Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-10

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

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

File:3. AJ 1932.jpg[edit]

Please undelete my files, all photos and documents are from family album and concern my grandfather wiki page. All files are historical.

This moment my grandpa wiki page is uncomplete.

User Czarek czarek 28/09/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek czarek (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Although you may own copies of these photos and other material, it is very unlikely that you own the copyrights -- those belong to the photographers and their heirs and the heirs of the creators of the documents. Only the owners of the copyrights can license material for use on Commons. 1932 is very much too recent for us to be able to assume that the copyright has expired in most countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See on my grandpa wiki page, All materials are his own files with his name, he died in 1993. It is web page about him, people that made this pictures died. Regarding documents institutions doesn't exist. I am heris of my grandpa. He was owner of mention photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek czarek (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Even though you, as your grandfather's heir, own the photographs, you do not own the copyrights. The copyrights are owned by the heirs of the photographers. Unless you can show that the photographer died before 1943, the images are still covered by copyright and may not be kept here without a license from the photographers' heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear James, Look at first photo. My grandpa in uniform. He had gone to photographer who taken photo and my grandpa paid for this. It was Warsaw 1932. Between 1939 and 1945 our capital was totally razed. No any citizens or buildings left. This photo is also in historical book mention in biography of wiki page. What copywgight you expect from me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek czarek (talk • contribs) 21:33, 29 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Owning a copy of the photo does not make you the copyright holder. If however, you do own the copyrights to the files and have written permission from the photographer(s) granting you said permission, please email your case to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boney_James_2013.jpg[edit]

the copyright holder sent in a detailed permission. why was the photo then removed?

I hereby affirm that Concord Music Group is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this Boney James photograph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boney_James_2013.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license “Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported” and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Larry Bole Director of Project Management Concord Music Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneyjones (talk • contribs)

Please refer to OTRS for further information and actions that should be taken. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the procedure at COM:OTRS followed? If so, please be patient, as OTRS is quite busy at the moment. Once they process your email, they will restore the file -FASTILY 07:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark Epstein before the Buddha-Bar Restaurant Prague.jpg[edit]

Hello, I am the author of the photograph "Mark Epstein before the Buddha-Bar Restaurant Prague" and I gave the permission to publish it under the free license to the OTRS already (see below). There is no reason to delete it anymore. Please undelete it or let me know what to do. Thank you. --Shere.khan (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby affirm that I, Jan Benda am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photo of Mark Epstein before the Buddha-Bar Restaurant Prague (see attachment). I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Jan Benda the copyright-holder, date of birth: 12th November 1974 address: Na Vysluni 338, 403 23 Velke Brezno, Czech Republic September 26, 2013

  •  Oppose The issue here is not the copyright of the photograph, but the copyright of the artwork shown in the photograph. The photograph is a derivative work of the artwork and, therefore, infringes on its copyright. If you can show that this particular art is permanently installed in a place that is visible from the street, then the Czech FOP exception will probably apply. If, on the other hand, the work is not permanent or is not visible from the street, then the image cannot be restored in its present form. If the image were cropped to show only Epstein, then it would probably be OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim, now I understand.! But! the artwork is really visible from the street. It is in a shop display window. You can actually see it in google streetview here https://www.google.cz/maps/preview#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d14.425581!3d50.088132!2m2!1f63.61!2f89.69!4f89.67!2m4!1e1!2m2!1sIxifHZ2ytMOaIc7qBjd5rw!2e0&fid=5

Here is another photo with the display window. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-iRbh9gKkbEbXRYMWQ1YzdoeEE/edit?usp=sharing

Is it OK now? --Shere.khan (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good proof for one of the two criteria. The other criterion is -- is it permanent? I'm inclined to think so, given the name of the restaurant, but I'd like to see other opinions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened -- you can't close it as not done and say "per Jim" when I said I was inclined to restore it. I think we need a third opinion here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think it is meant to be permanent. If you follow the road on google maps to the right, you'll see the name of the bar/hotel. I believe the poster (or whatever it is) is permanently displayed on the corner window. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shere.khan (Jan Benda): This photograph i took today: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-iRbh9gKkbEVGx6V2hMOVR4T2c/edit?usp=sharing and this one in October 2010: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-iRbh9gKkbEbXRYMWQ1YzdoeEE/edit?usp=sharing

It is three years since then and I guess the picture is in this display window since the opening of the restaurant. Is it permanent enough?

Thank you for your help. --Shere.khan (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, also has OTRS now -FASTILY

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

File:Gudrun.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photographer, Mats Widén, has at the 24 sep by e-mail sent his confirmation regarding the use of this picture. As I understand I will receive some kind of number/confirmation from you that the picture now can be used? Maruschkanova (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. It may take some time for this to happen, so please be patient -FASTILY 00:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:6a00d8341c9eac53ef00e54f7616a38833-800wi.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Hi,

This picture was put on Wikipedia with the authorization of the persons concerned. I don't understand why someone had to take it out? Wouldn't have been possible to write me a message first?

