards,

Lawrance A. Bohm Trial Attorney Bohm Law Group 4600 Northgate Blvd, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95834 916-927-5574 916-927-2046 (fax) www.BohmLaw.com

This message has been sent from my mobile device. Please forgive any typographic errors. This communication may be privileged attorney client or contain attorney work product. If you have received this communication in error please let me know and delete the communication.


On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:53 PM, "Brad Mancuso" <Brad@bohmlaw.com> wrote:

> Please respond to these questions and I will forward them to Wikipedia: > > Are you the copyright holder of the attached picture? > Do I have permission to use the attached picture? > > Image: Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg > > Bradley J. Mancuso > > <lawrance-bohm.jpg>

Bjm99c (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have three problems with this.

The first is that this appears to be a professional, posed, portrait. It looks to me very unlikely that the subject took it himself as claimed above. It is far more likely that the copyright is owned by the photographer.

The second is that the permission above is very casual. There is absolutely no indication that Mr. Bohm understands that he is licensing the use of his image for use anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Although it doesn't say so, I think what appears above amounts to a Wikipedia only license.

The third is that the WP:EN article-to-be (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm) reads like a sales brochure for Mr. Bohm's services. I am uncomfortable with Commons supporting what looks like a publicist's work. Bradley J. Mancuso, who is our requester here and the sole author of the article at WP:EN, works for Mr. Bohm.

Therefore, as INC says above, we need both a license from the actual photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS and some consideration of whether this violates COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 18:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dokdo-Gun.JPG [edit]

Please restore the image I have listed above. I took this picture myself and are the owner of its copyright.

Thank you very much!Ulleungdont (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated that the source of the image was http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/gallery-2, which is Copyright © 2009-2013 All Rights Reserved. INeverCry 18:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ulleungdont said on en-wp that that is his own website, which sounds at least plausible, and he has been advised on how to provide licensing evidence. I've replaced the "copyvio" tags on his other uploads with "no permission" tags for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 12 January 2013 (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) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMMEDIATE COPYRIGHT INFORMATION.[edit]

To Whom it May Concern: I was asked to provide some photo’s for a Wikipedia page about me and the Moon Rock Project. What is frustrating is even though the person who posted the pictures did it correctly and even though I provided a detailed explanation for how I obtained the rights or permissions to each, to this address previously, periodically one or another of these pictures gets taken down by a party that apparently cannot be communicated with. For example, the other day a picture showing a book cover by Joe Kloc and published by the Atavast was taken down. Yet here is the permission to use this by Joe Kloc and the Atavist. Joe Kloc, the author and illustrator, sent me the link to be used. Likewise, a picture was taken down today with me and my grandson in it. The photographer for Clear Lake Independent School District advised me that Clear Lake ISD has a fair use policy and that I could allow Wikipedia to use it. Yet that one was also taken down and is still down. Is there some way that a notice could be posted letting the parties taking the pictures know that they are allowed? The graduate students working on this page are getting frustrated. Dear Sir: My name is Joseph Gutheinz and I donated pictures to the Joseph Gutheinz Wikipedia page some of which have been challenged. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gutheinz Here is an explanation of each.

1. The first picture is a publicity picture of me taken in my office for which I have full use rights to, that I gave to WildWeb Studio’s that posted the picture.

2. The second picture is of Ross Perot and me when I was a Federal Agent, the picture was taken of me by another Federal Agent with no restrictions as to use. We were both on duty at the time.

3. The third picture was of me with a pointer with two DCAA Auditors in it. It was taken by a NASA Photographer and distributed to the press and me and there NASA does not prohibit its use. In fact NASA provided me a copy within the past few weeks.

4. The 4th picture was created by NASA for me when I was a Federal Agent and is part of a public handout I was permitted to distribute. I have used the handout while teaching and in two speeches.

5. The 5th picture is of Postal Inspector Bob Cregger and myself while we were both on duty, taken with my camera by another on duty Federal Agent form U.S. Customs.

6. The Medal was acquired from a Public source.

7. The picture of the Mir was acquired by Wild Web Studios from a public source.

8. The picture of Sandra Shelton was provided by Sandra Shelton with permission to use it in Wikipedia.

9. The picture of my granddaughter and I was provided taken on my camera by her mother, Sarah Gutheinz with permission for me to use it as I see fit.

10. The picture of Elizabeth Riker was given by Elizabeth Riker for the Wikipedia page with her permission to use it. She has already used it once with a story she wrote for the Capital City Weekly in Juneau Alaska.

11. The eleventh picture down from the top was taken by the Clear Creek Independent School District and I was given permission to use it by the photographer.

12. The picture of the Case of the Missing Moon Rocks cover authorized for use by both Joe Kloc, the author and artist and by the publisher, the Atavist.

13. The last picture is another NASA picture, where it was sent to me without restriction. Which is NASA’s policy about the use of its pictures.

NOTE: I also donated some family pictures that are not up yet, they are: 1. A picture of my father in the Korean War taken by a Marine. –My father’s camera.

2. A picture of my father in the Vietnam taken by a Marine.-My father’s camera.

3. A picture of my father in or about 1960, taken at his home by a friend or family member.-Taken with his camera.

4. A picture of me and my sister Dianne taken by a family member in 1984.

5. A picture of the Gutheinz family taken in 1987, with no restrictions provided as to its use.

January 11,2013 Miriahsoliz (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (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) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:407504 104623496329127 1983611605 n (1).jpg) [edit]

Hi , I have been working on my fathers wiki profile in last 2 days , and I have realized that wiki deleted my picture , i have the right to distribute and use this photo , its my fathers and i am working on his be half , please re-upload it to his profile thank you

best regards

File:407504 104623496329127 1983611605 n (1).jpg)

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%D9%85%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Mehmani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad88iran (talk • contribs) 11:29, January 11, 2013‎ (UTC)

You not have the right to declare yourself the author or to say that this is entirely your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Martin said. If you were not the photographer and do not have rights to re-license this photo, then it is not suitable for Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hippeutis complanatus - Germain - Faune de France 1930 Fig 490-491.jpg [edit]

