Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-05

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

File:Northern Cardinal from The Crossley ID Guide Eastern Birds.jpg[edit]

This file (as well as any Crossley Images) have been uploaded in concordance with author's wishes and with the author's permissions. We have attributed it properly with the proper Creative Commons Release 3.0. I am a Princeton University Press employee (his publisher) but this wiki account is monitored by an individual.

I don't understand what violation has been committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetonnature (talk • contribs) 07:00, April 29, 2013‎ (UTC)

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 04:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BSicon TUNNELql.svg[edit]

File still in use;
No deletion discussion: unilaterally removed by admin Axpde (talk · contribs).

Useddenim (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File re-uploaded -FASTILY 04:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ha Ji Won for Medical Korea 2013.jpg [edit]

Please allow me to use that picture for that person whose profile picture were not available for so long in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grangerpotter (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The source site has an explicit copyright notice. There are many people for which Commons does not have images because there are no freely licensed images available. This is apparently one of them. While that is unfortunate, it does not give us any reason to violate this copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sorry, Commons can only host free images –⁠moogsi (blah) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map of Washington City 1857.jpg [edit]

map publisher before 1923, clearly public domain. fix license, don't delete. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done We ask the uploader to correctly license the file. No-one else will necessarily do it for them –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hopkins map 1887.jpg [edit]

map published before 1923, clearly public domain; fix license, don't delete. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done We ask the uploader to correctly license the file. No-one else will necessarily do it for them –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png[edit]

File to undelete: File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png

Reasons: the author Beyheef gives me a permission to publish screen captures of his videos Reasons: the author Beyheef published his videos in Creative Commons, the screen capture is made from this video: File:Manif contre Acta, Paris 017.webm

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 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? He says he made a screen capture of a video on Commons (not deleted, not up for DR) and your response is that he needs to contact OTRS? This needs a new closure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already sent an e-mail, but I had no answer and the file is still deleted. The file is taken from this video in creative commons licence: File:Manif contre Acta, Paris 017.webm

I don't understand why Wikimedia is censoring this file, because there's a permission to publish from the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiesia (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done. The pic was deleted in good faith because there was no way to know which video the capture came from. Now the info has been supplied it can be undeleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

(File:Haarverlaengerung haarnetz detailansicht.jpg)[edit]

Hi now the Licens are correkt and stand under the picture (second from upper)

Jetzt ist der Lizenstext korrekt steht unter dem Bild (2 tes von oben auf http://www.tolle-und-locke.de/Archiv:_:99.html)

Haarverdichtung mittels Haarintegration aus Echthaar, Detailansicht der Montur von oben auf Styroporkopf, weißer Hintergrund. Das Bild ist nach CC-BY-2.5.lizensiert. Dieses Werk darf von dir verbreitet werden (vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden) und neu zusammengestellt werden (abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden) zu den folgenden Bedingungen: Namensnennung – Du musst den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen (aber nicht so, dass es so aussieht, als würde er dich oder deine Verwendung des Werks unterstützen).--Tarotonline (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done CC license at source. Эlcobbola _talk 19:13, 1 May 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/Photos with anime or manga characters[edit]

I think that Fastily closed this deletion request against the consensus of the majority of the participants, by deleting all images at once. So i tried to discus with him if COM:De minimis would at least apply to the race cars (it are adds of the official sponsors and images from the GT Series), but he never reacted to this question. I asked him repeatedly, but as of now i got no response. Instead Fastily set his archive time down to 1 day, so i will link to the last version before the discussion was archived again and again: Discussion. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 17:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The administrator closing a DR is not required to follow any consensus which might exist. In fact, he or she is required to use his own experience and judgement. While he may be guided by any comments in the DR, he is free to ignore them. Although I did not look at every image, I looked at those for which DM was claimed and I agree with Fastily. The copyrighted characters are prominent in all the images I looked at and cannot possibly be called de minimis. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 07:44, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

But what do i have to think about this situation if the admin does not respond to open questions. I don't see any difference to the third example in COM:De minimis, which is regarded as OK, and which is also Rd232s opinion [1]. So far i did not hear any good reasoning why this particular images (especially the images from the GT300 winner) should not be fine, while similar cases are.

To quote: "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." (X = character, larger work = race car during race) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 19:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jim. The argument for restoration is unsound and appears to ignore a great deal of the spirit and letter of the DM guideline. Unlike the 3rd examples (whose subjects are the court of the Louvre and the Escher Museum), these are photos of itasha (decorating vehicles with fictional characters) - i.e., the inclusion of copyrighted works is deliberate, essential and fundamental to purpose of the photos. These are thus at best the sixth example ("Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)) Note also that most of these hit all of the "guidelines" making a work less likely to satisfy de minimis: 1) these were in use to illustrate X (e.g. numerous Anime/Manga articles noted in the DR - Helly Kitty, Squid Girl, AliceSoft, etc.), 2) they were categorized in relation to X, 3) X was referenced in many file names (e.g., File:Smart Fortwo Coupè Hello Kitty (pink).JPG, File:Toyota Matrix Burst Angel itasha side 3.JPG, etc.), 4) X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless (could not then illustrate itasha or the X articles; blurring up to 100% of the vehicle in some cases would make the image useless for vehicle articles) and 5) other context. Эlcobbola _talk 21:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Эlcobbola's reasoning is spot on. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Stale discussion with no consensus to restore -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LednickiA.jpg[edit]

This file File:LednickiA.jpg was deleted by User:Masur in April 26, 2013. Jmabel wrote me: "If you know the source, I'm sure we can restore it, given accurate source information. Commons:Deletion review might be your best bet. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The earliest source which I was able to find is Полвека для книги 1866-1916. Литературно-художественный сборник, посвященный пятидесятилетию издательской деятельности И.Д. Сытина.- М.: Типография Т-ва И.Д.Сытина, 1916. стр. 124 but I'm sure that it's possible to find another one older. Hunu (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, but please update the file description page accordingly -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oeuvre de Gustav Vigeland (4844240907).jpg[edit]

I requested deletion due to copyright violation (freedom of panorama does not apply in Norway) but I just realized that Gustav Vigeland died March 12, 1943, so PD-70 should now apply.

If that's true several other recent deletions should also be undeleted:

This is entirely my fault for not checking Vigeland's death date. Sorry for the confusion and extra work. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"70 pma" usually means "the death year of the author plus 70 years, plus the amount of time until January 1st of the following year", so the work will not be PD in Norway until 2014. There is the additional question of the copyright status in the US –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if copyright expires January 2014 (rather than March 2013 as I assumed), is possible for Wikimedia to put these pictures "on hold" until the right date so that we do not have go through the upload process again? Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made sure all of your deletion requests are included in Category:Undelete in 2014. Come January 1st, 2014 we'll hold a big feast and undelete all these pics while quaffing our beverage of choice. (All of this is pending the URAA issue, and the feast is rather metaphorical.) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to read the Hirtle chart, but it is not at all clear to me how to understand and apply these rules. Vigeland sculptures I guess fall into the category "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals", I also guess "published" applies to sculptures too. The chart then lists "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date". Can somebody please help out? Does this really mean that Wikimedia can not host pictures of Gustav Vigeland sculptures for still another 20 years? Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work first published between 1923 and 1977 gets 95 years from publication. By the laws in effect at that time in the US, if it was erected before 1923, it's public domain in the US; otherwise they get however years publication + 95 is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to follow the law, of course, but the end result is strange. Images of Vigeland's work are already freely available anywhere, for instance here [Monolitten pictures], and from January 2014 in Norway also for commercial use. The Vigeland park was designed and constructed from 1920 to 1950. Some pieces were "published" (added to the park) later, for instance Surprise was added in 2002 even if produced around 1941. So Vigeland sculptures can be seen anywhere except on Wikipedia. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that anything on Commons has to be available for commercial use, so people can sell Wikipedia. 1978 changed the rules, but stuff like postcards or pictures in art books would still make them published. Publishing in 1978-2002 would leave them in copyright until 2048, but first publishing after 2002 or being currently unpublished would give them a flat life+70 copyright, just like Norway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done To be undeleted in 2014, when the copyright expires -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BRUC Rev Ashley.jpg[edit]

The photo of Rev. Ashley was scanned from the Church Directory produced around 1990 by Prebyterian Publishing House, Church Directory Service, P.O. Box 3960, Cleveland, TN 37311. We inquired of the Presbyterian Church (USA) the successor to the publisher and received the following email,"I apologize for taking so long to get back with you. I have spoken with several folks here about this question and have made phone calls to learn that (1) Presbyterian Publishing House is no longer in business (2) I would not be able to grant or deny permission for anything they would own as it was its own separate entity. (3) I would advise that you contact the person whose photo you are wanting to use and ask their permission to use it.

Again, I am sorry that I don’t have a better answer.

Sandy Sanders Contract and Permission Specialist Congregational Ministries Publishing Presbyterian Church USA Presbyterian Mission Agency 100 Witherspoon St. M040A Louisville KY 40202 502.569.5025 sandy.sanders@pcusa.org" Can the photo be undeleted base on this?

Robert Adamski 917 836 2614 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Adamski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately those facts mean that the image is an orphan image, which is an image that has a copyright, but the copyright holder cannot be found. As a legal matter, the copyright holder is the entity that took over or bought whatever assets the publishing house had when it closed, but they probably don't know that they own the copyright. As a practical matter, the only way that the image could be restored on Commons is if you could find and get permission from the photographer. Permission from the subject of the image is not helpful as he does not have any rights to the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iraqi Army soldier.jpg[edit]

INeverCry deleted that pic with the reason that it comes from http://www.fotosearch.com/UNW895/u15263621/ and was flickr washed. But I couldn't find any date on the page and I couldn't find any other pic which was uploaded before 2008. So I ask my self how the user could flickr wash it if he wans't the author.--Sanandros (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't necessarily "come from" the site in question, but it is a commercial stock image available there for purchase, and available at a higher res. Do you expect Bold Stock to have had a change of strategy and to have released their products free of charge? Do you think that they chose ~~jez s~~ Jim Gordon as the account to release their images with? Or do you think they stole it from someone else and are openly reselling it? Finding instances of an image online in 2008 with a reverse image search is very difficult, Google Images and Tineye only started indexing images on any scale in 2007, and only have very sparse coverage to this day, even sparser back then. Considering this, the answer to your question is "very easily". Rather, I'd begin to ask the question "Does the Flickr uploader actually own the rights to this image?" –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea also doesen't so realistic but when u load the page without scripts then I get lot's of pics which are PD-USGov. Is someone able to read the exif?--Sanandros (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures of the US Military, but it doesn't mean it was actually taken by the US Military, which is going to be key. I also tried to look at the exif data and there is nothing on creator or date when it was done. So without a clear author and source, restoring this image is going to be very hard. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I hope INeverCry can in the future start for such no so clear situations a DR instead of just deleting it.--Sanandros (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://regex.info/exif.cgi is a very good EXIF viewer but doesn't have author in the image I ripped. Does admin want to try the deleted one to see if it has more data?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing helpful in the EXIF. The image was saved in Photoshop 7 on 2008-05-03 (4 days before it was uploaded to Commons), which would suggest the earliest date it could have been uploaded to Flickr (it was transferred by Flickr Upload Bot) –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No compelling evidence to suggest the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. Still commercially available as a stock image, very unlikely that it's also released under CC-BY –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TUZ (volgograd metrotram station) 05.JPG [edit]

был удалён с обоснованием "Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volgograd-tuz-metrotram-station.jpeg", но на той странице я просил удалить File:Volgograd-tuz-metrotram-station.jpeg, а этот файл был для него заменой. Вместо этого удалили оба файла.— Redboston 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NYP_guisante.jpg [edit]

Hello. I am the owner and designer of this image File:NYP guisante.jpg, as I already marked when uploading. So I uploaded it as the owner and with a Creative Commons image license for free use. As a quick solution I will upload it again. Please do not undelete, and please, in case of any trouble or doubt: CONTACT BEFORE DELETING!

Hola. Soy el propietario y diseñador de esta imagen File:NYP guisante.jpg, como ya indiqué al ser subida. Así que la subí como propietario y con una licencia de Creatice Commons para uso libre de la imagen. Voy a subirla de nuevo, como solución rápida. Por favor no borrar, y por favor, en caso de cualquier problema o duda: CONTACTAR ANTES DE BORRAR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E tres (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 May 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 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Struck By Lightning (cover).jpg[edit]

The file was tagged by me as a copyright violation and deleted by INeverCry today. Now the uploader User:Long Ben Every e-mailed me, claiming that he is the co-author of the book. I've redirected him to this page, so we can try to sort this out. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: We're talking about the cover of this book --El Grafo (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to email OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; see COM:OTRS for the procedure), but I'd be sceptical because authors don't usually own the cover design to their books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What HJ Mitchell said -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goddess of Democracy[edit]

Files in the category were deleted against consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington The reason given was no freedom of panorama in the US, when it is clear that the statue is not copyrighted - it is a replica of the destroyed original that is copied all the time by governments (international, federal, state, and local), major universities, foundations, etc. The replicas cannot be copyrighted since they are not original. The original was censored and destroyed by the Chinese Government during the events of Tianiman Square and so in any meaningful sense is not copyrighted - the owners' rights to copy the sculpture are in no way protected by their local government.

There is a very common sense reason here as well. The Chinese government censored the original creators by destroying the statue. The world as a whole reacted by recreating the statue hundreds or thousands of times. Now Commons wants to censor the whole world (as well as the original creators) - in order to do what? protect the rights of the original creators?

The issue had previously been decided at Commons:Deletion requests/File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images and will survive the deletions against consensus as well.

Commons simply cannot censor a non-copyrighted statue.