What else do you need to prove that it is OK to have this picture on the Wikipedia site? Louis.alta (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis.alta; We try to protect the rights of image copyright holders. Many images are uploaded to Commons by people who do not have the permission of the copyright holder. Unfortunately, the volume is such that we can't correspond with everyone individually. This image was deleted because it was published elsewhere, it has been cropped and/or reduced and its metadata removed.[1] Please follow the process of COM:OTRS. Once verified, your image will be restored. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haifa Wehbe au festival de Cannes en 2008.jpg [edit]

the picture represents haifa wehbe and i asked her in "twitter" fi i could use this picture on wikipedia she told me that it's a free licence picture .

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Self-Portrait with Model at Bergamo.JPG [edit]

PD no notice per SIRIS as noted in the image license [2]. see also Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. deleting images of sculptures that are PD no notice is disruptive. FoP is not an excuse for deletion; stop it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC) :I assume the photo was taken in Bergamo, Italy. Italy doesn't have a freedom of panorama, see [Commons:FOP#Italy]]. The photo needs to be free in the country of origin and the US. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely not. as the SIRIS database indicates, this is a relief sculpture in the Hirshhorn sculpture garden in Washington, D.C. photo taken in the US. stop wasting my time. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if your friendly attitude has something to do with the indef. block on enwiki. Just a thought.
Back to business: Casting around 1960, the sculpture garden opened in 1974. Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US#Before_1978 should apply. Date of (first) publication can be assumed as no later than 1974. I'd go for that. The questions I have are: Did the artist publish earlier and did he use a (c) notice? Unfortunately the (c) office is offline due to federal shutdown. Do you have any proof other than the gov.-website? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should have been deleted. The SIRIS database entry contains no mention of a visible copyright registration notice and none is visible in the photograph.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: SIRIS is what we normally use anyways, not copyright.gov, so the shutdown doesn't affect anything. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:APSNY 2013-08-30 15-01.jpg [edit]

Like stated in the keep vote, this is still the one single image we have (now, had) showing a someone from Abkhazia who is not posing National Geographic Magazine. Please allow casual, non-descript situations (selfies with Ray-bans, people bored in traffic jams) be protraited by a wider range of subjects. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added Category:People of Abkhazia to this image -- there is nothing in the uploader's description which tells me that this person is from Abkhazia. What did you see here that I don't? Aside from that, this is a poor quality personal image that is out of scope by our rules. We work very hard to keep Commons from looking like Flickr or Facebook. Please stop undermining that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What I saw that you didn’t, as you smugly put it, is simply this: "Аҧсны" = "Ap̛sny" means "Abkhazia" in Abkhazian. (That was taken as evidence of location based on COM:AGF.) Your wilful ignorance is showing, and you’re proud of it, instead of tucking it in. (You could have looked it up, instead of assuming that I was wrong and you were Right.)
  2. As for your majestic-plural («we»?, really?) bullying against my participation in DR discussions, it is dully noted and dull-ly ignored. I will go on collaborating in Commons’ matters, as much as I can and fancy — be it in DR discussions, voting either keep or delete, by initiating DRs myself, by categorizing uncategorized and undercategorized media, by reporting dupes for SD, by taking care of Category:Trams in Lisbon, and/or by uploading stuff, mine or others’. Call it underminding if you will, I wont give a futūtiōnem uolantem.
  3. It is (was) as good quality as the technical constraints of such photo warrant — not too blurry (in spite being taken on a car, possible with engine on), not misframed (inspite of being a selfie). It also is (was) one out of two selfies with camera/phone held in outstrechted arms reflected on sunglasses, which is curious.
(So disappointed.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that one American in a hundred is aware of Abkhazia -- I happen to be one of those who know a little of its struggle for recognition. To expect me to recognize that "Apsny" is transliterated Abkhazian for "Abkhazia" is a little much, I think. I asked an honest polite question -- "What did you see here that I don't?" -- and I got back a load of grief. Enough said -- one image isn't worth the grief. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Low quality personal image - 453 × 604 (88,564 bytes). This is a teenage girl with sunglasses on sitting in a car. There's nothing that visually indicates her ethnicity. If this illustrated Abkhazian culture or ethnicity via activity or dress, I might've said restore, or if it were higher quality, but this is really nothing more than a web-res twitter/facebook pic. INeverCry 03:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newsflash: Abkhazians drive cars and wear sunglasses too. One of the very points of the keep vote, restated above, was that all other media Category:People of Abkhazia shows only historical items or current material featuring folkloric or patriotic staged poses. A bored girl taking selfies in her car tells more about everyday Abkhazian life than ladies posing with plaid dresses in national flag pattern, I thought. And you tell me that you’d undelete this file if it matched your condescending ideas about how people in funny countries should act like? You’d say the same if it were a photo of a French person not wearing stripes and a beret? Or of a thin American? Tell me, please, which countries/ethnicities are allowed to look not like a stereotype in Commons, apart from Abkhazians?… -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this a very standard, low-quality, personal pic that could be of any girl from dozens of countries. All we have to indicate her ethnicity is a word she typed. You could pick any personal pic off of facebook or twitter of a girl in sunglasses and pretend she was from Abkhazia or whatever country you like, and you'd have the same result. INeverCry 06:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, as  Not done. Stale request with no new activity for over a week and no clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fellgate Metro station, 2 August 2006 (2).jpg[edit]