The image is already in public domain worldwide since January 1, 2013. Author: Louis Germain (1878-1942). {{PD-old-70}} Published in France. --Snek01 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if I remember French copyright law correctly, the term was extended past 70 years for things that are published before WWII. I seen it where it doesn't apply to photographs, but I think a Frenchman could explain it better to me. Yet, I have to agree with Stefan that restoration would not be possible due to the URAA. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete -FASTILY (TALK) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Odd Henrik Johnsen Scuba Diving.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted, and I do not understand why? The picture is taken by me, and the person I took it of told me it was okay to use on wikimedia commons before he passed away in 2010. We were in family. Please restore this file asap as it was a good picture and used in several articles here on wiki. And I do not understand how someone simply can delete a photo without letting me know? Gulosten (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the picture does not exsist any other place on the internet if that is of inportance, also, when restored, will the picture be re-added to all its articles? Gulosten (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"okay to use on wikimedia commons" is not a sufficient permission. See Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. Also you provided wrong information with your uploads: its not entirely your own work, you are not the photographer and it is not created in 2013. Aditionally edits like this or this to Wikipedia are spam, quite simply. Even if the file will be restored or will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons sometimes in the future it should not be added to that articles in that way again. --Martin H. (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2013 (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) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I've actually taken the picture and also scanned it myself, the picture is of my father Odd, and taken on a little island outside of Bodø where he tried his new underwater camera box for the first time with his diving company "Polardykk AS" (means Polar diving), it was one of the first underwater cameras in Bodø at that time, and I remember it well since he was very proud. I was about 15-16 years old at that time, I can just remember it was taken around late 1960s, probably 68 or 69. I thought the date when uploading a picture was the time it uploaded, and not the date, so that is my bad. I schould have added a better description, I wanted to show the early photographyequipment and photoequipment of the 1960s. I will send an email, but would appreciate your help in restoring the picture as I feel it is a good picture that schould be given to commons. Best regards Gulosten (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Candy Choi Photo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am creating a page for Candy Choi with her permission to use the picture, she is right next beside me. Please undelete the files thanks. Also I do not understand why the files are deleted in the first place. Simonkuong84 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please check your email for a response. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dutch Parliament symbols[edit]

File:Coat of arms of the Staten Generaal.svg, File:Coat of arms of the Eerste Kamer.svg and File:Coat of arms of the Tweede Kamer.svg were deleted as part of a larger group of Dutch coats of arms which had a lion on them that was deemed non-free because it was direved from some non-free source or something like that. Most of the files in question got a new free lion added to them so they could stay, but these three got overlooked. I would like them undeleted, and then the free lion from File:Arms of the Netherlands (with crown).svg imposed. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored these so the fix can be done. INeverCry 21:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll work on the fix now. Fry1989 eh? 21:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lord Rama's Birth Details.JPG [edit]

The above file was uploaded by me like several others during last few months. It fulflls all conditions of Wiki. Somebody raised incorrect objection like copyright of the painting/picture of the upload may be with somebody, which is untrue and I had explained the reason. Painting from which Photograph is taken is the property of our organisation 'Rashtriya Yodha Smarak Samiti' and only we hold the copyrights of this upload. Please undelete the upload.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This file was deleted properly and there is, as yet, no evidence of Sudhirkbhargava's claims. User:Jameslwoodward has already told you what you need to do to get it restored - please read his response to your request at User talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Rama's Birth Details.JPG. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As Philosopher has pointed out, there are several issues here. First, we have no evidence that the copyright is held by the owners of the painting. Second we have no evidence that User:Sudhirkbhargava has anything to do with the organization that he or she says owns the painting. Both could be solved by proper OTRS evidence. There are also two other questions -- the copyright in the star map which is included in this work and whether this bit of personal speculation is within scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status. No consensus to undelete. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wilians.JPG [edit]

--OderbrechtOriginal (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation, as well all of your other uploads. Trijnsteltalk 16:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ISN 1017.jpg[edit]

This was one of the redirection deleted without any meaningful explanation by former administrator User:Jcb in the final months of his administratorship, when they closed Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan.

I requested restoration of most of the deleted redirects at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-07# Request to undelete some redirects...

There are about 900 files connected with WikiLeaks highly controversial publication of formerly secret JTF-GTMO assessments of the Guantanamo captives' risk factors and history. Because the WikiLeaks site was under a serious denial of service attack uploading these important files took well over one hundred hours of my time, spread over about two months.

My first undeletion request took almost two months to close -- far too long. The long delay ended wasting about two dozen hours of my time.

File:ISN 1017.jpg is the one last redirection that the former administrator deleted that it would be useful to have restored, and I request its restoration. I explained why these redirections were useful in the first request for undeletion, and various other places, so I won't repeat the explanation yet another time.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you sincerely believe them to be useful, go ahead and recreate them then. I don't believe this is actually controversial enough to require a UD request -FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ken_Niimura.jpg [edit]

Dear Sirs:

I have found that you deleted a photograph I made to cartoonist Ken Niimura in Tokyo, in February 2012. This same picture is also used in this website, http://kittyrobot.jp/celeb.htm, but I am the only author and copyright holder of it.

You can directly ask to Ken Niimura through his blog ( http://niimurablog.blogspot.jp/ ) in order to verify the situation.

Thank you for your attention.

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) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Col M N Gray MBE RM, Commanding Officer FPGRM, 2011.jpg[edit]

This file is already in the public domain at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-gray-mbe/19/550/926. I have released the photograph as it is owned by me.

Galapagosshark (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the photographer? Simply owning a copy of a photograph does not allow you to license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the photographer, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. Otherwise, this photo is not acceptable on Commons as per the reasoning Jim gave above. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jackie Chan.jpg [edit]

Quisiera saber por qué se ha borrado una buena imagen del actor Jackie Chan. Que me den motivos. Yo solo ayudo a que su perfil en Wikipedia esté vivo y actualizado. Pueden ver mis últimos aportes si lo desean. Deberían dejar de molestar a la gente que contribuye a que Wikipedia sea una enciclopedia online mejor cada día. Sino así nos quitan las ganas de hacer cosas. Wikipedia desaparecerá a este paso :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfoxes (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted as having unclear copyright status. 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) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Arne May 2007.jpg[edit]

Permissions from Arne May and from the photographer Amin Akhtar for File: Arne May 2007.jpg have been send to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' today. --Friedrich K. (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will restore the file for you once they process the email you claim to have sent. They are very busy at the moment, so please give it a few days. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ulatowskiKM.jpg)[edit]

Reason of my request is that the file was published in Poland in ALBUM LEGIONÓW POLSKICH edited by GŁÓWNA KSIĘGARNIA WOJSKOWA in Warsaw in 1933. Łukasz Ulatowski (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted as missing source information. You are welcome to re-upload the file, but be sure to specify a source; otherwise, the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:gs_relacje_11.jpg [edit]

As JOSM is released on GNU GPL licence, therefore all screenshots of it have free licence and should be allowed.