Smallbones (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The replicas cannot be copyrighted since they are not original." why ? Penyulap ☏ 05:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

originality is required Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, you should realise that I do not support forced censorship in any way, shape or form; so playing the emotional card doesn't fly with me. This is simply a matter of the US copyright laws as they pertain to COM:FOP not being inline with the COM:SCOPE of our project. Previous DR's, whilst often a good litmus test of how we decide current and future hosting of files, in this case are irrelevant. So I would say keep deleted. russavia (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you bring this up when it had already been decided twice too keep? Why was this deleted against consensus? Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like these images to be uncensored, then you're in the wrong place. If these images were actually censored, you would not know what they are, and maybe would not even be aware that they existed. Additionally, you personally would immediately be silenced for mentioning them. If you think this is an effective way of fighting censorship, I invite you to try the same thing with, e.g., the Chinese government.

If you would like these images to be undeleted, please state clearly why you think these renditions of the statue would legally not belong to anyone. Maybe try not to sound grossly insensitive and insult everyone involved with your first volley –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any logic in what you are saying. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one. If I steal a slab of marble and tools to create a statue in China do I still have the right to claim copyright on the work? If I create the likeness from the dead body of a person I murdered there does that deny my copyright as well? I think copyright belongs to the original sculptor regardless of the circumstances of creation. What is the expiry if the original sculptor died 57 years ago?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original creators were in Tianamen Square. They have clearly been denied copyright by the Chinese government, which destroyed the statue and prosecutes anybody (which would include the creators) who makes copies. If the creators don't have copyright, then nobody else has copyright. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I the think that the assertion that the statue is itself a copy and therefore not copyrighted is incorrect. The discussion above seems to forget Bridgeman v Corel and the status of all copies, 2D and 3D, before that decision. Until Bridgeman, any copy of an original work, even a scan, had its own copyright. After Bridgeman, that is no longer true in the USA (but not in many other countries and, strictly speaking, is true only in the Southern District of NY). Commons applies the Bridgeman rule to all paintings. The assertion above would have Bridgeman apply to 3D works, which it clearly does not.

Putting this another way, the general rule is that copies have their own copyright. Except where the Bridgeman exception applies, this is true of all copies, 2D and 3D. If I sit down and paint a copy of a painting, my copy has a copyright, which is in addition to any copyright which the original painting may have. This is true everywhere. It is also true of sculpture everywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the general rule is that copies have their own copyright" - I think this is wrong, originality has always been a requirement under US copyright law. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman did not make new law; in theory, it only interpreted the existing law. Strictly speaking, it's been cited as good law by many US courts, and Meshwerks v. Toyota applied it to 3D works, specifically overturning Alva Studios, Inc. v. Winninger, which copyrighted reproductions of Rodin's Hand of God.

The general rule is not that copies have their own copyright; I don't think anyone has said that reprinting a book gives you a new copyright, or that duplicating a film does. If you sit down and paint a copy of a painting, what's going to leave the question open is the fact that painting isn't a mechanical process--and don't ask me to be your lawyer if you really do paint an exact copy and expect a copyright. The question here are the copyright in the original (and it surely has a copyright) and the copyright in the new version (and it's hard to argue exact copy working from a few casual photographs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

restore what is the point of building a consensus, if the perennial "no fop" juggernaut will delete later anyway? a rule with no exceptions is no rule at all. this is a clear exceptional case: it is a collective work with no clear copyright-holder; it is destroyed; copies exist around the world, some in FoP countries; "w:Threshold of originality" is an important principle in US law, and it trumps "no fop".

the censorship of free only fanaticism in wikicommons is an established fact, if you don't understand US copyright law, then you have no business discussing it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not an exact replica, but the sculptors take on the original--which still has copyright regardless of the destruction by the Chinese government--from use of photos, etc. This means that there would be original elements to the sculpture as displayed in the US. This would create it's own new copyright, and hence FOP absolutely is in play here. russavia (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to use words like "censorship" and "fanaticism" in discussions here. Very few editors on Commons attempt censorship or are fanatics, and certainly those words cannot be applied here. We do make a serious effort to interpret the law as we understand it. If an image has a copyright or is a derivative work of a copyrighted object, then it cannot be kept here. That's unfortunate, as I, for one, would like to keep this image, but what I would like and you would like does not matter -- only the law matters.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the sculptor of the copy declaimed any artistic intent. how exact a replica do you want? the consensus was that it did not meet the original threshold. what sculptor? who is the maker of the original? could you give me their names and emails? does a work without an identifiable maker have a copyright? FoP does not apply. see Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. [2]

name calling is not productive, neither is repeatedly nominating for deletion until you get the result you want. serious effort? having seen serious lawyers having panel discussions, you can't be serious. you mean if it dosn't fit in easy categories with easy tags, then it can't stay here. the cultural bias is very clear: written law only, not case law; bright pseudo-lines over nuance; deletion over keeping; only the pseudo-legalistic rules matter. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "fanaticism" is a bit strong, but can anybody dispute "extreme interest in deleting" when the matter had been decided Keep by consensus twice, and with no change in circumstances it is brought up for deletion again, and deleted against consensus. Also - please do not be so quick to close this discussion, every time I comment there is an edit conflict with somebody adding a "close discussion template" without comment or a formal close. Smallbones (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is trying to close the discussion - it's the header template for the discussion below. Which is closed –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, you do realise that the editor who closed both of those discussions did so without any reasoning, and was community de-sysopped after a multitude of bad closes, of which these were two. I hate to have to bring up that history, but this is another case which it is pertinent, and it is now causing confusing and aggravation. russavia (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, would you have closed 3 deletion requests against consensus? When editors tell you your argument just doesn't make sense, you need to listen. If you are claiming the right to delete anything you want against consensus, then you need to be de-sysopped. Smallbones (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, do you realise that if we follow your logic we must delete almost all the images of old buildings. They all have been restored, and the restoration does not make an exact copy of the original building's structure, but rather is the interpretation of the restorers of what the original looked like. Thus, by your reasoning, it would carry its own copyright. Since restorations take place quite often, we have a perpetual copyright. Even the Sphynx would be copyrighted then. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say restore. I believe that the statue was a work for hire. This is a national monument in the capital. Can anyone show that the artist has retained the copyright? I don't see anyone saying that the Daniel Chester French sculpture of Abraham Lincoln should be deleted. Evrik (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside - Thomas Marsh waived his fee from the Victims of Communism Foundation. He is passionate that the image of the statue he recreated be freely available to the world. See below. Smallbones (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank all of those who were so persistent in deleting these photographs against consensus. It gave me a reason to contact Thomas Marsh, and evidence of a clear case of ongoing censorship even on Wikipedia. He has sent me a completed OTRS request, which I have duly submitted, which grants everybody a license to photograph the artwork in its various versions as the "Victim of Communism Memorial" in DC and the "Goddess of Democracy" in San Francisco, Vancouver, Calgary, and in the Newseum in DC. The license is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), which covers the right to photograph the artwork.

See File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG

I do hope that nobody will try to beat a dead horse on this.

I also hope that the deleted files will be restored immediately.

Thank you all for your help.

Smallbones (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An email containing permissions has been sent to OTRS. OTRS will restore the file once they finish vetting the email -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - the files have been deleted 3 times against consensus. OTRS can easily take 100 days to go thru normally. You can assume good faith. You can get an OTRS volunteer to do it now. Or I can ask for an OTRS volunteer for a special favor. But there is no way to have these perfectly acceptable files should stay deleted for the next 100 days. How shall we handle it? Smallbones (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are way too emotionally attached here. I have read the comments from the artist relating to the statues, and how they came into being, and it confirms that these are not exact replicas of the Chinese originals, but versions in which artistic licence is utilised; this means that copyright is created. He also notes that the statue in San Francisco has "Copyright 1989 SFGDP" carved into it. Now, it is fantastic that you have contacted the sculptor and he is favourable towards a free licence, and we may be someway towards resolving this issue, but without that we would be in a legal predicament by hosting them due to his claimed copyright, and the nature of FOP in the United States. The nominations and deletions in every instance were correct.

Before any undeletion takes place, we need to look closely at the issues; especially as it relates to the San Francisco statue, from which the Washington, Calgary and Vancouver statues are derived, and the copyright over it. I could look at them more deeply, but I won't because the amount of bad faith on your part on this issue is too emotional and too great. russavia (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we have established that an OTRS ticket can be handled at a reasonable speed when an interested volunteer is highly motivated.

We have also established that Russavia is irredeemably biased in this matter. No unbiased person could possibly look at that OTRS form and conclude anything other than Marsh is fully informed about the form and that he is completely, totally, indeed passionately giving permission for anybody to photograph those statues. Russavia needs to recuse himself immediately.

Marsh and I did go over the meaning of the form in complete detail, he asked detailed questions (there's no reason that we should expect an outsider to understand the form and our policies before starting) and I did include the entire correspondance as is required. "SFGDP" was Marsh's informal name for his workshop in SF, and he states in practically the same sentence that Russavia quotes, that he did 95% of the work himself. By comparison, Ai Weiwei's workshop sometimes does 100% of the hands-on work, with AI Weiwei just doing the basic design and giving the orders, with Ai Weiwei getting the copyright. There's no issue about copyright here - just something Russavia is intentionally inventing. And he then accuses me of bad faith.

All the way through, without even a question on the meaning of our forms about it, Marsh states that he did 100% of the work on the "Victims of Communism Memorial" and that he has full copyright on that statue. Note that this deletion discussion is solely about photographing the "Victims of Communism Memorial." All the other permissions on all the other versions of the statues are just extra permissions as far as this deletion restoration discussion goes.

All that needs to be done here is for an unbiased uninvolved OTRS volunteer to go thru the ticket, and state the obvious. Game over. Smallbones (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote above? I am wiping my hands of this, because your personal attacks are basically totally ridiculous in nature, and I've had quite enough of your bad faith. I suggest that you now let OTRS do it's job. russavia (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed. The matter is being handled at OTRS. Let them do their job -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pfarrblatt Herz Jesu Graz 1991[edit]

Die Genehmigung seitens der Pfarre Herz Jesu Graz wurde durch den zuständigen Pfarrer Mag. Matthias Keil erteilt. Das Pfarrblatt wird von der Pfarre Herz Jesu herausgegeben ist also der Herausgeber. Pfarrer J. Gölles hat 1991 den Artikel geschrieben für das Pfarrblatt. Das Foto stammt von der Familie Bregant und ich bin der Rechtsnachfolger bzw. Enkel von Katalin Bregant. Es gibt auch ein Schreiben der Pfarre als PDF mit dem entsprechenden Text, gefertigt, gestempelt und unterschrieben.--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done non-free derivative works are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 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]

I am not sure why this photo was deleted - Samboy Lim is my sibling and he asked me to add this photo of him on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot! Good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagahanga1962 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

No file linked. Please make a new request and link the file you want restored. -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DeRose.jpg[edit]

This photo is my own property. It also exists in public domain. This photo was wrongly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyterry (talk • contribs) 00:04, May 4, 2013‎ (UTC)

Previously published at several sources. INeverCry 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done O rly -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kwasman.jpg [edit]

Again, the user INeverCry has deleted a second photo that is MY property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyterry (talk • contribs) 00:11, May 4, 2013‎ (UTC)

Found at http://explorernews.com/news/article_2330638c-2928-11e2-8d62-0019bb2963f4.html. INeverCry 07:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dzeny.jpg[edit]

This file did NOT go against any copyrights since this file was provided to us by the OWNER herself, Dzeny that is. So we want this file undeleted. We also think that it is very UNHUMAN to delete something based on "asumption" when you dont even look into the facts. What kind of policy is that?? Educate yourselves about the subject before performing any actions for Gods sake, its morally wrong what you are doing. As you can see it is just leading to very un-necessary work as this undeletion request that we have go through right now. very userUNfriendly from your side!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DzenyFan (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

"provided to us by the OWNER" means: your claim in the upload form that you created the photo yourself was untrue. You not created it and you not have the permission to publish the file under your own name under a free license. Not accepting the file on Commons is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alducharme2012.jpg[edit]

This file was taken by Mark Chatfield and placed on his hompage www.CruisingwithRadio.com. I asked Mr Chatfield to use his photo of Al Ducchame for the Al Duchame Wiki page. Mr Chatfield agreed and he filled out the Wiki Commons form and he emailed it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on April 21 2013.

From: Ed Jones [3] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:57 AM To: markchatfield@ecruisenet.com Cc: Ed Jones Subject: Fw: Image for Al Duchame Wiki Page Importance: Low

Mr. Chatfield, I have the Al Ducharme file listed on Wikipedia and they would like you to fill out this consent form and forward to them at email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Image Location http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alducharme2012.jpg

Al Ducharme Wiki Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ducharme

OTRS (Ticket 2013041910010592)

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I, Mark Chatfield am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alducharme2012.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Chatfield, markchatfield@verizon.net April 21, 2013 www.CruisingwithRadio.com [

Original Message -----

From: Ed Jones

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:02 PM

Subject: Image for Al Duchame Wiki Page

OTRS will restore the file once they process the email. They are very busy at the moment, so thanks for your patience -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert Joseph Greene Press Phto.jpg[edit]

Hi, I emailed the photographers permission release. I also stated the license which it is under. What more can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaderal (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, OTRS will handle it from here -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VicDunlopComedian.jpg [edit]

the webpage this photo was listed on says at the bottom right "Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted. Webpage: http://www.springfieldsown.com/features/cover-story/218/sons-and-daughters-erin-name-irish-man-and-woman-y

This is a photo of comedian Vic Dunlop who has since passed away. This might be his only chance to have a photo listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejonestexas (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons must be free for commercial reuse. Please review Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done what Martin said -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zickzackhausen_1.jpg[edit]

This image was one of the press photos by the New Frankfurt project. All of them where published until 1933 and the pgotographer is unknown. Silimar to the image Frankfurterkueche.jpg.