As far as I can recall, this was just a picture of a sign which consisted of just a few lines of text and a simple logo (an 'M'). The logo obviously doesn't cross the threshold of originality, and given the nature of the text (a few lines about their no smoking and penalty fare/ticketing policy), it obviously doesn't fit the definition of a "Graphic work" as referred to in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom, so I am struggling to see how its deletion as derivative work (per the log) or UK 2D FoP violation (per [4]) was correct. Ultra7 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a photo of a sign. The text on the sign will be copyrighted, and the image is unlikely to have much educational or encyclopaedic value, so I'd be inclined to leave it deleted. If it was de minimis (eg the sign just happened to be included in a wider shot), I'd restore it in a heartbeat, but the sign is the only thing depicted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? You cannot simply put some words on a sign and claim copyright - it has to be an original work attributable to a specific author. The text on this sign was extremely short, and only consisted of stock phrases like 'No smoking' and 'penalty fares apply'. As such, I think claiming it is copyrighted is extremely dubious. As for educational value, how can it not be? It's of as much educational value as any other picture of street furniture or transport infrastructure, of which Commons has thousands. Ultra7 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice on Commons to delete photos of signs such as this (and I tend to think we're too liberal in allowing things like logos). There are various reasons for the practice, including the potential violation of copyright, the lack of educational value, and that Commons is a repository for media files rather than text. Commons policy is often more conservative than copyright law, because freedom to reuse Commons content is fundamental to our mission. To answer your question about educational value, a good test (albeit not the only criterion) is whether it could have a use in a Wikipedia article. A photo of a train or a station or even a lamp post could theoretically be used to illustrate those objects, but a photo of a sign doesn't have such an obvious use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Commons policy on copyright is to only host files that are appropriately licensed, and that's it. The simple fact is, if nobody here is willing to demonstrate that this specific sign is copyrighted or copyrightable, it should not have been deleted for copyright reasons, which were the only reasons that were referred to in the log/deletion message. As for educational value though - whether something could be used in a Wikipedia article is absolutely not the criteria, sole or otherwise, for whether or not something can be hosted by Commons. Although I find it that a really bizarre line of argument if you're trying to invoke it here - if I wanted to add details to Wikipedia about the Tyne and Wear Metro's ticketing/smoking policy, why would I not use this image? And in fact, if we were to follow the bizarre argument put forward here that such simplistic fragments of text are copyrighted/coprightable, then not only can I not use the image to illustrate the article, I also wouldn't be able to even describe their smoking/ticketing policy in plain text in the article, because there's no way I can do that in a manner that wouldn't violate the supposed copyright Nexus holds over the text on the sign (try it yourself, try to come up with an original way to say the same things that sign says, in a way that would not be labelled as close paraphrasing if not an obvious copy, by an actual copyright lawyer). The reality is, they don't hold any copyright over it, no copyright lawyer has ever, or will ever, be retained to defend, investigate, or enforce such an obviously indefensible invocation of TOO, which is why if I were to write to them to ask for permission to reproduce it, it would no doubt come as a complete and total surprise to them that such an action was even necessary. This is not an original text, this is not a copyrightable sign, it should not still be deleted. Ultra7 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say,
"The simple fact is, if nobody here is willing to demonstrate that this specific sign is copyrighted or copyrightable, it should not have been deleted for copyright reasons"
You have the burden of proof backwards. On all WMF projects, including Commons, it is up to the uploader or other advocate for the image or other material to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD or correctly licensed. See COM:PRP. You have not even attempted to cite any case law or other evidence that the sixty plus words here are not copyrightable in the UK, where the TOO is fairly low. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? You don't need any more evidence than the actual original image and a rudimentary knowledge of the very basic copyright concepts of originality and literary work, which, no matter how broad the definitions used in the UK, are not so broad as to have completely redefined the meaning of some very basic English words. And case law? If you are in all seriousness asking me to look for legal cases which actually produced a decision which ruled that chucking a few stock phrases together to create a 60 word sign which is not being used for any novel purpose or in any different manner to thousands of pre-existing signs, is not eligible for UK copyright, then sorry, this request has just officially transcended from the ridiculously irritating to the absolutely stupid. There's not a court in the land that would have even entertained such a case, even in the unlikely event of there being any lawyer out there that would have even tried to bring such a case. The whole idea that this is even remotely feasible, given what this sign actually is, is just insane. This is not COM:PRP in action, this is way way way beyond that. Ultra7 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Because we deal so much in images, we tend to forget that copyright was first applied to literary works. Note that the term is applied very broadly in copyright law -- computer software is a "literary work" and the 60+ words on this sign certainly would be above the TOO in the USA and the UK TOO is lower. There is no requirement whatsoever that a work be attributable to any specific author -- there can be co-authored works and works of corporate authorship, all of which will have copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally absurd. This is not a literary work by any stretch of the imagination, not even a massively broad definition of copyright. Comparison to software is irrelevant - except to remind us that, no, you don't get to claim you've created an original literary work if all you've done is put some common previously published code formulations together to serve a purpose that is neither original nor unique. Text on a sign doesn't necessarily have to be attributable to a specific author, no, but if someone does want to claim corporate copyright, they have to be able to defend it as being clearly an original work of the corporate body, or prove that the components used to create it have been correctly re-licensed from their own copyright holders. In this case, given what it is and what it says, the very idea that either of those scenarios could be remotely true, is frankly ridiculous. Ultra7 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it's apparently being ignored here, I've raised the specific question of the status of a sign like this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. See "COM:PRP and the UK Threshold of Originality on text on signs". Ultra7 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Irrelevant. It is not non-free content. Sticking your fingers in your ears and slapping a templated closure on it doesn't change this basic fact. Ultra7 (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vandalised election poster.JPG‎ [edit]