Regards, --Gsapijaszko (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done [1] non-free derivative works are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Freja Loeb.jpg[edit]

I have contributed to Wikimedia with af photo of the Danish singer Freja Loeb.jpg that I have taken myself. I have the same photo on my personal Flickr-page. I can't see why that is a problem? It's my photo - and why shouldn't I be able to show it on my Flickr-account and at the same time donate it to Wikimedia? Like I wrote (wonder if anyone read it before they deleted the photo), I am not a lawyer - just a keen photographer. Will someone be so kind and tell me how I can post a photo to both my Flickr and to Wikimedia. Thanks. Regards--Kimcml (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2013 (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) 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those unclear to what this refers, I think the deletion discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freja Loeb.jpg. -84user (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another option may be to post a comment on the Flickr page indicating that it is the same user; that in turn should validate any licensing done by the Wikipedia user account. (Of course, changing the license on the Flickr image would work great as well.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMS Goeben Stapellauf.jpg[edit]

Deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yavuz Schwimmdock.jpg. Appears to satisfy {{PD-Ottoman}}{{PD-1923}}, same as File:SMS Goeben Seeflieger.jpg, and in fact is dated even earlier than that photo. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Someone can take this back to COM:DR if necessary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Al Jazeera-M23 troops in Bunagana 3.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files -originally located at Al Jazeera flickr galery (under CC-by license)- were deleted after a deletion request because photographer was Peter Greste, not Al Jazeera. However Peter Greste works for Al Jazeera as correspondent in East Africa. Peter Greste Twitter profile and Al Jazeera professional profile confirms it. If I am wrong, please, delete this other related file uploaded by me. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:bigamericanbulldog.jpg File:bigamericanbulldogs.jpg[edit]

Hi, I took both these pictures and I own both the dogs inquestion, please could the be undeleted, thanks brett staniforth--Brettstan (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It was previously published on http://www.bigamericanbulldog.co.uk. If you are the owner of this website, then please put up a note on the website saying that the photos are licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Isaiah Scroll.jpg [edit]

The photograph of the Isaiah scroll is my own photograph of my company's printed facsimile of the scroll. I have given permission for its use on my company's website www.facsimile-editions.com/en/ds and I also give permission for its use on wikipedia.

Please let me know if you require further information.

Mike Falter (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Michael Falter[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. INeverCry 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Fastily[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Authorized on OTRS. Ralgistalk 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 18:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dolomía calcinada.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Authorized on OTRS. Ralgistalk 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Consuelo Hernández[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Approved on OTRS. Ralgistalk 20:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RomanReyes2012-porAndreaCompton.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Authorized on otrs:6702161 and http://romanreyes.net/comunicado_wikimedia1.htm Ralgistalk 21:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Leonard Asper large.jpg [edit]

File:Leonard Asper large.jpg Photo owner personally granted permission to release photo to public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashnerer (talk • contribs) 16:24, January 14, 2013‎ (UTC)

 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. INeverCry 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alma_Elephant.jpg [edit]

I own full copyrights to this image and wish to use it to accompany a relevant Wikipedia page. How do I go about doing this in a legal and hassle-free way?

Thanks, NogaP (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has appeared here previously. Could you clarify how it ended up there (did you send it to them, do you own the website, etc.)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 January 2013 (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) 05:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:P1010060 mh4.jpg [edit]

I am new to Wikimedia Commons / Wikipedia. The subject of the photo is the singer Suzy Bogguss. I am Suzy's husband. I signed up here specifically to upload this picture to replace the one that had been there previously, (which Suzy does not approve of.) This picture new was taken by a fan of Suzy's who gave us written license to use in any way we choose.

Thank you, Doug Crider doug@suzybogguss.com Suzyguy (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please send an email to COM:OTRS explaining the details concerning this image. If everything checks out, the image will be restored. INeverCry 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:HHH Ray Enners Day.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the formally worded email from the copyright holder that was requested to prove it should be restored. It was emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Is this sufficient or what else needs to be done to expedite this? Joeentry (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission could take a week or more to process. After this happens, the file can be restored. INeverCry 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Bullwacker by John Weaver.jpg [edit]

Freedom of panorama is allowed as there was no copyright on the statue published in 1976. I had it deleted before I new of this PD law. I have done a search at http://www.copyright.gov/ and none of the sculptor's works are in the database.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Header link not working, added two more.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Actually, what you said is technically not true; FoP is not allowed, nor does it need to be allowed, as the original is PD. Think of FoP as an exception to copyright; when there is no copyright to begin with, there's no need to create exceptions to it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:135 8ulacitext.jpg[edit]

Hi I work at ULACIT and this is not a copyright violation. Please restore. If want to contact me feel free to do it at lmontenegro@ulacit.ac.cr

Thanks and please restore --MonLuis (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)MonLuis[reply]

 Not done. Please send an email to COM:OTRS explaining the copyright details for this image. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. INeverCry 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quesillo paceño.JPG[edit]

This photo was taken in 2009, I am the author of this photo taken by my own camera.Still keep in the memory of the camera and I have stored.

Is there anyone who can prove otherwise, I'm a public official of the city of La Paz Centro.

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) 05:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Cornerstone Or Zaruah synagogue photo.jpg the photo originally apears in Hebrew wikipedia and is granted free use permission to anyone in the public, therefore it is part of the English translatedarticle too[edit]

Dear Sirs The photo originally appears in Hebrew wikipedia entry and is granted free use permission to anyone in the public, therefore it is part of the English translated article too The English article should be identical to the Hebrew article therefore it should include the same photos. sincerely Carmel Avivi-Green

 Not done Unclear copyright status. 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) 05:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BT Horton.jpg[edit]

This file has been uploaded long before the OTRS process existed. You cannot ask for an OTRS proof more than five years after the upload was done. I herewith confirm that I did get the permission for this file for GFDL use in Wikipedia from the owner as stated in the file description. Please undelete the file. --Friedrich K. (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: This file was uploaded in 2007, so OTRS is required. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Clusterhead.jpg[edit]

This file has been uploaded long before the OTRS process existed. You cannot ask for an OTRS proof more than five years after the upload was done. I herewith confirm that I did get the permission for this file for GFDL use in Wikipedia from the owner as stated in the file description. Please undelete the file. --Friedrich K. (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Cluj-Napoca Orthodox Cathedral[edit]

I ask for the undelition of the following files:

  • File:Catedrala_Ortodoxă_din_Cluj.jpg - street scene with the cathedral towering huge over in the center of the image
  • File:CatedralaOrtodoxaCJ.JPG - panorama of the city, with the cathedral dead center, about 2/3 of the height of the image
    This goes under "Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.". It might be high (although I doubt the 2/3 ratio), but the cathedral takes at most 15-20% of the horizontal size, therefore is a small part of the whole picture.--Strainu (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CatedralaSfMihail (113).JPG - panorama of the city, with the cathedral dead center, about 2/3 of the height of the image
    Same as above.--Strainu (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cluj iarna.jpg - cathedral is half the image, the balance is a lighted tree and a snow covered tree, neither of which would be useful without the cathedral
  • File:Cluj-Napoca - CJ-II-m-B-07354.jpg - night scene with large, unlit, foreground crowd that is just a gray mass. The brightly lit cathedral is dead center, about 3/4 the height of the image
    So what you're saying is that if the photographer had used a flash, the image would have been acceptable? This is silly. It's a picture taken with the camera above the head, how much more can you ask from such a position?--Strainu (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cluj-Napoca, Avram Iancu Square.jpg - street scene with empty street, trees to the right and the cathedral about 1/3 of the image on the left. The cathedral is the only prominent object in the scene other than the trees, which are not notable
  • File:Catedrala Ortodoxă Cluj 10.jpg - interior view, with one of the most ornate, complex (and therefore original) chandeliers I have ever seen in the foreground, and the background covered with original art. In addition to the architecture, virtually everything in the image except the windows has a copyright. Some of the art may be de minimis, but not all of it is and certainly the chandelier isn't.