This wasn't published before 1923, so it's not obviously PD. Unless you have written, tangible evidence explicitly identifying *this* particular image as freely licensed under a Commons-compatiable license, this file cannot be hosted on Commons -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OSJTorre.jpg [edit]

Este archivo es una foto de mi propiedad y quiero que sea CC. Asi que por favor re-establezcan-lo. Saludos, Atte. --Paulofer85 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Paulofer85[reply]

CC licenses restricting commercial or derivative use are prohibited on Commons. Unless you change this, we can't host your file -FASTILY 07:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YarraTramsLogoNew.svg[edit]

This logo is merely plain white descriptive text ("yarra trams") on a coloured background (the Yarra river flows through Melbourne, and the logo owner is the operator of Melbourne's trams). The logo therefore fails to meet the threshold of originality. Similar Australian logos have been kept on that basis, eg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kmart Australia logo.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbywinters logo.jpg. This logo is an even simpler design than those two designs.

The assertion at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Australia that "[t]he level of originality required for copyright protection in Australia is very low" is out of date and inaccurate.

In Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 (15 December 2010), a majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ and Yates J) rejected the "sweat of the brow" test that had been rejected in the USA in 1991. In that respect, the Full Court was influenced by the earlier decision of the High Court of Australia in IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14 (22 April 2009), which doubted that the "sweat of the brow" test had ever been good law in Australia. The law in Australia on threshold of originality should therefore be regarded as similar to the law in the USA on that topic.

The administrator who deleted the image relied upon a decision that the Aboriginal flag is the subject of copyright. That decision was made by a single judge in 1997, and the reasoning in that decision has been superseded by these two much more recent appeal cases. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then COM:TOO#Australia needs to be updated, and maybe the flag needs to be undeleted. However, this logo also contains colour effects, and we don't have any examples of such colour effects under COM:TOO#United States, so I'm not sure if this logo would be OK in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will update COM:TOO#Australia after this request has been determined. In the meantime, I note that the shading effect in this file is no more significant than that in File:Arkansas map by Sean Pecor.png, which was held by a US Circuit Court of Appeals not to be eligible for copyright, and that it is also no more significant than that in File:Windows flag.svg, which has survived a deletion request, and that in File:Sonic-Generations-transparent-bg.png which has survived two deletion requests. The Aboriginal flag is in a different position, because it has been held by an Australian court to be subject to copyright; unless and until that specific decision is overturned, it would therefore be appropriate for commons to continue to regard the flag as copyright protected. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion request is no court ruling and may sometimes be wrong. I prefer references to court rulings only. For example, sometimes it may be enough to just add a simple border (see http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf where the logo with a border is copyrighted whereas the one without a border isn't copyrighted). --Stefan4 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the review board decision you have cited is not authority for the proposition that a simple border makes an uncopyrightable pair of words copyrightable. Rather, the decision relates to a trio of stylised "c"s surrounded by a border, and surmounted by three words in a curved form surrounded by a second border that extends beyond the first border, thus creating a composite external border that is more than merely a simple geometric shape. The logo that has been deleted is much less complex than that - it's just two words in horizontal form in white text on a two coloured background that, being coloured, has to have an edge, and the edge is a simple geometric shape. There is an obvious need for the text to be a different colour from the background. For example, if the white text had been on a white background, then the text would have been invisible. Thus, the white text on a two coloured background should be seen as equivalent to coloured text in two colours on a white piece of paper, which, according to the case law cited in the decision you have cited, would not be copyrightable. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. That new 2010 case is similar to Feist, but it centered around "authorship" and not necessarily "originality". The company could not identify any actual humans who exercised any independent intellectual activity in the creation of the white pages listings (rather any such people operated according to prescribed rules), so the court found there was no author to begin with. In the creation of a logo, I suspect that test would be easily passed (similar to the aboriginal flag) and the question would then be one of originality. U.S. courts (and the Copyright Office) have had some guidelines on how much creativity a graphic work needs, and I don't think the aboriginal flag would pass that U.S. threshold, so presumably the Australian line is somewhat different on that. (Apparently a previous ruling regarding the white pages had ruled there was copyright infringement, but that case may have just assumed there was an author and concentrated on "originality" which Australia seems to define quite a bit differently than the U.S. does, and more like the UK does). I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not sure that ruling really relates to the U.S. level of originality when it comes to graphic works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at little closer at the 2010 decision than that. The reasoning in the 2010 decision, which was dictated in large part by the High Court's binding 2009 IceTV decision, is inconsistent with the earlier 2002 Full Court decision based upon the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. In the 2010 decision, Keane CJ observed at [87] that "[t]he dicta in IceTV shift the focus of inquiry away from a concern with the protection of the interests of a party who has contributed labour and expense to the production of a work, to the “particular form of expression” which is said to constitute an original literary work, and to the requirement of the Act “that the work originates with an author or joint authors from some independent intellectual effort”". In the 2010 decision, the focus was on the first part of the quoted passage from the Act, but the reasoning of Keane CJ applies equally to the second part. See also Keane CJ at [96]-[97]. Perram J in the 2010 decision at [112] went even further than Keane CJ, in that he expressly made the point I have just made: "Once one accepts that the focus of the copyright is on the creation of the material form by an author it is analytically difficult to identify any role for labour or skill in the collection of material beyond the question posed by the statute, namely, whether the work is “original” in the sense of not being copied from elsewhere. Any role for skill and labour in the process of collection which extends beyond that is inconsistent with the emphasis given in IceTV to the reduction of a work into a material form. It follows that, beyond showing that the directories were original in the sense of not having been copied, the activities in the Collection Phase are not relevant to assessing whether those who reduced the directories to material form did so with sufficient independent intellectual or literary effort. To the extent that [the 2002 decision] requires a contrary conclusion it should be overruled. It is inconsistent with considered dicta of a majority of the High Court which bind this Court ..." Bahnfrend (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the company could reasonably identify the author who did expend the intellectual effort in this case, i.e. the one who created the logo. Someone chose the font, colors, overlap, and shading. That presumably was not dictated by company procedure the way the production of the phone book was. Feist really did not speak to that aspect of U.S. originality; the question is if that type of thing counts as sufficient intellectual effort, and that had already been the subject of some other U.S. court cases (such as Muller v NY Arrows) and Copyright Office regulations. It would be that sort of precedent we would be looking for, which is different territory than Feist (which I agree that Australian case seems to mirror). What aspect of the aboriginal flag case would be overturned by the IceTV decision? If putting a circle on two squares counts as enough intellectual effort to copyright, then so may things like this (even if not in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at the cases and post again here soon. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale request with no clear consensus to restore as Not done. Please make a new request if you still believe the file should be restored -FASTILY 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lora la concursul muzical Eurovision .jpg [edit]

This photo is from the national selection for Eurovision Song Contest 2010 . Then Lora and Sonny Flame participated in Eurovision with the song ,,Come Along.This picture is from the official Eurovision website .

Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aczél Ilona-Timár József.jpg and File:Timár József.jpg[edit]

Request temporary undeletion The second file is derived from the first one. The first file is from ECLAP and has been marked as copyright violation due to the argument that it is from a film and the director Kálmán Csathó died less than 70 years ago. The source indicates "Nemzeti Színház" (National theater) and "Rendező" (director), so in fact it seems to be a photograph of a theater scene by an unknown photographer and Template:PD-HU-unknown would apply. Oliv0 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted temporarily (to be made permanent if anyone agrees with me).

Support undeletion, it seems these were deleted on the assumption that Csathó Kálmán was a film director. If the photo is really anonymous, it would've become PD in Hungary in 1985, and so didn't have its copyright restored by the URAA. NB: I haven't looked at the source because it's behind a registration wall –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Oliv0 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The source site tells us "Créateur Ismeretlen" (I didn't have a problem looking there). I assume that that translates as "Creator: Unknown". I agree that it appears to be a theatrical production, not a movie, so that the unknown photographer appears to make it PD.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Done to me -FASTILY 08:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carlos Ariel Sánchez Torres.jpg [edit]

Acto de posesión del Registrador Nacional del Estado Civil, Dr. Carlos Ariel Sánchez Torres, periodo 2011 - 2015

File has not been deleted. You may be looking for COM:HD -FASTILY 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CedarIslandMarina.jpg[edit]

I personally took this picture and it is not copyrighted. It got taken down by a copyright violation because someone saw it on merchantcircle.com. However, I uploaded that image on merchant circle, that is our business account.

This is in regards to a picture of our marina that I uploaded onto our wiki page. Cedar Island Marina.

Shapikri (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the photo, then it is copyrighted... by you. You should explain the situation to COM:OTRS team (e-mail them). If things go smoothly they should undelete the file. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks! Shapikri (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Sinnamon said -FASTILY 21:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bistrica, Šentrupert - kozolec od daleč.jpg[edit]

This image was proposed for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozolec toplar Bistrica.jpg, but was then agreed to be kept. The image mainly shows the hayrack's right side from a distance. Per this academic paper, "without ornamental wood cuttings [the hayrack] would have been nothing special". In this case, the ornaments at the front side are barely visible and of secondary importance. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ---- {{Done}} -FASTILY 08:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening. You've undeleted the wrong image (not the one proposed for undeletion). :) --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-FASTILY 09:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:北-bw.png[edit]

If [4] is anything to go by, File:北-bw.png and File:北-jbw.png will not be the same. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that's why the redirect at File:北-bw.png was deleted. In other words, File:北-bw.png was redirecting to File:北-jbw.png, and as you say, that's not correct, which is why Axpde deleted it in the first place -FASTILY 00:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bimbo_el_oso_del_pan.jpg [edit]

Request temporary undeletion

Reason: several photos taken in Mexico were recently kept because freedom of panorama applied to them. Freedom of panorama was brought up in the discussion of this photo's deletion several years ago; depending on what this photo shows, the decision might be made differently today. Rybec (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5], [6] -FASTILY 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky-Chapel.jpg and File:Marine star.JPG[edit]

Request temporary undeletion

I had requested that these photos be deleted because of dubious-looking watermarks. I'm asking that they be temporarily undeleted because I now want to request deletion of the other photos uploaded by the same contributor, with these two showing a history of possible copyright violations. I'd like others to see these two so they can better decide whether there really is such a history, or not. Rybec (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[7], [8], [9], [10] -FASTILY 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 10.jpg[edit]

This file is my own artwork I am the author and I authorize this file for use on this website. Michael Cavayero

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 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 7.j File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 5.j File:CavayeroMichael12.jpg File:14Cavayero M 06-.jpg File:Cavayero M 01.jpg File:CavayeroMichael 35.jpg[edit]

These files are ALL my own artwork I am the author and I authorize this file for use on this website. Michael Cavayero

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 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reine des Feuilles Mortes Bruno Montpied.jpg [edit]

File:Bruno Montpied Photomontage José Guirao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Bruno Montpied, Sans Titre, 1977.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Hi,

A written permission was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the author and copyright holder of this image, Bruno Montpied, on April, 23. It was sent again on April, 28. Thank you for undeleting this document. We understand you have many images which status needs to be verified.

Best Regards, --Joiesoudaine (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for submitting the necessary permissions email. OTRS will handle it from here. Thank you for your patience -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oriol Nolis Curull.jpg[edit]

This photograph is licensed Flickr and Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/telediariofs/8668220592/ and I have personally confirmed the free license with the author Frederic Comí

--mboix (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC) MBoix[reply]

Done -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taranus2013.jpg [edit]

Saludos, se ha borrado esta imagen por violar supuestamente los derechos de autor ya que esta publicada en facebook. La foto es mía y yo tengo los derechos de la misma. No sé si me falto algún detalle a la hora de subirla para identificar este caso, pero solicito que se anule el borrado. Fromfield (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Fromfield[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 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BSicon KBFar.svg [edit]

File was deleted only 15 minutes after Deletion Request was added to file — hardly adequate time to debate the matter. Useddenim (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, go for it. -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Doodle proteins.gif [edit]

I am the author of the file. May be I made a mistake with the permission information. But I cannot fix it now. Which would be trivial. Can I have it back as it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Andrade (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes, you can. I think someone mistook this for an actual Google Doodle, and not your own work (hence "no permission") –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OgaFight picture 0001.jpg[edit]

this picture is my team make, thanks! 這張圖是我的團隊做的，請恢復，謝謝！

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 09:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nigritella rhellicani rosea 090705.jpg may still be useful[edit]

I requested the deletion of File:Nigritella rhellicani rosea 090705.jpg in 2005. The File may still be useful despite the "misidentification" that was given as a reason. --BerndH (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the file is not there to be restored. I'm not sure of the reason for this, other than the file may have been the victim of an early technical issue. Sorry –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left this open in case anyone knows what might have happened to the file –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to have ever been a file at this title. Perhaps you're requesting the undeletion of the wrong title -FASTILY 22:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a file with this title. --BerndH (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the undelete window looks like: [11]. As you can see, the software shows that no previous files have ever existed at this title. -FASTILY 09:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been a file there originally, or the original deletion request would have been nonsense –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katonadolog-Tuszkay Márton plakátja.jpg [edit]

Request temporary undeletion As I wrote on File talk:Katonadolog-Tuszkay Márton plakátja.jpg before it was deleted for "Copyright violation" (that is, wrong license {{PD-old-70}}), Tuszkay Márton (Martin Tuszkay) died in 1944 or 1940 according to sources: 1940 would make the license correct, 1944 makes it wrong. Now the uploader, who does not seem to speak English, tells me in Hungarian that in the German article de:Martin Tuszkay, the death date is 21 November 1940 in Berlin (Germany), and there is a link to the cemetery de:Südwestkirchhof Stahnsdorf which shows the same date, a more exact location (Block Charlottenburg), and also a list Literatur (mostly guides of famous graves in the Berlin cemetery) where there may be sources. I also see that the date was present in the first version of the German article with the edit summary "Angegebene Literatur / Kartei des Südwestkirchhofs Stahnsdorf" which probably means that this appears in a document published by the cemetery. This may be new information to discuss on a talk page or a deletion request page. Oliv0 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done if Tuszkay did indeed die in 1940, then all of his work published in Hungary is eligible to be uploaded to Commons. Of course a good way to settle it would be to find a user who lives near the cemetery and see if his grave has his dates on it :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Islam Slimani playing for Algeria.JPG[edit]

I uploaded this today and it was almost immediately speedily deleted. Under what basis was this done? This is a photo that my team (DZfoot.com) took personally and as owners of the photo we decided to release a low-resolution version to Wikipedia to provide a photo of the player that would otherwise be unavailable. This is not a copyright violation and I'm pretty sure I used the right license. TonyStarks (talk) 01:40, 11 May 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 08:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Murray MacLehose.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file.