I've discussed this with User:INeverCry who deleted the file as a derivative work. Obviously it is a derivative work, but I believe its use is legitimate here, per Commons:Derivative works. I contest the notion that a poster (and in this case, it's not the generic poster type but the particular example that's in the photo) is no less permanently located in a public place than anything else. When it is removed, it is destroyed - therefore the full life of the work is spent in a public place, per is function. Germany has very good freedom of panorama. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at User talk:INeverCry.[5] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete not FOP, election posters have to be removed, they are not permanently in a public place.
zur Lektüre: Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „bleibend“: Das Anbringen von Wahlplakaten ist befristet. Diese befinden sich nicht dauerhaft (also "bleibend") im öffentlichen Raum und müssen nach der Wahl durch die Parteien wieder entfernt werden. Deren Befristung ist für jedermann ersichtlich. Für sie gilt die Panoramafreiheit daher nicht.
When it is removed, it is destroyed - gilt auch für jedes andere regelmäßig ausgetauschte Plakat/Werbeplakat und auch für dieses kann FOP nicht in Anspruch genommen werden. --Anika (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While we recognize that a sand or ice sculpture which has a naturally limited life can be "permanently installed" for FOP purposes if it is in one place for its short life, that is not at all clear in the case of posters that have a life that is limited only by the transience of their subject matter. Certainly posters are collectible and it is entirely possible that this poster was taken down and put into a collection -- that is not permanent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ASSRDLogo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the logo that we generated in our organization and agreed to share it on wikipedia. I want it back. I can provide the evidence too.

I am also a member of this society. Qjahid (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "agreed to share it on wikipedia" is not sufficient. Commons and the WPs require permission to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use. If the organization is willing to allow that, please have an officer of the organization send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amma Asante writer and director.jpg[edit]

When this image was deleted the justification in the deletion log asserted it was a copyright violation. I asked the deleting administrator to explain why they characterized it as a copyright violation -- no reply so far.

This was a flickr image -- one that had its license checked by flickrreview.

Every year, during the Toronto International Film Festival, the flickr contributor who took this image takes a couple of hundred images of celebrities and other individuals at the festival. Over 600 of those images have been uploaded here. I am not aware of any reason to doubt that any of the flickr contributor's images were copyright violations.

The flickr contributor sent me a flickrmail a week ago, saying they had made a mistake, with this particular image. Amma Asante had contracted them, and told them this image was not her. The flickr contributor deleted the image from flickr, and requested we delete it from commons.

If the deleting administrator thought that the flickr contributor's deletion of this image from flickr invalidated the original license under which it was released, then I am concerned that we may have an administrator who doesn't understand the free licenses we use.

Sometimes we delete properly licensed images -- as a courtesy. This is not automatic. We are under no obligation to agree to courtesy deletion. Most importantly, administrators do not have the authority to decide to courtesy delete images on their sole authority.

In this particular case I think all that is required to satisfy Ms Asante is to rename this image something like File:Tiff participant, 201x.jpg. Geo Swan (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The original uploader of this image (on September 25, 2013) gave the source as "internet" and the author as Jason Kempin Getty Images. It was never linked to Flickr or reviewed, and it never had a license. It was deleted as a copyvio from http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/rnyPZ4ADr_g/Belle+Premiere+Arrivals+2013+Toronto+International/WRDk6WZ64UQ. INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There is nothing in the image history to support the statement above:
"This was a flickr image -- one that had its license checked by flickrreview."
As INC says, the source and author did not mention Flickr. Nowhere in the short history of the file on Commons is there any mention of Flickrreview. If this can be sourced to a Flickr image that is or was properly licensed, it could be restored, but there's nothing here to support that.
While I respect Geo Swan as a colleague and substantial contributor to Commons, he appears to be mistaken about the Flickrreview. Save for that, I personally would be happy to accept his statements as gospel, but he is neither an Admin nor a Flickr Reviewer, and therefore, procedurally, Commons probably cannot accept his statement about the former Flickr status of this image as a reason to restore the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Adrianus_Djajasepoetra.jpg [edit]