I think the phrase "The claims of de minimis are silly -- just because there are other buildings in the image does not make the principal subject de minimis." from Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Cluj-Napoca_Orthodox_Cathedral is a gross exaggeration. At least 1 of them was a picture of a gathering where the cathedral happened to appear, another one contained a panorama of the whole plaza and another had a chandelier which is not original enough for copyright. I think Jameslwoodward has not analyzed these pictures with enough attention and they should be discussed again.--Strainu (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have commented beside each of the images in the list above. I stand by my deletion, including the word "silly". With the possible exception of the last image, the cathedral is the only thing in any of the images that has any educational value. The test of de minimis is whether something would be missed from an image if it were cropped out. In all of these, if the cathedral were cropped out, the image would be out-of-scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above--Strainu (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to note that I'm only sticking to Commons:De minimis. Technically, under the Romanian law, every picture where the cathedral is not the main subject would not infringe the architect's copyright - that would certainly include these pictures and some others.--Strainu (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strainu says:
"Also, the cathedral is the tallest building in the area, it was meant to tower over the other buildings"
which is exactly correct. Not only the dome, but also the nave and transepts are taller than the surrounding buildings. As a result, the cathedral is inevitably the main subject of any image that includes it. Strainu goes on to say:
"There is not much one can do to prevent that."
which is also true, but it does not somehow free us from the requirement that we respect the copyright of the architects. This is precisely the reason that many countries have FOP -- it is hard to take pictures in cities that have recent architecture without infringing on the architect's rights. Unfortunately there is no FOP for commercial use in Romania. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, I think that law is daft, but we don't make decisions on whether or not we like law—we're obliged to follow it, not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our re-users. The claims of de minimis hold no weight as the cathedral is clearly the subject of the photos. In, for example, the first image, the inclusion of the surroundings is entirely incidental. The cathedral not only dominates, but does so to such an extent that the photos would be of next to no educational or informative value if they couldn't be used to illustrate the cathedral. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo eDarling.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Logo eDarling.jpg is freely available on http://www.edarling.de/presse/pressematerialien , or if you like on http://www.edarling.de/sites/www.edarling.de/files/logo_edarling.jpg . 655321Alex (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 17:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:grug.jpg [edit]

File:name Grug 1.jpg This photo is wrongly deleted this picture is my own work. I can guarantee you that this is entirely my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibnieuws (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Apart from the funny name, the picture File:Grug 1.jpg was stolen from http://www.footballzz.com/img/estadios/905/40905_ori_stade_olympique_de_sousse.jpg. Kind regards. Lymantria (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Copyvio per above. INeverCry 17:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Charlampowicz flat.png [edit]

Concerning photo was taken by me and also is spreaded at Internet and newspapers as ilustration news about Mr. Charlampowicz. After fews attemps of uploading this file my account was block. Please, showe me the way how to prove my rights for publishing this content.

--Cosmonova (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with some evidence that you are the owner of the work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nick Galis.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this photo because it is a photo of a basketball player legend who played 13 years for ARIS team and only two years in Panathinaikos team and someone puts a photo of Panathinaikos and tries to change the real history. Note that Nick Galis is ARIS fan and most historical player. I hope you will see the truth that many people demand for this page to see the right photo.Thank you.

 Not done: You must be the copyright holder of the image to be able to upload it here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Smithsonian Air and Space.jpg[edit]

PD no notice, per siris [2] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. All my pictures that I've put on wikipedia are my own work except the africa cup that are from internet that I honestly admit I'm not a thief my friends have told me that I could put pictures on wikipedia of the Internet and do you sent me those warnings I have not read them because I am a new'm on wikipedia I do not know how I can read messages on wikipedia

File:Leonard Asper large.jpg [edit]

This image was clared into the public domain by Leonard Asper, as per an email he submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashnerer (talk • contribs) 2013-01-16T19:38:43 (UTC)

 Not done. Permission is required from the photographer, not the subject. I have also informed Mr Asper of this through the OTRS system (ticket:2013011510016572). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a followup email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org containing the written approval to release the image into the public domain by the photographer. Thank you.
✓ Done: Ticket:2013011710010627. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Yort.jpg [edit]

I can assure you that these photos are my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibnieuws (talk • contribs) 09:08, January 17, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done. File:Yort.jpg comes from here, and File:Yont.jpg comes from here. These images belong to Reuters. INeverCry 20:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mounira Solh Portrait.JPG[edit]

Source: Own Work --Wikinayla (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. All my pictures that I've put on wikipedia are my own work except the africa cup that are from internet that I honestly admit I'm not a thief my friends have told me that I could put pictures on wikipedia of the Internet and do you sent me those warnings I have not read them because I am a new'm on wikipedia I do not know how I can read messages on wikipedia

File:Leonard Asper large.jpg [edit]

This image was clared into the public domain by Leonard Asper, as per an email he submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashnerer (talk • contribs) 2013-01-16T19:38:43 (UTC)

 Not done. Permission is required from the photographer, not the subject. I have also informed Mr Asper of this through the OTRS system (ticket:2013011510016572). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a followup email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org containing the written approval to release the image into the public domain by the photographer. Thank you.
✓ Done: Ticket:2013011710010627. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Yort.jpg [edit]

I can assure you that these photos are my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibnieuws (talk • contribs) 09:08, January 17, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done. File:Yort.jpg comes from here, and File:Yont.jpg comes from here. These images belong to Reuters. INeverCry 20:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mounira Solh Portrait.JPG[edit]

Source: Own Work --Wikinayla (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DU Daskalakis Athletic Center.jpg[edit]

PD no notice per SIRIS [3] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jorge_Minaya.jpg [edit]

This is the link to the original image:

http://juventud.gob.do/images/imagenes/jorge%20minaya%20ministro%20de%20la%20juventud%204.jpg

My name is Mario Herrera Hernández, like my username (Mariohh). I'm Techlology of Informations and Comunications Director of the Ministerio de la Juventud from Dominican Republic, i requesting that allow us to use this picture for our Minister of Young. As you can see this image bellow to us and we or i am autorizated to use it.

Thanks. Any custios cantact us/me trough the contact form from our website: juventud.gob.do, tel REMOVED of via email: REMOVED, REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariohh (talk • contribs) 2013-01-20T00:32:18‎ (UTC)

  •  Comment I have removed two e-mail addresses to keep spambots away. I have also removed a telephone number for privacy.
Special:Log tells that a file was uploaded at 2012-12-10T23:19:11 and that another file (possibly the same) was uploaded at 2013-01-02T22:04:55. On the other hand, the juventud.gob.do webserver tells that the copy on that server was last modified at 2012-11-09T20:45:14, which was more than a month before the file was uploaded to Commons. Since the file appeared outside Commons before it appeared on Commons, I think that you should contact OTRS and prove that you have the necessary permission. See COM:OTRS for details. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 07:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camille Renversade.jpg[edit]

Greetings,

I've been mandated by Camille Renversade (a friend of mine) to update the current portait on his wiki page. The last file I updated was the good one. The older picture was not representative of his current health state and somehow he disliked it. Since he his the main subject of the photography and since I have his authorization for upgrading it. I would like to know how this would be a violation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnox99 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are several reasons why this image is a problem.
  1. It has been previously published on the copyrighted web site http://www.jds.fr/agenda/spectacles/semaine-anglaise-51040_A.
  2. It appears there in the form of a post card, or perhaps an advertising card for the movie. That card has a copyright.
  3. Although Renversade may own a copy of this image, there is no evidence that he owns the copyright and has the right to freely license it, as required here. The copyright is almost certainly owned by the photographer.