This photograph of Sir Murray MacLehose was taken by me personally.Chinarail2 (talk) 02:04, 11 May 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 08:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FranzefedernautomatFriedrichNeblung.jpg[edit]

habe die lizenzvorlage nicht ordnungsgemäß aktiviert - sorry!!! - und verstanden, dass ich für die genannte bilddatei "undelete" beantragen muss und dann {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} nachträglich einfügen kann. ok? Allmender (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Die Vorlage sagt "I, the copyright holder of this work...", bzw. auf Deutsch: "Ich, der Urheberrechtsinhaber dieses Werkes...". Das Werk ist die Fotografie. Die Frage ist, ob du das Foto gemacht hast. Oder ob du nur das Foto eines anderen Fotografen eingescannt hast. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work. If this is not the case, email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sylvester Z. Poli.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the above referenced picture. Common files is granted permission of use. This is a family photograph {{PD-Heirs}} given to the National Cyclopedia of American Biography for publication. It is also used in the hardcover edition of the National Vaudeville Association Tenth Anniversary Jubilee, May 2, 1926; and also on an external website location - http://connecticuthistory.org/sylvester-poli-negotiating-cultural-politics-in-an-age-of-immigration/ The license information is {{PD-US}}.

--Gramps101 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We know that this image was published in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography, a work that was published until 1984. If the image was first published there or elsewhere in the USA before 1923, then it is, in fact PD. If it was published after 1923 in the National Cyclopedia, then it is still covered by copyright because the National Cyclopedia's copyright was renewed as part of its periodic update. It does not appear to be a family photograph -- it looks to me like a professional portrait and therefore the original copyright rests with the photographer, not the heirs of the subject. In order to restore it to Commons we will need to know the date of publication in the National Cyclopedia.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Віктор_Бронюк_.jpg [edit]

Reason: Useless to argue. Please delete this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankymoody (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, no-one is really arguing with you here. Paying someone to take a photo doesn't mean you are buying the copyright to the photo. If you know who the photographer is you can send their permission to release the image using the procedure outlined at COM:OTRS –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puente Mactumatza por la tarde.png [edit]

Se ha identificado el archivo y aclarado que dicha imagen cuenta con la Licencia por ser archivo de flickr. Anexo el Link, y aclaro que dicho archivo fue subido con el consentimiento del autor (El Nombre del autor original se Colocó).

Por lo tanto y con las debidas aclaraciones solicito que de manera inmediata sea restituida la Imagen de File:Puente Mactumatza por la tarde.png , y aclaro que en caso de no hacerlo. Tendré que realizar acciones de acorde al reglamento de Usuarios en Wikimedia Commons; ya que no existe tal justificación por la que fue motivo de su eliminación.

Envío mi saludo respetuosamente, esperando que cuanto antes sea analizado el caso y se le de Pronta Resolución.

--CA 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Anexo http://www.flickr.com/groups/muestratumexico/discuss/72157604695104827/

http://flickr.com/photos/xuklukumchibaj/2350402225/ is not free, it has no license. http://www.flickr.com/groups/muestratumexico/discuss/72157604695104827/ also says nothing of a Creative Commons licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Non-free/unlabeled files or files prohibited commercial use/derivaties are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giuseppe Favalli.jpg File:Argentina Zanetti 2002.jpg File:Premiazione Champions 2010.jpg File:Zanetti FIFA.jpg File:Zanetti 1995.jpg File:Zanetti 2004.jpg File:Zanetti finale.jpg File:Zanetti e Facchetti.jpg[edit]

[12] an user asked me for some photos about Zanetti, because I have a friend photographer. And some months ago I charged them, but you deleted them without a reason. I ask to undelete these photos. --Fra231 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many secrets? The photographier is identifiable by the images. "I have a friend photographer" sounds somewhat different from your previous "own work" claims. The best sollution is, you will provide written permission from your photographer friend Danilo Recalcati from Agenzia fotogiornalistica Aldo Liverani & C. to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Martin said. Email COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dong Jin Kim.jpg[edit]

Dong Jin Kim.jpg

Undelete -I own this file, Someone came in and deleted all my files. Including a picture of my father. Emery80 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Drago Kocakov.jpg [edit]

The file is not copyrighted because the owner has granted me permission to use it freely.

--Pejacsevich (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is still copyrighted. Did the owner give you permission to modify it, to reuse modified versions, to use them for all purposes (commercial or otherwise), and to give all these rights to other people? If the owner gave you all those, you should follow COM:OTRS, and the file will be restored. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Sinnamon said -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:China Greentech Initiative.jpg [edit]

This image is from the China Greentech Initiative website, and everything on this website is creative commons. This is also the logo of the company, which makes it fair use on Wikipedia. 15chloec (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)15chloec[reply]

I don't know about CC status, but Fair Use is definitely not allowed on Commons (this is not Wikipedia). Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked China Greentech Initiative, it says NC. Non-commercial licences are not allowed on this project. Please read COM:L. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done files with a non-commercial license are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fino_San_Patricio.jpg [edit]

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

Este fichero es propiedad de Bodegas Garvey tal como aparece en su web Fino San Patricio

The file is owned (Grupo Garvey) and we have permission to use it.

Bodegasgarvey (talk) 08:16, 13 May 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 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zickzackhausen 1.jpg File:Zickzackhausen 2.jpg [edit]

Both images were published fist in the magazine "das neue frankfurt" by the city of Frankfurt. The photographer is unknown, and the magazine existed until 1933. --ChristosV (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done alright then -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 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/Fictional Papal Arms -- File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg[edit]

Unfortunately, Fastily seems to have done an inadequate job of closing Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms, since a number of areas remain outside a blue box, and in deleting File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg he seems to have ignored comments in the "General talk" section of the request. This was a complicated issue, and Fastily unfortunately seems to have approached it rather simplistically. Requesting undeletion of File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg, which had gone through significant revision since first being nominated for deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rich Lesser at the World Economic Forum on Latin America 2011.jpg [edit]

Never mind.

Read: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Noncommercial

Best,

Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by user -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SVG mask gradient bug.svg [edit]

Reason: Displays a librsvg-bug. Was deleted with many SVGs in a category as a supposed test file. -- Perhelion (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done All images in Category:Test images are periodically deleted –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jimmy LaSalvia.jpg[edit]

I am requesting for an undeletion of this file. GOProud provides the photo for media resources and has the licensing for the photo. Also, I have received permission from GOProud for the use of this photo on Jimmy LaSalvia's Wikipedia page. The file can be found at this address: http://www.goproud.org/site/c.evKXIaONIlJcH/b.8515177/k.6847/Press__Media_Resources/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=evKXIaONIlJcH&b=8515177&en=crLILRNCKaLMJXMvEhLSI4PHK8KMJ3NKKfJLK6PQJvG

(Sfarmer14 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. We make our images available to the world, for anyone to use for any purpose, so you need to obtain permission for the images to be used by anyone. Please see Commons:Permission for more details. Powers (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above. A sufficient free license is required. INeverCry 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AMBH Poster 2010.jpg File:AMBH Poster 2011.jpg File:AMBH Poster 2012.jpg [edit]

I do not understand why you are deleting my own artworks! I created these posters and they are copyleft documents. It is really funny, I do not ask anyone any license to use my works and you are asking myself license?

This is my own gallery http://hatesymphony.deviantart.com/ that I stated that people can use my artworks without any permission. Please undelete uploaded files as I am not requesting from myself anything also...

Regards Didem gurdur --Didemgurdur (talk) 17:58, 14 May 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 04:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samy Kamkar.jpg [edit]

Reason: Flickr license has been adjusted to CC BY-SA in accordance with Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr guidelines

Ymsrm (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and tagged MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nagher Afghans of village Chomu, Rajasthan [edit]

Nobody knows about Nagher Afghans living in Chomu village in Rajasthan,India.From common man to an expert who is interested in history or geographical distribution of Afghans or Pathans my information may be helpful.If my pages restored it will be for common good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafatrajasthani (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is unclear in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagher Afghans of village Chomu, Rajasthan.pdf? --Leyo 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Commons does not host PDF or other images of text unless it is an important historical document or a work by a well known author that is out of copyright. You could try and put this text (as text, not a PDF) in WP:EN, but given that it has no sources, it probably will not be good there either. See COM:SCOPE for further information on what we do and do not host here.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Text documents are not within our scope, per Jim. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WSPR Propagation.png[edit]

File:WSPR Propagation.png is my own work. I created a screenshot of an open source program. Why is this deleted?? 2A4Fh56OSA (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view this file, but the log says it came from Google Maps. Is that true? Rybec (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is clearly a screenshot of Google Maps. Even if the overlay is generated by an open source program, Google Maps' map data is not free, it's ©Google, INEGI, Basarsoft, ORION-ME, etc., etc. –⁠moogsi (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reduced (2104762861).jpg[edit]

This was recently deleted as an unused personal image. It's a photo of a placard, showing a 0.5% price reduction, at a store which went into receivership soon after. It's a derivative work of the placard, but may fall below the threshold of originality, particularly since the card has been blurred. Rybec (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulholloway/2104762861/ is the photo in question –⁠moogsi (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The text is too simple to have a copyright. The UK has a 25 year copyright on typographic design, but I don't think that applies here. Fundamentally, though, it's blurred and not very interesting -- sure, a one p price reduction is silly, but what use is the image? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:zeinal_bava.png [edit]

A foto é da Direcção de Comunicação e Imagem Corporativa da Portugal Telecom, na qual trabalho. Estamos a completar a informação sobre as nossas empresas e CEO. É de domínio livre e pode ser usada e pode ser usada para este fim. mais info para hugo.c.silva@telecom.pt

Obrigado.

---

This picture was taken by the staff of the Department of image and communication of Portugal Telecom, where I work, and it's the company in which Zeinal Bava works as a CEO. This picture can be used freely for this purpose. We're in the process of updating the CEO and company profile at Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Hfcs (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As the image has been previously published (e.g., here), please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS and the volunteer will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola _talk 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, we sent that profile picture with some press releases in order to get them published at web articles or in paper. We, as responsible for the communication of Portugal Telecom, waived the rights over that picture. Hfcs (talk) 21:12, 16 May 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 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salvemos las Acequias. Portada.jpg File:Principios de fiosofía y matemáticas.jpg[edit]

Las fotografias de los libros fueron tomadas por mi, no son bajadas del internet, si es necesario puedo tomar otras en las que se vea la mesa o en la disposicion que me indiquen, tengo el material a la mano, sin embargo si consideran que es mejor dejarlo asi, estoy de acuerdo, solo quiero dejar constancia de honestidad y si lo consideran bien, que se restituyan. Les agradezco, en especial a ti Taichi todo el apoyo que brindan, un saludo. Derconb (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tienes que tener los derechos no sólo de las fotografías sino también de las portadas de libro en sí mismas. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zauberer Alexander Merk aus Berlin Augsburg.jpg [edit]

Reason: Der Künstler Alexander Merk hat sämtliche Lizenzen zur Verwendung und Verbreitung dieses Fotos vom Fotografen Ingo Dumreicher übertragen bekommen. Somit fehlt hier weder eine weitere Lizenzfreigabe noch liegt ein Urheberrechtsverstoß vor. Bei weiteren Fragen bitte Kontakt mit dem Büro des Künstlers oder Fotografen aufnehmen!

--Dankemarxerle (talk) 19:29, 16 May 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 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wiederherstellung File:Assisi from north.jpg[edit]

Hallo zusammen,

aufgrund einer offenbar durch mich fehlerhaft vergebenen Lizenz wurde das von mir hochgeladene Bild File:Assisi from north.jpg leider am 15.5.2013 gelöscht. Ich habe dieses Foto am 18.5.2011 selbst vor Assisi aufgenommen und gebe gerne sämtliche Rechte an diesem Bild auf, so dass das Bild auf Wikipedia veröffentlicht werden kann (es wurde bis zur Löschung auf der Seite "Assisi" verwendet). Leider kenne ich mich mit den verschiedenen Lizentypen noch nicht so gut aus...