I want that picture back because the source are quiet clear. If I made a mistake on putting the CC license, please told me the right one.--Bernardino Rakha (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The source site has a very clear statement:
"Full copyright is expressly reserved in respect of all works that are accessible via this website or that have otherwise been published via 'Het Geheugen van Nederland'."
That gives no reason to believe that you are authorized to put a CC license on the image. In order to restore this image we will need a license from Het Geheugen van Nederland using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. If you actually have written authorization to upload the file to Commons under a CC license, email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sergei Parajanov head.jpg[edit]

This was deleted as a copyright violation due to lack of FOP in Armenia. As there now is FOP in Armenia, the file should probably be undeleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring per Commons:FoP#Armenia -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Classic alphabet b at coloring-pages-for-kids-boys-dotcom.svg[edit]

I am requesting the undeletion of this page because:

Mass deletion of pages added by Coloringbuddymike -- we do not keep raster files when there are identical pre-existing (or simultaneous) vector files.

Thanks, GKFX (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A. Lerroux.jpg[edit]

El pasado 26 de agosto esta fotografía, junto con la original de la que salió, fue borrada. La razón que se dio para el borrado es que aún no habían pasado los años precisos tras la muerte del autor (Marin, fallecido en 1944). Sin embargo, no se tuvo en cuenta en la discusión de borrado que la fotografía figura como de dominio público en la Biblioteca Nacional de Francia y por tanto la fecha de muerte del fotógrafo no es motivo de borrado.

  • I stand corrected. However, government institutions are not terribly reliable sources for such information. Without having a reason why an image not yet 70 years PMA is not under copyright, I would probably still not restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the mistrust. The website says that the photo is public domain and is the only place where this photo appears. The bottom line is: 1 positive evidence, 0 negative evidence. Given that wikipedia hasn't any photo of Lerroux, I think that is not suitable reject one photo by simple distrust.--EeuHP (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The negative evidence is that the law says it will be under copyright for another 15 months and that the cite gives no reason why the law is not applicable. The fact that we have no other image of the subject is absolutely irrelevant -- we absolutely do not stretch our decisions based on the availability of other images. Wikipedia can use it under fair use citing that argument, but Commons never applies fair use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the reliability of Gallica, we have an example in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AixafemElFeixisme.jpeg, where Gallica failed to identify the author of a quite famous work and stated public domain, although author died in 1971. I think we can't take for granted that Gallica is right when stating PD.
Btw, please notice that copyright won't be over in 15 months. It will be over in 2024 since PD term in Spain is 80 years post mortem. Furthermore, I think that copyright in the USA for this photo will be even longer.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done as a stale discussion (without any new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Liverpool FC symbol.JPG [edit]

Hi,

I personally took this picture of the symbol of Liverpool FC from my own bought Liverpool home kit of 2012/13. I used my own camera in my own house. I uploaded it to Commons in order to improve the Liverpool FC wikipedia page.

Therefor, I don't see the reason for deleting it. I can take the photo again in order to yet again improve the page.

Avi. Razaviv5 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two copyrights here. You, as the photographer, own the copyright to the photograph. The Liverpool FC owns the copyright for its symbol and the photograph is a derivative work which infringes on their copyright. It therefore cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the club. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Dervatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Maps of the Free Territory of Trieste[edit]

Hi, recently several maps of the Free Territory of Trieste have been deleted per this DR, with the rationale "Unknown copyright status of source for DW". Now, the creator of the original derivative map has posted the original map he used in its creation here. I've talked to User:NordNordWest, who is a cartographer, and per his opinion the difference between the original map and the derived maps [6] is too large to say that any copyright has been violated. The files that I ask to be undeleted are the following:

File:Territorio libero di Trieste carta.png
File:Freies Territorium Triest Karte.png
File:Trattato di Osimo-HE1.svg
File:Free Territory of Trieste map.png
File:Trattato di Osimo.svg
File:Vertrag von Osimo.png
File:Trattato di Osimo.png
File:Treaty of Osimo map.png
File:Trst-zona ab.png

Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I'm inclined to agree that the subject maps used the base map only for information and not for any of the other choices required in cartography. Aside from Hedwig, who closed the DR, Eleassar was the only one on the side of delete. I'll drop Hedwig a note and she what she thinks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to say that [7] and [8] aren't derivative works of each other. They are obviously a bit similar, but as they show the same geographical area, this is to be expected. A couple of cities and place names are only on one map but not on the other. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Herbert-Kunze-Stillleben.jpg [edit]

Ich bin der Erbe (Rechtsnachfolger) dieses Bildes, bin im Besitz des Bildes und habe es selbst fotografiert. Ich gebe dieses Bild zur Verwendung in Wikimedia frei! --Unterm Dach juchhe (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Otto Drakenberg CEO ArcusGruppen.jpg[edit]

We have now gained permission from Christian Hatt concerning this picture ( http://e24.no/naeringsliv/naa-har-gammel-dansk-blitt-svorsk-for-754-mill-kroner/20320805). Could you please restore this?
Name: Otto Drakenberg
Email: info@ottodrakenberg.com
Message: Hej Christian,
Vi sågs när du fotograferade mig för ArcusGruppen. Ett av fotona du tog kommer jag nu lägga upp på Wikipedia på min profilsida. Varje foto som läggs upp på Wikipedia kräver godkännande från fotografen. Jag kommer alltså att hänvisa till din mailadress om någon skulle behöva kontrollera att det är du som tagit fotot på mig. Går det bra? Tack på förhand!