Therefore, in order to restore the image on Commons, you will need to have the photographer or other actual copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Судьба (А.Бабаджанян - Р.Рождественский).ogg [edit]

Hello, I'd like to confirm you that all of files which were published here can not violate a copyright cause The Arno Babajanyan International Memorial Fund represented by the Fund Director and son of composer Ara Babajanyan and by The Head the board of trustees of the People's Artist of the USSR Armen Borisovich Dzhigarkhanyan entitles the singer Movsesian K.A. to performing rights and recording of all songs and duets, written by Arno Babajanyan. If you want you can write to M. Movsesyan kmovsesyan78@gmail.com and advise this information. Alenika (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This file hasn't yet been deleted, but OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed to keep it on Commons. INeverCry 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Rebeccacantrell.jpg[edit]

the reason for un-deletion is the photo was taken from the owners press pack on her website and as i stated in the talk page i have permission from the author to use any or all of the material including photographs on the website. --Blade in exile (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The source website states: Rebecca Cantrell © 2013. All Rights Reserved. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shakthisree.jpg [edit]

This picture doesn't have any copyright.. I took it from the Facebook page of shakthisree.. It's her profile pic.. I think it's not wrong to upload that pic here.. So pls undelete that pic nd add to shakthisree page..--Msudheercse (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All is wrong. Read Commons:Image casebook#Internet images for files that you find somewhere on other websites. The file entirely fails our free content requirements of Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. INeverCry 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please restore my pictures!![edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Those files are from my personal originals. i resized them so that they'll fit in and people will have an idea what i'm trying to describe in my article. - Fowl vet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowl vet (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

If they are actually your work, please upload them again at full size with the same names. The size you uploaded is not really useful and it is easy to make Commons images show as a thumbnail in an article. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

my files were deleted[edit]

Please, restore this files, they have no copyright:

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dobryana logo.png, File:Logo-kolyada.jpg[edit]

I don't have a lot of experience of uploading pictures here, that's why I copied a licence info from Danone spain.png and adopted it for my requests. Now I've faced pictures deleting. I'd like to ask you to restore my pictures

File:Dobryana logo.png and File:Logo-kolyada.jpg.

Or please, explain my what was my fault, THX --4ygaistr (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
You need to send a permission from the copyright holder of this logo, if you want it to be published here. See COM:OTRS for details. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Oksana Kolesnikova1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission received via ticket 2013011510016134. The author has released the image as CC-BY-SA-3.0 with attribution to Christopher Ameruoso. —Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 02:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Milad Tower[edit]

There is a request via OTRS that the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Milad Tower be restored. This is based on an understanding of FOP in Iran. The basic argument is that copyright of buildings only covers buildings, plans, models, etc. and does not cover pictures of the buildings. It refers to the "Law on protection of copyright and authors and artists" ratified 1348, Art. 2, Par. 7, as well as Article 3 and Article 5. A look at the law here left me unsure what he was trying to prove by reference to those sections.

He also uses this article (in English) as an authority, quoting that "The copyright act does not, however, prevent anyone from taking or painting pictures of any building visible from a public place, or displaying such pictures." That article, however, does not address Iranian law at any point.

Google Translate doesn't do a great job with Farsi, so I could be misunderstanding the arguments. To see the entire argument (in Farsi), see ticket:2012041010003126 - I didn't want to post the statement here directly because it is several paragraphs long and doesn't come with its own copyright release. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I am unconvinced. In fact, I would say that the no-FOP case is stronger in Iran in many other countries because the law is more explicit in several respects. The law (in English translation, as cited above) reads, in part:
"Article 2. Works protected by copyright law are as follows:
(1. - 6. omitted)
7. Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings.
(8. - 12. omitted)
Article 3. Author's rights include exclusive right to publish, broadcast, perform and publicize works, and further right to any financial and intellectual profit resulting from his work or name."
Article 2 is much broader than most country's law which read "architecture." -- this makes it very clear that the buildings are covered as well as plans, models, and drawings.
Fundamentally, copyright law regulates the making of copies of a copyrighted work. It is well established that those copies do not have to be in the same form -- you do not have to paint a copy of a painting to infringe the artist's copyright -- a photograph or a silk-screened tee shirt also infringe. A 2D photo of a 3D sculpture infringes.The interpretation put on it above would allow photographs of anything -- buildings, sculpture, paintings, books, etc. That would make the law toothless.
Finally, I might argue that Article 3 not only prevents photographs, but anything that publicizes the work. Thus one could argue that even a text article about a building infringes on the building's copyright, particularly if there were a commercial use. A literal reading of Article 3 would preclude Wikipedia's writing articles about works covered by the Iranian copyright law. While I am fairly confident that it is not actually applied that way, it is much more comprehensive than most other copyright laws in its description of author's rights -- I see no reason to read it more loosely than say, France. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please wait a few days to close this - I've invited the person who sent the message requesting undeletion to comment here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have translated the ticket content to English for better understanding the point he is trying to make. It's archived as a note under the same ticket number.-- Meisam (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

−

Thank you, that is helpful. I see that the sender is a professor of law in Iran, so his words have credibility. On the other hand, as I said above, it is well established that derivative works do not have to be in the same form. A photograph of any created work is a derivative work of the original, whether the original is text, photograph, oil painting, sculpture, or building. Our correspondent is reading into the law something that is not the case in any other country -- that somehow a photograph of a building is not a DW of the building. Despite the professor's statement, I am uncomfortable accepting that the Iranian use of copyright is so much weaker than that in other countries, particularly given the specific mention of "Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings" which is much more comprehensive than the US or France (among many others) which say simply "architecture". I am also concerned with Article 3, which our professor does not address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 18 January 2013

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 09:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg[edit]

Closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg (as well as my own statement there) seemed a bit hasty. DrKiernan provided evidence [4] (a print of the image from Mid-Week Pictorial (1914-1937), an American weekly of news pictures, labelled with the date 1933) showing that it was published in the United States in 1933. Since the original painting is itself dated 1933, simultaneous publication in the US within 30 days is a strong possibility - although difficult to prove, this is about the best evidence I've seen for simultaneous publication. A quick search of copyright renewal records turned up nothing, so there is a good chance it is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. In Europe it is already {{PD-old-70}}, as Laszlo died in 1937. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Yann already undeleted this work I've re-opened the UR because I believe he was too hasty in doing so - mere hours after the UR was opened on a file that is not clear-cut at all. I want to assess the broader consensus on works like this where we have limited evidence that the work may have been published within 30 days. Please give your opinion. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to find the exact date of publication of that magazine? Also, how do we know whether it was published with permission from the painter? The painting might have been published without a copyright notice in the UK in 1933. In that case, it immediately entered the public domain in the United States, and then it was possible to publish it in the United States without asking for permission from the painter. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read Vol XXXVII No. 22 July 15, 1933 as the date on the issue. It's not completely clear and the year is partially obscured, but it's consistent with the date on this, which is clearly April 22, 1933 Vol. XXXVII No. 10. 12 weeks after April 22 is July 15.
Stefan, do I misunderstand you? I don't think publication in the UK without notice put something in PD in the USA back then.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it mattered where it was published without copyright; all copies needed a copyright notice. It was a system designed to put most works, especially foreign works, in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it was concurrently published in the US within 30 days (see {{PD-URAA-Simul}}) this work was restored by the URAA (Laszlo died in 1937, UK copyright was ongoing in 1996), so notice was not required for its UK publication. The dates above suggest that the timespan was actually more like 12 weeks than 30 days, which would suggest that deletion is the way to go in the absence of further evidence. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that if it was published without notice in the UK in 1933, then it entered the public domain in the United States in 1933, and unless it was published in the United States within 30 days in 1933 with permission from the painter, then the copyright was restored in the United States. Also, if the painting already was in the public domain in the United States back in 1933, the US publisher didn't need to ask for permission from the painter when publishing the painting in 1933. For example, see s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister about a German painting which was exhibited in the United Kingdom without a copyright notice in 1894. No one questions whether a copyright notice was needed for copyright protection in the United States if the work was published in the United Kingdom, and the court only discusses whether this constituted publication or not (which it didn't since the museum didn't allow people to take photos at the museum). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Because it was PD at the time in the US a US magazine could publish it without permission or penalty, but that wouldn't constitute publication (by the copyright holder or with their permission), so there's definitely doubt about whether it's PD-URAA-Simul. Am I understanding correctly? Dcoetzee (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No consensus to restore. INeverCry 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Coats of arms of the former Yugoslav republics[edit]

I've nominated some images of the coats of arms of the former Yugoslav republics for deletion as lacking evidence of permission. The current situation is such that four of them have been deleted, whereas three of them have been kept. The files are the following:

I'm requesting undeletion of the deleted files per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Coats of arms of the former Yugoslav republics. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The Heart of No Place poster.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of this image. The poster image was created for the promotion of, and education about, the film "The Heart of No Place," which was produced and directed by me.--Nukeage (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC) January 21, 2013[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. INeverCry 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DudchenkoVS.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Today the author of this image sent his permission to OTRS (his e-mail - edoppg@gmail.com) Мария А. (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It can take 2 weeks or more for OTRS emails to be processed. Once the email sent by the author is processed, and if it's found to be sufficient, the image will be restored. INeverCry 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HondaNT650VDeauville2003.jpg[edit]

i do categorically and unreservedly affirm that this photo belongs to me, and only to me, and Martin_H illegaly deleted my photo in violation of wikipedia policy and regulations. Moreover i do categorically affirm that Martin_H has no proof whatsoever that this photo belongs to anyone else other than me. further, it is very distressing that there are people arbitrarily abusing wikipedia and deleting photos without any proof whatsoever. abusers of wikipedia like Martin_H are a known problem that endures wikipedia and Martin_H should be banned from deleting any more photos.

I deleted this image, not Martin_H. And please stay COM:MELLOW. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Honda NT650V Deauville model 2003.jpg

this photo is mine and nobody has the right to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuckx (talk • contribs)

These images were previously published elsewhere [5], so a formal permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 09:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saleem Gurmani Blouch.JPG [edit]

Saleem Abbas Gurmani from Kot addu Punjab, Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleemabbas (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

As stated right above, you need to state the reasons for your request. Please use at least one complete sentence to explain why you think the rationale in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saleemabbas does not apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No reason stated. INeverCry 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pokrajine spodnja stajerska.png[edit]

I think that as no source map has been identified in this case that this one could be derived from, we should assume good faith and keep the map as an "own work" (per exactly the same rationale as this map has been kept; see also [6]). The map has been nominated in this request, where other maps have been kept. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethamer.jpg[edit]

Collage was deleted under the explanation that one of the files in it was previously deleted due to "flickr washing" (c.f. [7]). However, the Kenna image in question was not actually taken from flickr. It's a Commons image, File:Kennauds.jpg, originally downloaded from the U.S. Department of State (c.f. [8]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Somauk.jpg[edit]

Collage was deleted under the explanation that one of the files in the middle of the bottom row had no source given (c.f. [9]). However, the image in question is on Commons and was cropped from File:Mo farah2.jpg, a file that was originally uploaded by a Londonyouthgames representative. Middayexpress (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Mo Farah shows a man in running clothes on a race track. The image in the bottom center of the collage shows a man in a business suit. They are probably the same man -- it's hard to tell for sure because their expressions are very different. They are clearly not the same image, so the assertion of no-source is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Mo Farah images have sources. File:20081214 mo farah.jpg was uploaded by Rudolphous via OTRS. File:Mo Farah3a.jpg was cropped from File:Mo farah2.jpg, which in turn was uploaded by a Londonyouthgames representative via OTRS. If the image permission's link on the deleted File:Somauk.jpg collage's description page is pointing to File:20081214 mo farah.jpg instead of to File:Mo Farah3a.jpg, it's perhaps because I accidentally forgot to update the link when I substituted the former pic for the latter during a collage update. Please confirm. Middayexpress (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support That appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Collages6.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received for this file. Thanks Hanay (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:25, 25 January 2013 (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]

kindly undelete and make the content appear,its in my profile as a publisher and editor i have uploaded the same and the books pictures and a short writeup.