Viele Grüße,

--Magalex (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the image, but be sure to include a license tag -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Fastily, I just tried to re-upload this file (bother under same and changed name) but got the error message that the file upload was not possible since there was found a file with the same content that has been deleted. Is there a work-around to still upload the old file or should I try to change the content by readjustment of the picture's clipping? Best regards, --Magalex (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fastily, just ignore my comment above, I just learned when not using the upload assistant it is possible to ignore the "file existed"-warning. Sorry for the confusion, the file is now uploaded again (under different name "Assisi from north 2.jpg"). Best regards, --Magalex (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaroslava Pešicová - tvorba.jpg[edit]

There is permission for this file in OTRS. Thanks. --Harold (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giroir Photo December 2012.jpg[edit]

Please restore File:Giroir Photo December 2012.jpg per OTRS ticket 2013051710000051, which gives a "Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike" license from the copyright holder "The Texas A&M University System". --UserB (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need to know which version number it is in order to satisfy the requirement saying that you need to provide the URL to the text of the licence? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a template {{Cc-by-sa}} that just says 1.0. In any event, if you'd prefer that I ask for a version number, I can, but it would be nice to have the image restored first. --UserB (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It would of course be nice to have a specified version, but the principle that it's free for reuse is satisfied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I have replied to the requestor asking for a specific version number, but I agree that even if we don't hear back, we're fine using the image. I guess we could consider having a template that has a message like this, "a specific version of the license was not specified, but is presumed to be 3.0 - the then-current version when this license was obtained. If you are the copyright holder, you may replace this notice with a specific version number." But my pedanticness (new word) has its limits. ;) --UserB (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: the requestor has affirmed the "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)" license. All is well. --UserB (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Windows 7 ultimate Desktop.png [edit]

yo lo hice por que lo borran putos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularvalenti (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Capturas de pantalla#Software –⁠moogsi (talk) 01:20, 18 May 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 Sheikh Muhammad A Abusneina[edit]

I wrote before that the picture was taken from one his sons and I posted on here. Please undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefella (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Convenience links:

File:Shek Muhammad Ahmad Abusneina.jpg deleted 2013-05-06
File:Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Abusneina.jpg deleted 2013-05-17
File:Sheikh Muhammad Abusneina.png latest upload of the same image

If you have permission from the photographer, please provide evidence via COM:OTRS. Otherwise, the same image will continue to be deleted –⁠moogsi (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lviv parkIF03.jpg [edit]

The rotonda in the photo was built in 1835 (see for example the major city newspaper or check Ukrainian Records Book where it is listed as the oldest rotonda in a public park), so it just cannot fall under FOP: it would be a miracle if its architect did not die before 1946 — NickK (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks –⁠moogsi (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guilherme-Giovannoni.jpg[edit]

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

The file is in Flickr.com and have the permission of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaol5 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not everything licensed CC-BY/SA on Flickr is necessarily free. Anyone can upload things to Flickr and give them whatever license they like. This doesn't prove they are free photos. See Commons:License laundering –⁠moogsi (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EzeldinQassam.jpg[edit]

This file was delete with the reason "Media without a source as of 1 May 2013". This is the picture is of en:Izz ad-Din al-Qassam. He was killed by the the British police in Palestine in 1935. According to the law in Israel pictures that were taken before 1962 has no Copyright. This is important picture, who know today who was the original photographer? Please, I ask you to undelete the picture. Thanks Hanay (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has the image been published? USA uses a copyright term which lasts for 70 years p.m.a. or 120 years pr for unpublished photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel we use {{PD-Israel}}, it is a diffrent law. I ask that the picture will be published with this license Hanay (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but per COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law, you also need to verify that the image is in the public domain in the United States, which sometimes means problems, in particular for unpublished photos. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beit Alpha 1933.jpg and Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hebrew Wikipedia follow Israeli law and allow local uploads? Could the file be uploaded there? –⁠moogsi (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I read but I still do not understand the instruction "you also need to verify that the image is in the public domain in the United States". I of course can upload the picture in he:wiki as it was done in ar:wiki, but since the article is exist in 13 wikipedia, and since I know that in Israel there is no problem with the lisence I think it would be better if the picture will be in Commons. Hanay (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons can only accept the image if it is in the public domain in both the United States and Israel.

Israel: The photo is fine if it was taken more than 50 years ago.
USA: The photo must have been taken more than 50 years before 1996. Additionally:
- If published before 1923, always OK per {{PD-1923}}.
- If never published before 1 March 1989, then only OK if it satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}}. See Commons:Subsisting copyright.
- If first published between 1923 and 28 February 1989, then {{PD-1996}} applies, unless it was published with full copyright formalities (which should be unusual for an Israeli photo). See Commons:Subsisting copyright.

Conclusion: We need to show that all photos from that age, regardless of the country of origin, have been published before 1 March 1989, due to the stupid US rule. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. He was killed in 1935 and according to the British police in Palestine he was a terrorist. I am sure that his picture was published before 1989. I can not show were, but it is common sence. look for his picture in google pictures. I gave up. do what ever you decide to do. Hanay (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is bound by US IP law, sorry. It's likely that there are very few widely-published pictures of the subject. This can possibly be fixed with one trip to the library –⁠moogsi (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg [edit]

Bonjour,

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il y a un acharnement à retirer cette photo: File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg . Celle-ci est ma propre réalisation, et je la balance tout simplement sur Wikimedia. Il y a un mois, un utilisateur suspicieux avait déjà retiré cette photo, et maintenant, un autre utilisateur me prévient que la photo a été retirée une fois de plus. Tout d'abord, est-il possible de rétablir cette photo car je la trouve très jolie, elle est récente et illustre super bien la page d'Isabelle Adjani, et ensuite que puis-je faire pour me garantir que ce genre de suppression n'arrive plus? Cdt, --Lepicier (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le problème avec cette image est que l'on la retrouve sur d'autres sites, p.ex. ici, attribuée à "© Thibaud Artur". L'image était marquée chez nous comme votre propre oeuvre. Donc il paraît qu'il y a deux possibilités: soit vous êtes Thibaud Artur, soit vous n'êtes pas lui et l'attribution sur cette site externe est fausse. (La troisième possibilité—que l'attribution à Thibaud Artur est correcte, et vous n'êtes pas lui, et vous nêtes pas non plus le deteneur des droits d'auteur à cette image—est la raison pourquoi on l'a supprimé.) Donc afin de restaurer l'image, il nous faudrait d'évidence pour une des deux premières possibilites. C'est un peu le cas classique decrit dans Commons:Problematic sources#Professional photographers' images (en anglais seulement; peut-être il est temps que l'on finisse la traduction en français sur Commons:Sources problématiques??). Cette page vous donne également des conseils comment resoudre ce genre de problème: enoyez votre évidence par e-mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Mentionnez dans le e-mail de quelle image il s'agit (File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg), et expliquez pourquoi cette image est la votre malgré son utilisation ailleurs. Si vous êtes Thibaud Artur ou si vous avez encore l'original (RAW), pas seulement la version produite par Adobe Photoshop qui était present ici sur Commons, ou d'autres images de la même session fait juste avant ou après, il ne devrait être pas trop compliqué de démontrer que c'est vraiment une photo que vous avez pris. (D'ailleurs, c'est vraiment une superbe photo!) Lupo 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that some explanation is required, I note for the record that this image was uploaded on Commons by User:Lepicier at 7000x4738px. That is a much higher resolution than is available generally on the web -- the version on the web site cited above is at 940x530px -- less than one seventh the size in each dimension. That suggests strongly to me that Lepicier has access to the original image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original will likely be even larger, since 7000x4738px is not a camera size. Or it was upscaled; the EXIF gives two different image sizes. The user unfortunately also had some other images deleted, check the talk page and deleted contributions. On her French user page, she states she was a librarian by profession. In any case, if she has access to the original, it really should be no problem to show via COM:OTRS that it really is her photo. Lupo 09:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lupo. Please contact COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abigail jain.jpg [edit]

this file was deleted due to possible copyright, but this file is not picked by me from internet,it is my own work... please not delete it... check the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Jain"Soh nat(talk) 05:09, 18 May 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 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Photo-Tom5.jpg [edit]

ich bitte um Aufhebung der Löschung des Fotos "Photo-Tom5.jpg". Die Rechte zu dem Bild habe ich persönlich.Ich erteile hiermit die Freigabe, dass das Bild weltweit frei genutzt werden darf! --Thomas-tom5 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benötigt Freigabe via COM:OTRS. Fotograf scheint laut [13] und [14] Hans-Michael Lenz gewesen zu sein. Lupo 12:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fosil mamut Valparaiso.jpg[edit]

No encuentro razon para borrar esta foto, esta foto fue tomada en el Museo regional de Valparaiso Zacatecas y no tiene licencia alguna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaz1213 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyvio. Just because you found it on the internet does not mean it is freely licensed -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Le Mur pour la Paix sur le Champ de Mars à Paris.jpg[edit]

Hello! I know this one has poor chances to get undeleted. But anyway, I try for this:

First, it is written in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Mur pour la Paix sur le Champ de Mars à Paris.jpg that the file has been deleted through another DR. Then I am not sure that what I wrote there has been taken into account in the decision.
Also, and it is what I explained in this DR, there are other examples of pictures that have been kept after DR for the reason that the subject is not "only" the artwork, but an event related to it. In this case it was the fact that this wall has been vandalised (a part of the glasses is missing). This to illustrate the fact that this artwork is very often vandalised. I have two examples of files kept for the same reasons: File:Maintenance of the Louvre Pyramid structure.jpg (the subject is the maintenance, not only the pyramid, file was kept after 2 DR), and File:Tour de l Europe incendie Mulhouse20100116.JPG (the subject if the fire, not only the tower, file was kept after 1 DR). I really don't know if we can rescue this file, but anyway, thank you for your help! . Jeriby (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building is obviously the subject of the photo you indicated. Given that there is no FOP in France, this photo is a derivative of a non-free work of art, which is prohibited on Commons. Sorry -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic official emblem.gif[edit]

DR is here, no reasoning was provided by closing admin. Logo is too simple for copyright, it is extremely basic shapes and text. There is nothing copyrightable here. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sheikh Muhammad Abusneina.png [edit]

As I told you before the deletion is a mistake. This is a photo that belongs to a father (Islamic scholar) of one of my friends and I thought I should create a page for him on wikipedia. This picture was not taken from TV I scanned it and posted it here. Please undelete for the love of God.

Not done Contact COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Celje center 2006.JPG This file and inscription is total mine. So pleas undelete it.[edit]

File:Celje center 2006.JPG This file and inscription is mine, so undelete it.--Stebunik (talk) 17:37, 19 May 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 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Borrado de imágenes[edit]

No comprendo por qué me han eliminado todas las imágenes que había subido, solicito la restauración de las mismas ya que son fruto de un laborioso trabajo durante años. --Linux65 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User has been asking on eswiki. Seems that some earlier uploads were mistakenly claimed as new ones.

So they were deleted. User understood.

Then Ezarate later claimed all images were to be deleted since some images lacked exif data or were taken with different cameras. Good reasons for deleting. With zero further input, the images were deleted [15].

Now, Linux65 find out now what happened and asked on eswiki's willage pump.

Sysops are telling (literally) that when doubts arises, the procedure is to "delete first, ask later". And since he had in the past made mistakes with licenses, it was better to delete.

I translate here his statement since it's relevant to this discussion:

Yes, I accepted them [T.N. the earlier deletions]. I wanted to photographically document articles so I searched internet and retouched images thinking that a heavily retouched image was like a new image. After those image's deletions, I have never uploaded anything that wasn't mine. (...) So t he point is that all the I currently had were mine. Even those from Pico Gratal, a picture and a video, were deleted. I climbed the peak to record the video. (...) The most I think about this, the most unbelievable it looks. Outrageous, truly. (...) When I log in today and see no image, I felt like crying, really. 18:22 5 may 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a bad example of how to treat users. This is a 3 year old contributor and he abandoned the wiki. I also think Ezarate actions were less than exemplar (he could have just asked user directly, here on eswiki instead of opening a deletion request) and I think it's awful sysops defending a "we delete first and ask later" argument.

So I think the images should be restored and a proper review should be held on the images instead of blanket deletion. -- Magister Mathematicae 23:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User also had previously stated that he fully understood his earlier mistake and vowed not to do it again:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:T%C3%BArelio&diff=prev&oldid=77406507

Gracias por la advertencia y perdón por las molestias ocasionadas. Estaba en la creencia de que modificando la imagen original se podía considerar una imagen nueva. Ahora ya sé que no es así. En lo sucesivo solamenete subiré imágenes de cosecha propia.--Scandisk65 (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Scandisk65

Translation:

Thank you for the warining and sorry about the trouble caused. I believed that modifying the original image could be considered a new image. Now I know it is not the case. From now on I will only upload images created by me

-- Magister Mathematicae 23:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I did the normal procedure in this cases, create a deletion request, put a message in the usertalk and wait that a admin review the case and close the DR. What is the problem now? --Ezarateesteban 00:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is, that it seems the images were not copyvios and therefore there is no reason for deleting them. Procedures are no substitute for common sense nor excuses not to undo a mistake.

I also believe your rationale for the request was not a very good one (claiming he had files deleted before) specially since he already acknowledge his earlier mistakes and stated clearly he would avoid making it again.

So, I ask explicitly: do you oppose reviewing the case on the basis that you followed procedures? Is there no margin for error?

On Eswiki you mentioned sending the files to deletion upon private request of an user via gtalk. Is there a chance (if it does not violate any policy, as there may be a reason for he using backchannels) to discuss the matter with said user?, maybe we can clear the misunderstanding. -- Magister Mathematicae 01:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a little bit. User admited he took a recent photo from Facebook because it was there and no other place and thought that was not copyvio. Also admited he took pictures with at least two cameras and a cell phone that change every year. He doesn´t explain why some pictures had no metadata or exif. And claims in several occasions not to be informed of the situation ([16], [17], [18]), even when he had a warning in is TP. Also, he says Wikipedia becoms an oligarchy, what Ezarate did was seemed outrageous and nonsense that he decided to retired. Finally he previously retired on october when I tagg several of their articles as copyvio and returns in february this year. Cheers. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misunderstanding. He said the last picture he got deleted last year was taken from facebook. And he claims ever since then he took himself all the pictures. (Pay attention to "..eso es otra historia. El caso es que las que había actualmente eran mías"). So you're wrong on that one.

The fact that he changes cameras and phones, is preciselye the reason there are different metadata.

Moreover, it worries me that images I have uploaded may be deleted because some lack exif metadata or have different camera models or are low resolution?

Now, is that evidence I upload copyvios? Do I need to worry?

Moreover, lack of EXIF does not imply it must be a copyright violation.

He is indeed angry at eswiki (where he was literallly said "we delete first and ask later" therefore is understandable that he has harsh words against what he perceives to be an injustice. (And what if he speaks of oligarchy and the alike? How is that relevant to the discussion here? lack of arguments? Do please focus on the topic).

Now, do you have proof that the images and videos he took himself are not? He said last year that he hadn't understood licenses. Your evidence(?) is that he made mistakes last year (and therefore retired). How is it relevant that he retired? And also, we're not discussing last year events. He acknowledged his mistakes. ::::Do you have proof he engaged again in copyvioing? Or is it like Ezarate (or the user that did not open the request but instead told Ezarate to do it), mere bad faith suspicion because he made mistakes last year?