Från: "christian hatt" <mail@christianhatt.no>
Datum: 2 okt 2013 15:17
Ämne: Re: Publicera foto
Till: <info@ottodrakenberg.com>
Hei på deg.
Det går kjempebra!
Send meg en link da.


Håper ellers livet er bra!


MvHlZn Christian Hatt
christianhatt.no
90945556
(Proficio (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Oppose If Google translate is more or less correct with this, there are two problems here. The first is that you requested permission for use on your WP page. In fact, both Commons and WP require much broader permission, including commercial use and derivative works. The second is that we require that the license come directly from the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The above correspondence is an attempt to get a Wikipedia-only permission. Due to clumsy wording, it's actually not even a Wikipedia-only permission but only a permission to mention the photographer's e-mail address in certain situations.
I don't know what law applies when a Norwegian photographer takes a photo of a Swedish person in Denmark, but note the following about portrait photos, from the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish copyright laws:

§ 60. Ophavsmanden kan ikke udøve sine rettigheder til et bestilt portrætbillede uden samtykke fra bestilleren.

§ 39j. Opphavsmannen kan ikke utøve sine rettigheter til et bestilt portrettbilde uten samtykke fra bestilleren.

27 § [...] I fråga om beställd porträttbild äger upphovsmannen dock icke utöva sin rätt utan tillstånd av beställaren eller, efter dennes död, av hans efterlevande make och arvingar.

This image probably counts as a "bestilt portrætbillede/bestilt portrettbilde/beställd porträttbild", meaning that you need permission from the "bestillere/beställare" in addition to the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2012 2013 fc chernomorets odessa home abo.jpg [edit]

  •  Oppose There are two copyrights here. You, as the scanner, own the copyright to the scan (there may not actually be a copyright for your scan -- the rule on scans varies from country to country). The organization issuing the ticket owns the copyright for the artwork on the ticket. It is clearly above the threshold of originality. Your scan is a derivative work which infringes on their copyright. It therefore cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the club. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of permission (logo, written brief, sign of the club's president, sth. else) from the club has to be provided on wikimedia commons? Where an how I can provide the permission when I upload a picture on wikimedia commons? Slamdank ru (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please have the club's officer follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that it is actually unlikely that the club will be able to provide a free license here -- they almost certainly licensed the artwork from the creator for use only on tickets and do not have the right to freely license it for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bilge_Tonyukuk_Monument.jpg [edit]

This picture was taken by me, why delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismet11 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blason Stutzheim.jpg[edit]

Blason Stutzheim.jpg blazon officièle de la commune; je pense avoir oublé de mme connecter avant de faire upload --Richard.kieffer (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload, but please include a license tag -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Buenas tardes:

Las Imágenes que fueron eliminadas son de mi propiedad, pues el proyecto que estamos realizando en Wikipedia, en conjunto con el miembro de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos días, e Historiador de la Universidad de Chile, Sr. Rodolfo Acevedo, es sobre mí Abuelo, Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez. Todas las imágenes que hemos subido a Wikimedia Commons, insisto, son de propiedad de mi familia, y mías particularmente.

Les solicito, favor, restablezcan las imágenes: File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez - 1980.jpg 2 File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez -- 1980.jpg 3 File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez - 1980 -.jpg 4 File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1966.jpg

Además les solicito restablezcan el trabajo realizado en. Categoría: Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Carlos_Antonio_Cifuentes_P%C3%A9rez



Quedo a la espera de una pronta solución.

Les saluda atentamente.

Juan Carlos Cifuentes. ETCENGINEER JC CIFUENTES CARLOS ANTONIO CIFUENTES PEREZ 

Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AlexGilbert.jpg [edit]

The picture is mine, it's been uploaded from my desktop. There is a confusion on the origin of it since it is also on my website on squarespace. Frenchmedia1 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:goodDF.jpg File:darkDF.jpg File:sexyDF.jpg Undeletion requests[edit]

hola, estas fotos no tienen ningún copyright especial, tengo todos los derechos necesarios, se encuentran en la web ademas de ser yo la fotografa de dos de las 3. hace mucho que quiero poner una foto en la pagina de Denise Faro y no encuentro la manera. por favor expliquenme como demostrarles que no estan bajo copyright.

you can find this pics on the web in a lot of site, without copyright and I'm the photographer that take 2 than 3 pics.. I don't know why I can't put them on the "Denise Faro wiki page".. Can you explain me how to do this?