Achievers book has been sensational product in the business circles in India-, it is a good piece of info- i request to undelete my profile and achievers info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biju Ninan (talk • contribs)

Nothing to be done. Yann (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Garythemovieimageheader.png[edit]

I own this image. I personally took the photograph and added text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brethaz (talk • contribs)

 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. INeverCry 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ragusa Selección.jpg[edit]

Los derechos de la página www.emol.com es libre, por lo que sacar cual quier imagen es este lugar es 100% legal. Mat-bv (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "Los Materiales y los Sitios Web, se encuentran protegidos bajo la legislación nacional y los tratados internacionales sobre propiedad intelectual e industrial ratificados por Chile y que se encuentran vigentes. Usted sólo podrá hacer uso estrictamente personal y no comercial de los Materiales y de los Sitios Web; y no podrá ceder, comercializar, vender, reproducir, distribuir, transmitir, modificar, alterar, transformar, publicar, almacenar, exhibir, copiar, editar, adaptar, preparar trabajos o sacar provecho de cualquier otra manera con todo o parte de los Materiales, o de los Sitios Web, sin autorización previa y por escrito dada por la Empresa y su propietario si éste fuere distinto de la Empresa, y siempre que en caso de haber tales autorizaciones, se cite la fuente. Usted deberá sujetarse a cualquier condición o restricción adicional, contenida en el Material que acceda a través de los Sitios Web." [10] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Nard. INeverCry 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DailyBoothV3Logo.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Temporary undeletion to allow transfer to English Wikipedia for fair use. Senator2029 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily restored it. Let me know when you've transferred it, or I can just re-delete it in a day or so. INeverCry 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File transfer complete; please re-delete. Senator2029 07:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dracula di Bram Topkerj.jpg[edit]

Hallo,

My following files were deleted:

File:Dracula di Bram Topkerj.jpg File:Dylan Dog.jpg File:Epic Mickey.jpg File:Dracula di Bram Topker.jpg File:Nemrod-0.jpg

I mentioned the author of the images (Fabio Celoni) which I had the pictures, because I'm expanding its wikipedia page. This is a personal message to Fabio Celoni for you:

"Hallo. SValery, the person who is carrying out but my wikipedia page, he told me that the files had uploaded for the page have been removed. My name is Fabio Celoni and I am the author of all images: I work for Walt Disney Company Italia, Sergio Bonelli Editore and Star Comics (all italian comic publishers). All images are my original graphic works. If you need any further proof of my identity, I can provide all the necessary information that you need. My email is fabioceloni@gmail.com. Thank you very much."

--SValery (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)SValery 27/01/2013[reply]


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

File:British Guiana war tax stamp on cover.JPG, File:Canada war tax stamp on postcard.JPG,[edit]

These two images ought not to have been deleted, for the following two reasons:

  1. While there a number of circumstances in which we typically agree to delete an image upon the uploader's request, there is usually a good reason behind the request. There is no rationale here. The uploader of his/her own free will uploaded these images and released them into the public domain (althoug they were undoubtedly already in the public domain). We need more than just "I no longer wish it to be displayed on Wikimedia Commons" to delete them.
  2. These are derivative images. The uploader isn't even the author/creator, so it is unclear why we we would delete them simply because (s)he asked.
  3. The first of these two images was in use on en.wp, so we ought to have paid even more attention to points 1 and 2 than we did.

This undeletion request is not intended to be a criticism of INeverCry, who does a fantastic job handling massive amounts of deletion requests. It's not his fault that no one caught/commented on these particular deletion requests, making them seem uncontroversial. I have notified INeverCry, in the off chance I am missing something here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, and if the images were just of the stamps, I'd be inclined to undelete them. However, both contain names and addresses and the latter includes what looks like personal correspondence, so there's a potential privacy issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither actually contains a whole address. The former is between two companies, neither of which is likely to even exist anymore. The latter seems like a business note, not personal correspondence, and was written on a postcard (thus low expectation of privacy even when it was written). And both are almost 100 years old. Even census information in many countries is publicly released when it's that old. I don't think there is much of a privacy concern here, but even if there was, that's a cropping issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I was mistaken regarding these deletions. I have no objection to restoring them if others agree that they should be restored. INeverCry 21:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd  Support undeletion for the reasons given. Deletion by request is not automatic; there should be a good reason to deprive the projects of the images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Noller_portrait.jpg [edit]

This picture is free for use of non-commercial activities. A deletion is not necessary. Chriskle (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content restricted to non-commercial use is not accepted on Commons. Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with what this project is about. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jenniffer-gonzalez-28th-house-of-representatives-portrait.jpg[edit]

User Martin H. removed the file alluding textually : <<Copyright violation: Not a "he portraits of Governors, First Ladies, Senate Presidents, House Speakers and Military heroes in the Capital Building " but a photo taken from the website>> in which it is making a big mistake. While it is true that the photograph was taken from the website of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (http://www.camaraderepresentantes.org/legs2.asp?r=03534cdw53Official website of House of Representatives of Puerto Rico). This is the official portrait of Jennifer Gonzalez Colon, Speaker of the House and therefore it is obvious that her photo is hung in the Capitol Building of Puerto Rico.

All official portraits of the representatives are hung in the Capitol Building. The Capitol Building houses the Senate and House of Representatives of Puerto Rico.


If the picture is any then I would have accepted any removal, but not any image, is an official photo of a representative, I licensed the file under the following license: PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits. because this license applies here.

The license and OTRS ticket these images are very clear:In accordance to the Government of Puerto Rico the portraits of Governors, First Ladies, Senate Presidents, House Speakers and Military heroes in the Capital Building of Puerto Rico are public domain. This applies worldwide.

Thank you!


--G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 02:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As a general rule, although all works produced by the US Federal government are PD, those produced by States and Commonwealths are not. Even Federal official portraits are not PD -- their copyrights belong to the artists or photographers. Puerto Rican law cannot change Federal copyright law -- unless the artists or photographers have freely licensed the works, they are not PD. The reasoning used in {{PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits}} is flawed -- the fact that an official portrait has been paid for with public funds does not make it PD. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:George H. W. Bush - portrait by Herbert Abrams (1994).jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the description of Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits. It applies to the portrait paintings found in the Capital Building and reproduction of this paintings. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That OTRS ticket does not apply to photographs, but to the official paintings, and so was not appropriately used for this photograph. Now moving away from this undeletion request and into the reasoning used in that template: according to the OTRS communication the rights for the paintings (such as File:Kenneth McClintock PR.jpg) no longer reside with the artist, but were transferred as part of the commision, which appears to be different than the case of the Abrams painting mentioned above. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment I want to make a clarification to the user Jameslwoodward: Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, the federal laws of the United States does not apply in some respects since Puerto Rico has its own constitution, State Department and Supreme Court. Puerto Rico has autonomy in many aspects, especially in the legal as it is not a state that essentially form part the Union of the United States, is a COMMONWEALTH.
Regarding the License consigned in Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits, it is completely legal and legitimate. The reasons used are those who say in the permission granted for Kenneth McClintock (Secretary of State of Puerto Rico 2009-2013) with OTRS ticket granted by the OTRS Community. --G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 00:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every state has its own constitution and Supreme Court. None of them are allowed to disobey the Federal Constitution. Puerto Rico does not, in fact, have its own State Department (in the sense of "Foreign Office" or the US State Department) -- the Federal Law allowing Puerto Rico's constitution would not allow it, as it speaks specifically to local governance. It has no embassies. It does not have its own copyright law -- in fact, it is explicitly mentioned at 17 USC 101 as being included in the Federal copyright law on the same basis as the fifty states. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry, it was a misunderstanding of what it says on the OTRS ticket, the permission and license.

Such license applies only to portrait paintings, not for official photos. I take it back the arguments that previously I said and I apologize.