Also, nobody is disputing that Ezarate followed procedures. We all agree on it. We are not discussing if Ezarate followed procedures.

What we are discussing here is: User states plain and clearly that images he created himself were deleted. He asks for a restore. And the argument for opposing is "procedures were followed". ????? Do you have any rationale to oppose restoring? Again, we are not discussing if Ezarate followed procedure. We are discussingthe reversal of what it seems an incorrect result.

And I insist on my earlier statement. If anyone has hard evidence, present it. Otherwise, lacking further evidence, there is no reason to deny the restore. Ezarate, you, me, all make mistakes. That's ok. What's not ok is not to use procedures as an excuse to deny reviews. -- Magister Mathematicae 03:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant he was angry? Of course. Is it relevant he said over and over he was not in knowledge when he has an advice in is TP? Sure. So please, If you want to paint an image, do it complete. Do I have proof? How? I'm a regular user. If you have buttons, why don´t you restored yourself? I think is easier than continuous with this interrogatory that, sincerously, sounds very agressive agains Ezarate. And, as I don´t want to polemize, I go to continue my work somewhere else. Cheers. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to answer to "No, you're misunderstanding". Here he clarifies again that he took Juan cotino.jpeg from Facebook, because he searched in Google and didn't find it anywhere else, so he thought it was no copyvio. So I think I didn´t misunderstood his first message. Also, I want to appologize. When I put previous comment bot archives and I recovered accidentally part of it. Sorry. Ganímedes (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break (the TLDR section)[edit]

Facts and links for your convenience:

2012-08 Linux65 uploads several files which are deleted as copyvios (mostly speedied):

Extended content

Uploaded before 2012-09-06 (please note that dates are those on which the file was deleted)

2012-08-07 File:Los fresones rojos.png
2012-08-07 File:Fresonesrojos.jpg
2012-09-06 File:3910632w-365xXx80.jpg
2012-09-06 File:Laputaylaballena.jpg
2012-09-06 File:FilmCasino.jpg
2012-09-06 File:Sergio Leone.png
2012-09-06 File:Tombstone film.jpg
2012-09-06 File:Francisco carrasquer.jpg
2012-09-06 File:Premiodelasletrasaragonesas.jpg
2012-09-06 File:Juancarlos-arce.jpg
2012-09-07 File:Efecto Werther.jpg
2012-09-07 File:Rosendo-tello-retrato.jpg
2012-09-13 File:Escudo Villamontan.png
2013-03-17 File:Bandera Villamontan.png

2012-09-06 Linux65 apologizes for their previous copyvios, states they now understand what they did wrong - "Estaba en la creencia de que modificando la imagen original se podía considerar una imagen nueva. Ahora ya sé que no es así."
... no problems...
2013-03-17 Linux65 uploads several files which are copyrighted pictures with a filter applied, as before; they are speedied the same day:

Extended content
File:CristinaFallaras2006.jpg File:Barcenas gate.jpg File:Alejandra-De-Cima.jpg File:Benjamin prado.jpg File:Barcenas gate.jpg File:Carmen mairena.jpg

2013-04-29 File:Juan cotino.jpeg (an unedited, previously published file) is deleted as a copyvio
2013-04-29 Commons:Deletion requests/FIles uploaded by Linux65
2013-05-05 The following files are deleted based on the above DR:

Extended content

Both sides kind of have a case here, but there is no ignoring the fact that the user acted against their word by uploading more copyrighted images after they said that they understood the situation. If Linux65 is upset by the deletion of all their files, I don't have any sympathy –⁠moogsi (blah) 12:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambos lados tienen un caso aquí, pero no puede ignorarse el hecho de que el usuario actuó en contra de su palabra mediante la subida de más imágenes con derechos de autor después de que dijo que entendía la situación. Si Linux65 está molesto por la eliminación de todos sus archivos, no tengo ninguna simpatía. –⁠moogsi (blah) 12:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation by --Ganímedes (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I think the discussion above forgets an important principle of Commons. We "Assume Good Faith" when an uploader says that the image is his own work and as a general rule, we accept his word as the truth. If we did not do that, we could not function. However, when an uploader has a history of copyvio, then says that he understands his errors and won't do it again, and then, in fact, does do it again, then we no longer so quickly accept his word. Once he has shown that he cannot be trusted -- it doesn't matter whether he is a liar or just repeatedly wrong -- we require a much higher standard of proof when he claims "own work". Once a user has twice proven himself a source of trouble, we apply a much higher standard to further contributions. It is not up to the community to prove that these are copyvios -- it is up to Linux65 to prove that they are not, beyond a "significant doubt".

We have 8,000 new images every day, of which 2,000 are problems and are deleted. This is an all-volunteer community and is close to being overwhelmed with work. I have little patience for people who have repeatedly uploaded copyvios and are now angry because we have deleted images that may or may not actually be their own work. At the very least, I think that an apology to Ezarate and the rest of the community is in order. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que la discusión anterior olvida un principio importante de Commons. "Presumimos buena fe" cuando el usuario dice que la imagen es trabajo propio y, como regla general, aceptamos su palabra como cierta. Si no hacemos eso, no podríamos funcionar. Sin embargo, cuando un usuario tiene una historia de copyvio, luego dice que comprende sus errores y que no lo hará de nuevo, y entonces, de hecho, lo hace de nuevo, entonces ya no aceptamos su palabra tan rápidamente. Una vez que se ha demostrado que no se puede confiar - no importa si es un mentiroso o simplemente lo hace mal repetidamente - se requiere un nivel mucho más alto de pruebas cuando afirma que es "trabajo propio". Una vez que el usuario ha demostrado dos veces ser una fuente de problemas, se aplica un nivel mucho más alto a las nuevas contribuciones. No le corresponde a la comunidad demostrar que se trata de copyvios - depende de Linux65 demostrar que no es así, más allá de la "duda razonable".

Tenemos 8.000 nuevas imágenes cada día, de las cuales 2.000 tienen problemas y se eliminan. Esta es una comunidad de voluntarios y está cerca de ser abrumada por el trabajo. Tengo poca paciencia para las personas que suben repetidamente copyvios y ahora están enfadadas porque hemos eliminado las imágenes que pueden o no ser en realidad su propio trabajo. Por lo menos, creo que una disculpa a Ezarate y al resto de la comunidad es de orden. . Jim. . . . (Jameslwoodward) (habla conmigo) 14:57, 6 de mayo de 2013 (UTC)

Translated by request by --Ganímedes (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Para Ezarate y por favor, no eliminar[edit]

Todas las fotografías que actualmente había en Commons son mías. Las he tomado con una BlackBerry Torch de 5px, una BlackBerry 8520 de 5px, Una tablet BQ, una cámara Reflex Kodak de 10px y la única fotografía escaneada es una antigua de un camión de Danone, que también hice yo hace años con una Pentax Reflex y que solo tengo en papel y por eso la escaneé. Eso lo puedo prometer o jurar por lo que sea. Las fotografías son mías. Cuando viajo, y depende del lugar, me llevo una cámara u otra. Por ejemplo, en el castillo de Loarre o Ainsa me fui con la Reflex, a Barcelona en la Semana Negra, la cual cubrí para la prensa local me voy con la BlackBerry y la Tablet BQ, hice fotos con las dos. Dispongo de los originales en mi archivo personal de más de 7000 fotografías y estoy dispuesto a demostrar una a una donde fueron tomadas y en qué lugar. Ya no sé que hacer para que se restablezcan las fotografías que he ido subiendo durante cuatro años con el único fin de documentar gráficamente los artículos. Linux65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.125.174.188 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

All photographs are currently Commons had in mine. I have taken them with a BlackBerry Torch 5px a 5px BlackBerry 8520, A tablet BQ, Kodak SLR camera and the only 10px is an old scanned photo of a truck Danone, which also I did years ago with a Pentax SLR and I have only on paper and scanned it so. That I can promise or swear by what is. The photographs are mine. When I travel, and depends on the place, I carry a camera or another. For example, in the castle of Loarre or Ainsa I went with the Reflex, to Barcelona in the Semana Negra, which I covered for the local press I go with the BlackBerry and Tablet BQ, took pictures with both. DECREE of the originals in my personal archive of over 7000 photographs and am willing to demonstrate to one where they were taken and where. I do not know what to do for the restoration of the pictures I've been up for four years solely to graphically document the items. Linux65. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.125.174.188 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the undeletion of your pictures but please edit with your account, not your ip and wait the community consensus Ezarateesteban 12:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful to show that you've read and understood anything that Jim said above, instead of starting a new section. Does someone need to translate this? –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tal vez ayudaría que mostraras que has leído y comprendido algo de lo que dijo Jim más arriba, en lugar de comenzar una nueva sección. Necesita alguien traducir esto? –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation by --Ganímedes (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Proper translation: All my current uploads have been taken by myself using a BlackBerry Torch, BlackBerry 8520, BQ tablet, Kodak SLR camera, and the only scan is an old photo of a Danone truck, which I also took with a Pentax SLR and have a physical copy of. I swear that the photographs are mine. When I travel, I bring different cameras depending on where I go. For example, I went with my SLR to the castle of Loarre or Ainsa, and I brought my Blackberry and BQ tablet to Barcelona to Black Week. I deleted the originals from my personal collection of over 7000 photos, and I am willing to show one by one where they were taken. I don't know what else I can do to restore the photos which I've uploaded in the last four years just to illustrate the articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I was referring to translating what Jim said above into Spanish... as Linux65 says, "Ya no sé que hacer", when Jim has made quite a good suggestion towards, IMO (especially as Linux65 has not had the idea themselves to apologize for lying and wasting everyone's time). Although, Ezarate seems willing to forgive so maybe I'm just being petty :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, pero me refería a traducir al español lo que había dicho Jim... como dice Linux65, "I don´t know what else to do" cuando Jim le ha hecho algunas buenas sugerencias, en mi opinión (especialmente porque Linux65 no ha tenido la idea propia de disculparse por mentir y hacerle perder el tiempo a todo el mundo). Aunque Ezarate parece dispuesto a perdonar por lo que tal vez estoy siendo quisquilloso :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation by --Ganímedes (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Marking as Not done as a stale discussion without clear consensus to restore. Linux65, I suggest you contact COM:OTRS if you still wish for your files to be restored -FASTILY 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slovakia stateless persons travel document - cover.jpg [edit]

Gee whiz, folks, I don't suppose y'all could, say, bother to contact me about the license before just flat-out paranoid deleting the image? Fine, it's PD, I'll change it. But seriously, it's obvious from a quick view of my history or talk here that I don't hang out here at all and so would have never seen the C:DR posting. It would've been rather easy to contact me on en.wikipedia.org, or heck just google for my email address or other contact info. It's not like I'm hard to find, and now it's getting de-linked on WP pages which included it! Gak! MikeGogulski (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can {{PD-SlovakGov}} be used for things like this? It is unclear whether that tag only applies to text or whether it also applies to images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that the image is incorrectly licensed, but that is not a reason to delete if it is obviously below the TOO. However, I object to MikeGogulski's rant above. We delete about 2,000 images every day and are barely staying ahead of the flood. Ten Admins do most of that. There is nowhere near enough time to do more than our standard notifications for any deletions. If MikeGogulski is going to claim "own work" on something that obviously is not, then he should recognize that it might be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done per Jim. -FASTILY 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frontiers of Astrobiology.jpg File:Talking About Life.jpg File:How It Began.jpg [edit]

Reason: I have permission from the author of these books (Chris Impey) to use these files. I can obtain written permission from the author and/or publisher if necessary.

--Kevinkhu123 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:OTRS for a description of the permission we need. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 20 May 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 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaime Carbonell.jpg [edit]

The photo is from Dr. Jaime Carbonell's home page http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jgc/. There are no copyright issues with this photo since it belongs to Dr. Carbonell. Please undelete. Thank you.

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 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MuelleDePuertoCumarebo.jpg[edit]

Esta foto aunque ha sido publicada en otras paginas fue tomada por un familiar mio Samu rp7 (talk) 05:12, 20 May 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 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polideportivo Manaure-1.jpg [edit]

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

Aunque la foto esta en panoramio, la foto fue tomada como lo indique por Jesus Rodriguez, si hay algun inconveniente pues tendre que subir una tomada por mi pero les aseguro que esta foto es tomada por quien indique no la deberian borrar Samu rp7 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 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 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gulshan_Grover_1.jpg [edit]

This image [[19]] is an original image from my IMDB page and I hereby request this image to remain as my wikipedia profile image

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 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GitHub screenshot.png [edit]

File:Deadspin Screenshot.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Lifehacker Screenshot.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Jalopnik Screenshot.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Jezebel Screenshot.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I created the image my self. If you take a photo of a person then they do not own the image, the same applies here!

Ecallow (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Both the design and content of websites are copyrightable. Please refer to Commons:Screenshots –⁠moogsi (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amna.JPG [edit]

Buenos días, esta imagen es mi propio trabajo, ya que yo la edité y la modifiqué. Por favor, que se hagan los respectivos arreglos y correcciones, gracias. --David Steven (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has not yet been deleted, therefore you should make your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amna.JPG. With that in mind, note that the fact that you may have edited the image may give you a copyright in your work, but it does not remove the original copyright, see COM:DW. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Unambiguous copyvio (see here, numerous other sites). As Jim said, cropping does not dissolve original copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

FOP in Armenia[edit]

Armenia recently amended its law on copyright, and currently has freedom of panorama. Please see the law and the discussion. Accordingly, please restore the following files:

File:Hovhannes Tumanyan.jpg
File:Vazgensargsian1.jpg
File:Movses Khorenatsi.jpg
File:Sahak Partev and Mesrop Mashtots.jpg
File:AnaniaShirakatsi.jpg
File:Karrara present.jpg
File:Peace dove.jpg
All the files listed here.