—Carmen88 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Carmen88 (talk) 15:53, 5 Octuber 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Files you find on the internet are generally not ok for Commons. -FASTILY 23:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SoerenAnders2013 [edit]

I have the personal permission from the photographer, that this file can be used under Common License. The Link to FB was just an example for the websource

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Report-a-File step 1.png[edit]

Inappropriate deletion. odder (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lucilia cluvia.jpg, File:Lucilia coeruleiviridis.jpg & File:Lucilia eximia.jpg[edit]

These three images have erroneously not passed License Review, in my opinion. According to Reviewer Wdwd the images would be licensed CC-NC, but they are licensed "No rights reserved" at their source (BOLD Systems). Confusion may arise as the uploader Terry Whitworth is not consistent in licensing. Precisely:

Please undelete, thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please update file description pages accordingly -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bctimi.png[edit]

I edit it to a png and resized it so it's not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladShev (talk • contribs)

Where is the original file? Is the original free? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blason Stutzheim.jpg [edit]

Je pense que j'ai oublié de dire que c'était un travail personnel lors de l'upload ce que je ferais une fois remis en place merci--Richard.kieffer (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-upload then -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michal Rejžo Pavlík v zákulisí divadla.jpg[edit]

There is OTRS permission in info-cs queue for this file (ticket:2013101110015803). --Harold (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify the file description page accordingly when you have a moment. -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AcredGuvernASEM.jpg [edit]

This image fits under {{PD-MD-exempt}}. Please undelete. Thanks. //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 14 October 2013 14:03 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim. Unclear copyright status and out of scope -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brimstone-el pacto.jpg[edit]

I made this file. I take the different photos from the tv serie and made a composition specially for Wikimedia. Please repare your action. Thanks.Desost (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ilkaev.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: C моей стороны нет нарушения авторских прав, так как право на использование данного изображения принадлежит Илькаеву Радию Ивановичу. У автора имеется письменное разрешение на использование данного файла с целью дополнения страницы на википедии. Zuw (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Permission to use the image on Wikipedia is not enough -- both Wikipedia and Commons require permission to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Please have the copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baker - Wallach -1956-1.jpg[edit]

The image file, along with four others listed below, were deleted by Fastily with the same rationale:

Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons

Among the reasons for requesting undeletion are the following:

  • All of the images had some detailed discussions explaining why the image met the guidelines, and with the Charlton Heston one, for instance, having multiple editors commenting and mostly supporting its PD status;
  • All images were deleted within a minute timeframe, nearly bot-like, making it unlikely that any reasonable consideration could have been given to the discussions;
  • Many of the images had different rationales for the original DR, which had different replies, yet the exact same rationale was given for its final deletion, implying that none of the prior discussions were taken into account, much less read;
  • The rationale for deletion demands written permission which is essentially impossible to provide for old publicity photos;
  • The rationale ignores the copyright law itself, as explained in film still copyrights, that such photos were traditionally not copyrighted;
  • The rationale was unrelated to the original deletion requests (which focused on proof of "original publication,") and did not dispute the fact that the images uploaded lacked a copyright notice;
  • The deletions all relied on and were linked to the Precautionary principle, yet the rationales given clearly ignored that principle, by demanding explicit written permissions.

Should the deletions be accepted, it implies that old publicity stills can never be considered PD, which would seem to set a new standard which makes it impossible to use such photos despite their being commonly known to be PD. --Light show (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De facto withdrawn -FASTILY 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:K-25 Aerial.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure what image was uploaded as File:K-25 Aerial.jpg. However, I know that (1) most historical photos of the topic are in the public domain as the work of US federal government employees and (2) some of these photos have been uploaded by people who are unfamiliar with the sources of the images and who therefore do not give accurate descriptions of the sources. (This one apparently was described as having been in books, which leads me to think it's probably a historical image created when only federal government photographers were allowed into the area to take pictures.) I'd like to see the image that was deleted and see if I can identify its origin. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it came from http://sunsite.utk.edu/westcott/k25.htm but only a deep link was provided. If so, it should probably be restored. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The K-25 building is iconic. Nothing like it had ever been built before. It is historic; it made U-235 for the Hiroshima bomb. A picture of the building is a necessary part of its description. Why was it deleted? HowardMorland (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured one section for this file is plenty. The reason for the deletion appears to have been insufficient source information. The importance of the illustration does not exempt it from that requirement. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Without a source there is no way to confirm whether this is a government image or not. I would say that it is probable, but by no means a certainty. Since our standard is "significant doubt", I think that we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What doubt is there about http://sunsite.utk.edu/westcott/k25.htm being the correct source? Or is there another problem? Please clarify. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That photo should be restored. This page documents that it is one of many photos by U.S. government photographer Ed Westcott. He made the photo as a U.S. government employee, during or shortly after World War II. The photo could not have been made except as the work of the U.S. federal government. The air space over the facility was restricted, so only authorized government personnel could fly over it. Additionally, Ed was the only person allowed to have a camera anywhere in the area during the war years.
The particular image obtained from sunsite.utk.edu is not particularly good; it's likely that better quality versions are available. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The combination of the source naming the photographer, Ed Westcott, and the short bio, describing his employment by the Corps of Engineers during the war makes clear what was not clear before, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.acontinuouslean.com/2013/06/14/the-big-secret-at-the-clinton-engineering-works/ has a better version of the same photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Someone should update the file description page accordingly. -FASTILY 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Couldn't someone have told me that we were talking about an entirely different photo than the one I pointed to? (I was misled by looking at Google's cached version of the very similarly named File:K25 Aerial.jpg.) I don't know where this color photo comes from. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PMP V1.4.9 ScreenShot.JPG [edit]