User Martin H. is absolutely right

End of discussion. --G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per consensus. INeverCry 18:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gvidi-icon-512.png Logo of Gvidi, free software[edit]

This is the logo of a free mobile application, Gvidi (website) Andreykh (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be proprietary freeware, not free software. In other words, while it might be downloadable free of charge it is not free as in free speech. Unless it's covered by a free license, we cannot accept it. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX. INeverCry 18:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jharna-kala by-sri chinmoy-13-9-1976.jpg [edit]

File:Jharna-kala by-sri chinmoy-13-9-1976.jpg

I am the owner of the above artwork, and also the photographer who did the digital reproduction. I therefore own all rights, and willingly am passing those to WikiCommons. Anybody could come any time to Zurich to see the original in question.

Zurich, January 29, 3013

--Kedarvideo (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page please supply authority via COM:OTRS. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sol002.jpg[edit]

Files: Sol001, Sol002,Sol003, Sol004, Sol005, Sol006, Sol007, Sol008, Sol009, Sol010, Sol011, Sol012, Sol013, Sol014, Sol015, Sol016, Sol017, Sol018, Sol019, Sol020, Sol021, Sol022, Sol023, Sol024, Sol025, Sol026, Sol027, Sol028, Sol028, Sol029, Sol030, Sol031, Sol032, Sol033, Sol034, Sol035, Sol036, Sol037, Sol038, Sol038, Sol039, Sol040, Sol041, Sol042, Sol043, Sol044, Sol045, Sol046, Sol047, Sol048, Sol049, Sol050, Sol051, Sol052, Sol053, Sol054, Sol055, Sol056, Sol057, Sol058, Sol059, Sol060, Sol061, Sol062, Sol063, Sol064, Sol065, Sol066, Sol067, Sol068, Sol069, Sol070, Sol071, Sol072, Sol073, Sol074, Sol075, Sol076, Sol077, Sol078, Sol079, Sol080, Sol081, Sol082, Sol083, Sol084, Sol085, Sol086, Sol087, Sol088, Sol089, Sol090, Sol091, Sol092, Sol093, Sol094, Sol095, Sol096, Sol097, Sol098, Sol099, Sol100, Sol101, Sol102, Sol103, Sol104, Sol105, Sol106, Sol107, Sol108, Sol109, Sol110, Sol111, Sol112, Sol113, Sol114, Sol115, Sol116, Sol117, Sol118, Sol119, Sol120, Sol121, Sol122, Sol123, Sol124, Sol125, Sol126, Sol127, Sol128, Sol129, Sol130, Sol131, Sol132, Sol133, Sol134, Sol135, Sol136, Sol137, Sol138, Sol139, Sol140, Sol141, Sol142, Sol143, Sol144, Sol145, Sol146, Sol147, Sol148, Sol149, Sol150, Sol151, Sol152, Sol153, Sol154, Sol155, Sol156, Sol1Sol157, Sol158, Sol159, Sol160, Sol161, Sol162, Sol163, Sol164, Sol165, Sol166, Sol167, Sol168, Sol169, Sol170, Sol171, Sol172, Sol173, Sol174, Sol175, Sol176, Sol177, Sol178, Sol179, Sol180, Sol181, Sol182, Sol183, Sol184, Sol185, Sol186, Sol187, Sol188, Sol189, Sol190, Sol191, Sol192, Sol193, Sol194, Sol195, Sol196, Sol197, Sol198, Sol199, Sol200, Sol201, Sol202, Sol203, Sol204, Sol205, Sol206, Sol207, Sol208, Sol209, Sol210, Sol211, Sol212, Sol213, Sol214, Sol215, Sol216, Sol217, Sol218, Sol219, Sol220, Sol221, Sol222, Sol223, Sol224, Sol225, Sol226, Sol27, Sol228, Sol229, Sol230, Sol231, Sol232, Sol233, Sol234, Sol235, Sol236, Sol237, Sol238, Sol239, Sol240, Sol241, Sol242, Sol243, Sol244, Sol245, Sol246, Sol247, Sol248, Sol249, Sol250, Sol251, Sol252, Sol253, Sol254, Sol255, Sol256, Sol257, Sol258, Sol259, Sol260, Sol261, Sol262, Sol263, Sol264, Sol265

Reason: I received permission to use photos, E-mail number 2013012810003249 --I.Blu (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket is legit, but I don't have time to restore 265 files. I've done five—File:Sol265.jpg to File:Sol260.jpg—hopefuly another admin can help out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. All files restored and OTRS added. INeverCry 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:High Hollow - Exterior.jpg [edit]

Please undelete File:High Hollow - Exterior.jpg . Permission was received and forwarded to Wikimedia on 2012-12-19

--267create (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive a response? If so, please tell us the 16-digit number from the subject line. I not, please be patient—it can take some time to process all the emails we receive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is OTRS ticket #2012121010013181. The permission given there by the photographer is
"The 2 photos of High Hollow submitted by <name snipped for privacy> are photos I personally took and I authorize them for use in documenting this historic Philadelphia estate home."
I am sorry to say that this is far from a sufficient permission. Both Commons and WP:EN require permission to use images anywhere for any purpose, including commercial and derivative use. Please read Commons:OTRS and have the photographer send an appropriate license of her choice. Please have her reference OTRS ticket number 2012121010013181. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Sufficient OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 01:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Alien Hominid Game Boy Advance UK.jpg [edit]

Why was the picture deleted? It is a good reference picture that shows the obscure only to UK version for the Alien Hominid Wikipedia entry. I took the photo myself and it does not show content such as the inner pages of the manual. The picture is just as one would see if buying the game in the store, any possible copyright is only inside the pages of books and manuals.

CRTGAMER (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 19:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Jackie Collins photo to undelete[edit]

I am requesting for file: JackieArmsCrossedBlackPool.jpeg to be undeleted. I am Jackie Collins assistant. She owns the rights to this photo of herself, and would like it to be included on the wiki page "Jackie Collins", a page about herself, author Jackie Collins. She agrees to release this image to the Creative Commons. Thank you,

Jennifer Daugherty Executive Assistant to Jackie Collins office@jackiecollins.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyotethndr (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a file named File:JackieArmsCrossedBlackPool.jpeg on Commons. The only file that you yourself have uploaded is File:JackieCollins2.jpeg which does not show the subject with her arms crossed. That file has been deleted because it apparently came from a web site with an explicit copyright notice.
While we can frequently figure out what file is meant in situations like this, it is very helpful if you give us the correct name of the file that you think was deleted, or who uploaded it. Please remember that Commons file system is very particular. X.jpg, X.JPG, X.jpeg, x.jpg would all be different files. Also please remember that there are almost 16 million pages on Commons and that we deal with around 10,000 of them every day.
Once you know what the actual name is, please send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 01:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jose_Antonio_Bottiroli_Head_Shot.jpg[edit]

This photo has been incorrectely deleted. It is the head shot of the composer. I am authorized to use this image (1) by publishing agreetment with his estate holders, (2) by United States Copyright Office, registration number PAu 3-598-894 of February 1, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelaBandoni (talk • contribs)

There is no way to verify this information. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-01&oldid=165644748"