There is also a category set up for the undeleted files: Category:Armenian FOP cases/undeleted. And the new permission template to use is {{FOP-Armenia}}. Chaojoker (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also the following files:

Done Undeleted, with exception of some files which are duplicates of already restored files, or had been deleted for other reasons than FoP. --A.Savin 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xbox.png [edit]

The reason I want the file undeleted is because that the image that was updated is not copyrighted, it's trademarked by Microsoft. The person MMXX had no reason taking it off. I putted the license trademark under Licensing, and the person deleted it anyway. If that image was copyrighted, the logo on Xbox One would be deleted too but it's still there. --Archcaster (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a work creates the copyright with it - you don't need to register it. The logo is not simple enough to be {{PD-simple}}, and I seriously doubt Microsoft would release it under a free licence. As for the image you mentioned, it's up for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agreed. Most logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Both are automatic (the former after creation and the latter after first use in trade). While most major trademarks are registered, and copyrights can be registered, registration is not required in either case for them to exist.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 00:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rúzsa Magdi fotózás 2012 Erzsébet-híd 2.JPG and other related photos[edit]

The following photos have been deleted due to no licence and/or missing permission. We have received permission for the photos, under ticket id 2013041710004111. Please undelete, so I can tag them accordingly. Thank you.

Teemeah (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (OTRS agent)[reply]

Done INeverCry 19:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suzanne_Belperron_Archives_Olivier_Baroin_240px.jpg[edit]

This file was identified as a duplicate, but the duplicate was deleted in march. Can you restore the picture used on 8 articles ? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivier.Baroin (talk • contribs) 15:09, May 22, 2013‎ (UTC)

Not done. It was tagged for deletion as a duplicate, but was deleted for lack of COM:OTRS permission. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzanne Belperron Archives Olivier Baroin 240px.jpg. This and the earlier version are the same, so neither can be restored until COM:OTRS permission has been received. INeverCry 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Email sent to OTRS Permission.Olivier.Baroin (talk) 22:30 (UTC) 22 May 2013

Request temporary undeletionThis file is used on 8 articles; The file was immediately deleted for OTRS reason, without discussion or notification; The OTRS process is on-going.Olivier.Baroin (talk) 21:41 (UTC) 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be patient. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email you sent. -FASTILY 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request for File:SolarCell-IVgraph3-E.PNG [edit]

Hi, I'd like to request to undelete the image File:SolarCell-IVgraph3-E.PNG . This image was truly created by me(s-kei) and uploaded in year 2006 (please check the history). The "source PDF" mentioned by the requester(INeverCry) is copyrighted in 2009, which is far later than my upload. Please note that I made the image public domain --- it can show up in any other publications. (But I'll think avoiding the use of PD licenses from now, if this kind of trouble happens frequently). Thank you!--S-kei (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I would be glad if I could have words on this case from somebody who really knows about the deletion rules. I see a conflict between these two cases. --S-kei (talk) 15:08, 23 May 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 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've sent an email to OTRS. --S-kei (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanjeev Jaiswal.png[edit]

Sanjeev jaiswal.jpg i have given the source link of file. --Shravanjaiswal (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)24th may - wikipediahelp[reply]

Oppose You indicated upon upload that the author of the file is Sanjeev Jaiswal and that he had "personally mailed" the image to you. Sanjeev Jaiswal is actually the subject of the photo, which looks like it was done by a professional photographer. OTRS permission from the copyright holder would be required to host it on Commons. INeverCry 18:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What INeverCry said -FASTILY 20:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bhavana Mal Actress.jpg[edit]

I do not agree to the rationale given for deletion. The photographer is a friend of mine and I know for sure that this file is not a copyright violation. He published it in flickr under a commons compatible license and I see no reason to delete the file here. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated by the closing admin at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhavana Mal Actress.jpg, there is legal uncertainty about this image and until that is cleared up we cannot host it. What we would need is clear personal evidence from the photographer: a statement from a friend is not I am afraid sufficient. The image appears to be professional, and no doubt the photographer still has the original image and will be able to provide a high-resolution version as evidence that the picture has not simply been copied from a website. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to

Support undeletion. I can't find a good reason to doubt the Flickr page's authenticity. The southdreamz article is dated 2007, as is the URL on the image upload, which is the basis for deletion (and if it had been on that page in 2007, that would indeed be a good reason). However... there is no way that actual image existed there back then, so perhaps it was a replacement image for something else. The Internet Archive for the southdreamz page only goes back to December 2011, and they do have an image with that URL, but did not archive the actual image, so that is not a help either way. In the EXIF information on the southdreamz download, they have stripped the original creation date. However, it does have an "XMP Toolkit" date of February 2010. Granted, that may be because the download URL generates a new image every time, and that is the software on the website (I can't determine a server-modified date because of that). Their image is the exact same size as the one from the Flickr page, which suggests they took it from there (or from Wikipedia itself), modified it, and uploaded it. If the movie it came from was released in 2010, then the photo is also impossible to have existed in 2007. Secondly, the image on the Flickr page has an EXIF creation date of November 5, 2009, and an upload date of November 24, 2009, which is not a lot of time to pirate it from elsewhere, particularly as the movie was not yet released at that time from the sounds of it. The Flickr author also has separate photos taken with the actress in the exact same clothes with the same creation date (November 5, 2009), which strongly suggests that was in fact the date of the photo, and those were not uploaded until February 2010. A pirate would be more likely to find a gallery elsewhere on the web and upload them all at once. Lastly, this clip supposedly from that movie shows the actress wearing those same clothes. The only reason for deletion is if there is good evidence that the Flickr uploader is *not* the author, and while the image on the southdreamz page at first blush seems to put some doubt into that, in further looking I'm not sure I see enough evidence on the southdreamz page while the Flickr user seems more genuine. If we could find copies of that image dated from before 2009, I would change my mind, but all of the other web copies seem to date from 2010 or later. The upload URL on the southdreamz site is still a little troubling, but... someone would have gone to great lengths to fake the EXIF creation date if the Flickr user is not genuine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. While the image is licensed CC-BY on Flickr, it also (at least now) has this statement: "All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission from pyngodan@gmail.com" If that statement has been there all the time, that would cast doubt on the CC license. On the other hand *most* of that user's photos are licensed "All rights reserved", which might suggest they changed the license on this picture in particular. I'm not sure on this question, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am ask Pyngodan to send an OTRS permission, but I feel that that is unnecessary. The reason to delete this image is clearly wrong as explained by you in your first comment. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith says he knows the photographer personally, and that's good enough for me. Of course, OTRS permission would be nice. -FASTILY 22:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alligator Pond and the Fingernail Moon.jpg [edit]

Please undelete the file I uploaded titled "Alligator Pond and the Fingernail Moon." I am the owner of this content. I think I started doing uploading this file on here before my email address was confirmed and their was some question as to whether this was really me.

Thank you.

Kimberly McIntyre

The file has not been deleted, just tagged as lacking evidence. Did you send email to OTRS providing confirmation of ownership? If so, the OTRS tag (with number) needs to be added before the deletion tags are removed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 18:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Copyright term.svg[edit]

Why was this deleted? This doesn't seem to have been part of the deletion nomination but simply mentioned in the discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-FASTILY 01:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Singapore $5 Banknote 1997 ND..jpg[edit]

File:Singapore $2 Banknote 1992. I.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Sorry,

but I think there are misconceptions of the copyright for modern numismatic items (coins and banknotes):

In my opinion copyright of modern numismatic items does not mean that you cannot picture such items in price lists, catalogues, encyclopaedias etc. When a coin or banknote has been released to the public it must be free to be made known to parties interested in it. Especially the commemorative issues are just made for the purpose of being offered in price lists and catalogues, and made known in encyclopaedias. Modern commemorative coins and banknotes cannot find buyers without advertising with images as it is generally done in auction catalogues, price lists, catalogues, and encyclopedias for the collectors’ markets. A copyright to that extend as you see it would be a contradiction to the purpose of the issue.

Collecting modern numismatic items helps finance the budgets of the issuing states. Therefore, the issuing authorities of modern numismatic items are very interested that their banknotes and coins are made known to possible buyers. Many of the issuing countries even visit coin fairs themselves in order to put their issues into the collectors’ markets for example, at the Berlin Coin Fair.

Copyright does mean not to copy (fake) such numismatic items, and putting the copies into circulation. This has nothing to do with images for an encyclopedia. It is the physical copy.

--Berlin-George (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Commons:CUR#Singapore. Reality check: your opinion is, in fact, not above the law. -FASTILY 04:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tattamangalam Kuthiravela.jpg [edit]

Hi,

this file is copyrighted to me. http://dotcompalsphotoblog.com/ is my photoblog and hence i have added photos here.

http://dotcompalsphotoblog.com/?s=kuthira

please undelete the same and make available for the public. thank you

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 06:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juddevadderonser.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted with the reason that fair use is not allowed on Commons. It is a scan of a small text from a dictionary. I think this small text is {{PD-ineligible}}. It was copied from lb-wiki with a bot and the license tag {{PD}} was not corrected. Perhaps that was the reason? --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although it is true that it is not many words, dictionaries are legitimately copyrighted and the individual definitions are the essence of their work. I think that individual definitions are probably not {{PD-ineligible}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Per Jim. Text can be copyrighted, and this is a derivative work -FASTILY 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

the picture Targowski-Lazienki-2011-2.JPG is owned by myself, please undelete

Gimel-a1 (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then why would this image have been published in 2011 here? Lupo 11:31, 26 May 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 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mokhtar Amalou.jpg[edit]

Hi

I would like to inform you that I am the owner of the picture (Mokhtar Amalou.jpg). This is my own personal work and belong to me and not to anyone else. Undeletion request is what I am requesting and this to continue contributing to Wikipidia. Regards --Zombrito (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)zombrito[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 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File (Mokhtar Amalou.jpg) deleted, would like to confirm that it is my own owrk[edit]

Hi, Again I have been trying to get in touch with the people who are deleting my work every time a post a picture. This is to confirm for I don't know how many times that the pictures belong to me and they are my own work.

Regards Zombrito --Zombrito (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have uploaded several small images or images that were obviously taken from a video source so it is hard to believe any of your claims of "own work". With that said, I think this may actually be your own work, as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 27 May 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 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Dominick Whiskey Shaker.jpg [edit]

File:Current D. Canale & Co. Storefront.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The following copyright tag should be added to this picture and reinstated.

Author is Jack Sullivan and he has allowed the picture to be used by anyone.

Thank you.

--Gtagg (talk) 14:57, 27 May 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 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cal Dance Team at Cal at USC.jpg[edit]

I'm not quite sure how I missed the second deletion request four years ago Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cal Dance Team at Cal at USC.jpg. The original :en image (en:Special:Undelete/File:CalatUSC.jpg) was uploaded by the owner of mybearterritory.com (see OTRS ticket 2007083110001056) and the characterization of his :en uploads being copyright violations is false. A few of them were deleted here and there as unencyclopedic and a couple were deleted because he didn't specify a license, but it has never been called into question, as far as I can remember, whether he really owns the photos. (This was all several years ago that I may have forgotten something, but I don't think that any such determination has ever been made.) Please note that there are old revisions in the history that used the uploader's real name (he had asked some time ago for his real name to be purged from history) and those old revisions should NOT be restored, but unless there's something I'm missing, there's no licensing reason to delete the image. --UserB (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EAI-logga-200.jpg [edit]

This is regarding the file http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EAI-logga-200.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

I am in way an expert in licenses, but this logo is free to use. This specific version I have created, but the original was created under some kind of public domain license. So I guess it should be tagged with {{PD-self} or similar. But I am not sure how to do that now that it is deleted.

FredrikGlyph (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the image, but be sure to provide a link to the source you used to create the image. Otherwise, the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Javier Delicado.jpg [edit]

Hola, mi nombre es Javier Delicado usuarion Cazalinks en Wikipedia, en este momento me encuetro haciendo un curso sobre como editar Wikipedia: Peer to Peer University/Writing Wikipedia Articles (2013 Q2) en la Semana 3 de este curso se me solicita subir una imagen a la plataforma Wikimedia Commons para posteriormente colocarla en mi pagina de perfil. Por lo tanto creo que el archivo File:Javier Delicado.jpg es adecuado para esta tarea y quisiera que se restaurara. Un saludo.--Cazalinks (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File was re-uploaded -FASTILY 21:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(File:Elsweet Rufino Editor "Honey Magazine" Honeymag.com, Honeymag.net, Honeymag.co.uk.JPG)[edit]

Honey Magazine is a registered trademark of Sahara Media. SAHARA MEDIA LLC is the author of the content & distributor of the photos. The content are available for free use within wiki and on web.

(Wsjnews (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

J. Adams esq. Sahara Media LLC Legal Dept

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 21:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

That poster was being under public domain (PD) before and after 1945! The law is not retroactive.
In the U.S., this is clearly PD since it has been published before 1923.
In the Ukraine, this is clearly PD too.
~~In Russia, under the 1993 law, this got a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. and thus was copyrighted until the end of 1996 (50 years fter the death of the author).~~ The PD from 1945 (The Law: ЦИКа и СНК СССР 30/I 1925)[20]
~~The changes in Russian copyright law in 2004 (extension from 50 to 70 years) had no effect on this work, since they applied only on works still copyrighted in 2004.~~ The PD from 1945!
The new Russian copyright law of 2007 (Part IV of the Civil Code) changed that again: under Part IV of the Civil Code, the term extension from 50 to 70 years applies to all works that were still copyrighted under the 50 year term in 1993 (not 2004). So since 2008, the work is again copyrighted, until the end of 2016. The PD from 1945!
Russian text:

Этот плакат был и остаётся общественным достоянием, т.к. опубликован в 1920 году и согласно Пост. ЦИКа и СНК СССР 30/I 1925 года установленный срок авторского права 25 лет для каждого произведения в отдельности. По истечении 25 лет жизни произведения (а не жизни автора) права автора на это произведение истекли. Не может произведение быть вновь "ограничено" каким-либо способом, если оно уже давным-давно в общественном достоянии. Плакат не попадает под закон 1993 года.

This poster has long, long time been and still now in the public domain, because published in 1920, and, according the USSR Law - Post. CEC and SNK 30 / I 1925 set the term of this Copyright Law has 25 years for each product separately. At the end of 25 years of the art life (not the author's life) the rights of the author to this work expired. THAT THE LAW. This poster is not covered by the 1993 law, as it was in the public domain in the author's life and before to making any latest changes and additions to the law of 1993. --Russdoc (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was public domain for a long time yes, but copyright laws *can* restore copyright to previously public domain works. Laws are not retroactive in the sense that any use of the work previous to the law coming into effect is still considered OK, but any *future* use of the work may be problematic (such retroactive laws usually detail the exact scope of how to treat existing uses, but any *new* uses like uploading to Commons would be prohibited). Countries which join the Berne Convention often have to do this if their previous term was less than 50pma, and the EU copyright extensions in the 1990s did this. Unfortunately for this work, the 2008 Russian law change was retroactive and it looks like it restored copyright to the work from 2008 through 2016. If it was published anonymously and the author was not known before 1970, there is a chance, otherwise... yuck. We have to follow the terms of that 2008 law, even if we don't like it. The file can be uploaded to en-wiki with the PD-US-1923-abroad tag, as it is public domain in the U.S. Perhaps there is some aspect of the 2008 law we are missing, but we would need to find a way it is considered public domain under the terms of the 2008 law in order to keep it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Edit conflict) The 1993 Russian copyright law re-copyrighted things on which the old Soviet copyright had already expired. Please read point 34 of the О вопросах, возникших у судов при рассмотрении гражданских дел, связанных с применением законодательства об авторском праве и смежных правах
, Plenum decision no. 15 of June 19, 2006 on some questions of application of the Copyright law of the en:Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The copyright terms of the new Russian laws are applicable in all cases where the 50-year term had not expired in 1993, "including works where the 25-year copyright term [from Soviet laws] had expired". All this is, BTW, mentioned and linked in the article you referenced. en:Copyright law of the Soviet Union#Transition to post-Soviet legislation in Russia, footnote 147. (Disclaimer: I closed that DR and deleted the file.) Lupo 05:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong! Are you a lawyer? You know the copyright law? Do you know the Russian language very well? Did you read the 1993 law? Wikipedia article is not the text of the Low. If you do not understand, talk to someone who translated to you and explain the law. The law states that it is not distributed to the works with expired copyrights. The 1993 Russian copyright law was NOT re-copyrighted things on which the old Soviet copyright had already expired. You should reread the 1993 Copyright Low VERY CAREFULLY. In addition also: for whom it would be possible to reconstruct the copyright holders of this poster, if the author died in 1946, and this work has always been known under the pen name? Direct heirs to the aliases, and there can not be. Russdoc (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the law which retroactively restored copyright to works which had expired under the old Soviet copyright law was the implementation of the 1991 fundamentals in 1992, not specifically the 1993 law, so that had already happened by the time the 1993 law was implemented. Lupo pointed you to a 2006 Russian court decision which states that explicitly. However, all previous legislation was superseded by the 2008 law. I think there used to be an extensive, important discussion on the topic at Template talk:PD-Russia (primarily by Russian contributors) but that was apparently obliterated when someone renamed the newer PD-Russia-2008 template over top of it. And yes, that law did have the unfortunate effect of causing many deletions of works which were previously OK. There might also be some information at Template_talk:PD-Soviet, although that was all before the 2008 law. As for your question, yes it would be the author's heirs which would control the restored copyright (or whoever is specified by the 1964 Civil Code, from the looks of that court decision). If the poster was published under a pseudonym, and the actual author's name was only made public after 1970, there might be a chance. Authors publishing under pen names had 50 years to make their real name known, and if not, works did lapse into the public domain -- and if that had occurred by 1993, the 2008 law may have left those alone. If the author's real name was known by 1970 though, I think the earlier laws would have given it the full 50pma term, and since that had not expired by 1993 the 2008 law retroactively restored that to 70pma. I suppose the one other possibility is if the poster was considered simultaneously published in all Soviet states of the time, and since in a "simultaneous publication" situation the "country of origin" is the country with the *shortest* terms per the definition in the Berne Convention, if the poster has expired by the current terms in one of those other countries (most of which are 70pma now though I don't know how retroactive they all were), maybe that would be another avenue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. The poster was published under THE pseudonym. Das not any information for over diff 'real' names as maybe(!) Russian name too.

2. Did the author ask to deleting his art works from us? Not. Is the author himself or his children objected to republication the poster here and ask remove his works from Wikipedia? No. Did someone (from the heirs of the author) appealed to the Fund and claims for infringement of their copyright? No.

3. The placate was published at all Soviet states and NOT Soviet States too. This poster has been published in many countries around the world and was free of charge also - as a political will of the Soviet government.

4. Are we break the copyrights by using this poster? No. We, in contrast to the past in the USSR, specify the name of the author.

5. What is the personal interest of those who insist remove the poster from the Fund, but continues to distribute it commercially? In Russia too... Russdoc (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Commons we use precasionally priciple, that's why we do not wait for the lawsuit from copyright holder. We delete image if it may be unfree. So, wait for January 1, 2017.
Translation: На Викискладе действует превентивный принцип, согласно которому, если есть подозрения о несвободности файла, мы его удаляем, чтобы предотвратить судебные иски, а не ждём, пока на нас подадут иск. В данном случае подозрения есть, поэтому фал удалён. Ждём первого января 2017 года.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 2021, not 2017. I had forgotten about the 4-year copyright extension in Russia for authors who were active during the Great Patriotic War. Lupo 05:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

О каких исках идёт речь и самое интересное — от кого?! От мёртвых? От прямых родственников? От чиновников 1920 года, которые не подписывали договор о передаче авторских прав на плакат, давая партийное задание автору? Этот плакат как использовали повсеместно, так и будут использовать (даже, что не редко — нарушая права автора не указыванием его имени и фамилии). Кроме того, разве не указано в правилах Фонда об отказе от ответственности? Указано. И для чего нужен такой «патриот» -изм со сроками после смерти, — чтоб быстрее забыли, без упоминаний имён авторов и запретами? В СССР, как были тупые чиновники — с образованием по категории «нацменьшинство» (бездумно переписывающие что-то под вид Закона, но совершенно не понимающие тексты и слова русской речи), так и остались таковые до сих пор, но уже… — в новых, самостоятельных государствах.

Эта работа, ещё при жизни автора была в ОБЩЕСТВЕННОМ ДОСТОЯНИИ и после его смерти плакат никак не может стать с иной лицензией. Автор и совладельцы прав — по месту работы и публикации, передали работу в общественное достояние ещё в бытность СССР. Возможно, спорность момента создаётся заинтересованными в присвоении чужих авторских прав и воровстве плаката (которые так рьяно отстаивают свои интересы и здесь), с возможностью заработать после развала СССР на бесхозности. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.62.125 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore. Apparently, the file is still copyrighted and therefore ineligible for Commons -FASTILY 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hassan Rouhani 2.jpg [edit]

It's not fair that you don't send any warning email and just delete my own works with no reason. You want EXIF data, I have them. You want permission from www.Rouhani.ir, they've sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org yesterday. Please undelete this photo and my other ones. Mojtaba Salimi (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified on your talk page and had a week to reply. If you want an email, go to Preferences up top and "Email options" at the bottom of "User profile" has an option to get an email any time your talk page changes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified about possible deletion on my talk page and I did replied on the deletion request page but my files deleted anyway. Those photos are my own work and I'll provide any information that helps. As I mentioned before, just one of them are on the Hassan Rouhani website and I believe they've sent an authorization email for Wikimedia. Mojtaba Salimi (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send an email to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, they will restore your file -FASTILY 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lepidoptera specimens[edit]

This category has been emptied and subsequently proposed for speedy deletion by User:Olei. Túrelio subsequently deleted the category. I think this is not the way we should treat category deletions in commons. The category would fit into Category:Zoology specimens Insects, cf. Category:Coleoptera specimens. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just recreate it -FASTILY 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fish and Chips with sides of coleslaw and macaroni salad.jpg[edit]

I am the copyright holder of this work: File:Fish and Chips with sides of coleslaw and macaroni salad.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianFarfan (talk • contribs) 2013-05-29T20:57:06 (UTC)

Please, read COM:OTRS and follow the prompts. --Alan ^(talk) 00:53, 30 May 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 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File File:Logo-exa-circ-blkV4-esp.jpg[edit]

Hi there, is there a chance to restore this file please: File:Logo-exa-circ-blkV4-esp.jpg? It was approved by Permissions - Wikimedia Commons . The ticket number is #2013052810008166. Thanks in advance. --Sant3001 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done per ticket:2013052810008166 --Alan ^(talk) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-05

File:Northern Cardinal from The Crossley ID Guide Eastern Birds.jpg[edit]

File:BSicon TUNNELql.svg[edit]

File:Ha Ji Won for Medical Korea 2013.jpg [edit]

File:Map of Washington City 1857.jpg [edit]

File:Hopkins map 1887.jpg [edit]

File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png[edit]

(File:Haarverlaengerung haarnetz detailansicht.jpg)[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Photos with anime or manga characters[edit]

File:LednickiA.jpg[edit]

File:Oeuvre de Gustav Vigeland (4844240907).jpg[edit]

File:BRUC Rev Ashley.jpg[edit]

File:Iraqi Army soldier.jpg[edit]

File:TUZ (volgograd metrotram station) 05.JPG [edit]

File:NYP_guisante.jpg [edit]

File:Struck By Lightning (cover).jpg[edit]

Goddess of Democracy[edit]

Pfarrblatt Herz Jesu Graz 1991[edit]

File:Example.jpg [edit]

File:DeRose.jpg[edit]

File:Kwasman.jpg [edit]

File:Dzeny.jpg[edit]

File:Alducharme2012.jpg[edit]

File:Robert Joseph Greene Press Phto.jpg[edit]

File:VicDunlopComedian.jpg [edit]

File:Zickzackhausen_1.jpg[edit]

File:OSJTorre.jpg [edit]

File:YarraTramsLogoNew.svg[edit]

File:Lora la concursul muzical Eurovision .jpg [edit]

File:Aczél Ilona-Timár József.jpg and File:Timár József.jpg[edit]

File:Carlos Ariel Sánchez Torres.jpg [edit]

File:CedarIslandMarina.jpg[edit]

File:Bistrica, Šentrupert - kozolec od daleč.jpg[edit]

File:北-bw.png[edit]

Image:Bimbo_el_oso_del_pan.jpg [edit]

File:Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky-Chapel.jpg and File:Marine star.JPG[edit]

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 10.jpg[edit]

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 7.jFile:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 5.jFile:CavayeroMichael12.jpgFile:14Cavayero M 06-.jpgFile:Cavayero M 01.jpgFile:CavayeroMichael 35.jpg[edit]

File:Reine des Feuilles Mortes Bruno Montpied.jpg [edit]

File:Oriol Nolis Curull.jpg[edit]

File:Taranus2013.jpg [edit]

File:BSicon KBFar.svg [edit]

File:Doodle proteins.gif [edit]

File:OgaFight picture 0001.jpg[edit]

File:Nigritella rhellicani rosea 090705.jpg may still be useful[edit]

File:Katonadolog-Tuszkay Márton plakátja.jpg [edit]

File:Islam Slimani playing for Algeria.JPG[edit]

File:Murray MacLehose.jpg[edit]

File:FranzefedernautomatFriedrichNeblung.jpg[edit]

File:Sylvester Z. Poli.jpg[edit]

File:Віктор_Бронюк_.jpg [edit]

File:Puente Mactumatza por la tarde.png [edit]

File:Giuseppe Favalli.jpg File:Argentina Zanetti 2002.jpg File:Premiazione Champions 2010.jpg File:Zanetti FIFA.jpg File:Zanetti 1995.jpg File:Zanetti 2004.jpg File:Zanetti finale.jpg File:Zanetti e Facchetti.jpg[edit]

File:Dong Jin Kim.jpg[edit]

File:Drago Kocakov.jpg [edit]

File:China Greentech Initiative.jpg [edit]

File:Fino_San_Patricio.jpg [edit]

File:Zickzackhausen 1.jpg File:Zickzackhausen 2.jpg [edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms -- File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg[edit]

File:Rich Lesser at the World Economic Forum on Latin America 2011.jpg [edit]

File:SVG mask gradient bug.svg [edit]

File:Jimmy LaSalvia.jpg[edit]

File:AMBH Poster 2010.jpg File:AMBH Poster 2011.jpg File:AMBH Poster 2012.jpg [edit]

File:Samy Kamkar.jpg [edit]

File:Nagher Afghans of village Chomu, Rajasthan [edit]

File:WSPR Propagation.png[edit]

File:Reduced (2104762861).jpg[edit]

File:zeinal_bava.png [edit]

File:Salvemos las Acequias. Portada.jpg File:Principios de fiosofía y matemáticas.jpg[edit]

File:Zauberer Alexander Merk aus Berlin Augsburg.jpg [edit]

Wiederherstellung File:Assisi from north.jpg[edit]

File:Jaroslava Pešicová - tvorba.jpg[edit]

File:Giroir Photo December 2012.jpg[edit]

File:Windows 7 ultimate Desktop.png [edit]

File:Example.jpg Sheikh Muhammad A Abusneina[edit]

File:Lviv parkIF03.jpg [edit]

File:Guilherme-Giovannoni.jpg[edit]

File:EzeldinQassam.jpg[edit]

File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg [edit]

File:Abigail jain.jpg [edit]

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 7.j File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 5.j File:CavayeroMichael12.jpg File:14Cavayero M 06-.jpg File:Cavayero M 01.jpg File:CavayeroMichael 35.jpg[edit]