I'm the owner. This picture never been copyrighted. This picture has been deleted as it was wrongly tagged as copyrighted. I put this picture from the reference site. This picture was never copyrighted and is free. I do not understand why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPA94 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 15 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said -FASTILY 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GD & T.O.P 2010.jpg [edit]

I'm an OTRS agent. Permission for free licence has been received to OTRS under ticket 2013100410000396 from en:YG Entertainment. Sender was verified as legit. Please restore file. Thank you! Teemeah (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

(File:SethRTR.jpg)[edit]

I would like my picture of Seth Morrison to be undeleted. I took the picture myself at the Road to Rise event in Nashville on June 14, 2013.

--ThePanhead (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Distortion Mirrors live at the Whiskey a Go Go 2012.jpg[edit]

This picture has belonged to the band Distortion Mirrors since 2012. It was featured in a record the band did and the band claims sole ownership of this photograph. This picture in no way shape or form was taken by Katie Fick. This photograph was also featured in thousands of pressed albums. Katie Fick has contested the band Distortion Mirrors over a copyright dispute concerning other photographic items that were uploaded to the Distortion Mirrors wikipedia page, but she has absolutely no right to contest this picture for deletion. She didn't take it, bears no copyright for it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assuming that Katie Fick had anything to do with the deletion? As clearly documented by the deletion discussion which you were notified of and which is linked from the deleted file page, the file was nominated for deletion by EugeneZelenko and Deleted by Taivo. For the file to be undeleted, you'll need to send in a permission statement from the band to publish the file under a license that allows anyone to use the photo in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes, to our permission archive. You'll also need to include either a copy of the contract stating that the photo was created as a work for hire or the copyright transfer agreement, whichever applies (to establish that they are indeed the copyright holders). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What LX said -FASTILY 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Distortion Mirrors promotional photo 2013.jpg[edit]

This photograph was taken by John Carter who bears copyright claim. This picture in no way shape or form was associated with Katie Fick. This picture in fact was taken so as to settle a dispute with Ms. Fick who quite egregiously demanded copyright ownership over photographs she took that were never under contract or sole licence to her. The band is graciously allowing her photographs to be left untouched and the current wikipedia page features NONE of Ms. Fick's photographs. Ms. Fick does not have any copyright ownership of the other deleted pictures, including the album cover "Zeros and Kings" but the band simply has other things to focus on then grasp at straws with an individual making unfounded claims about copyright/ownership. The band wish in no way shape or form to be associated with Ms. Fick and that is the primary catalyst behind allowing the photographs she took to remain deleted, without contest. However, the 2 pictures that are currently on Distortion Mirrors wikipedia page as of October 17th 2013 were deleted without merit as they had absolutely NO association with the contesting party of Ms.Fick or her representatives (if any). We ask these pictures to remain restored in good faith and are willing and able to abide by any proper wikipedia protocol to ensure this is the case. Respectfully, Kingslove2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Who are "we"? Pluralis majestatis, or is you account being used by more than one person? Again, I have no idea why you're obsessing over this Katie Fick person, who had nothing to do with the deletion. (I also don't understand why she would need a license to photographs that she herself created. Normally, things work the other way around. But oh well.) For the file to be undeleted, you'll need to send in a permission statement from John Carter to publish the file under a license that allows anyone to use the photo in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes, to our permission archive. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What LX said -FASTILY 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Breasts_of_a_41-year_old_mother_of_two.jpg [edit]

A copyvio deletion was done, but this and two other related images images had been found to be aptly licensed in June: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude woman spreading legs to show shaved vagina and anus.jpg. Regardless of that assessment have been incorrect or based on assumptions that were later found to be unfounded (such as an OTRS ticket covering all relevant images), this should be dealt with in a normal DR discussion. This copyvio deletion ignored known history of this file in Commons and should be undone. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request of undeletion file File:Amores que matan el otro lado del amor TV.svg [edit]

By this way , i Request the UNDELETION of File:Amores que matan el otro lado del amor TV.svg Reasson: Because the file isn´t violation of copyright , this file is my own design, and i have the rights

Lenia Ramírez Pérez LeniaRamirez (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LAMLOGO.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the uploader of this file, and the file is my own work. I believe that this information, together with a suitable release and permission, was already attached to the file's page. However, since I became aware that the image was tagged, I submitted a further confirmation as the tag requested. This was done before date of deletion. The tagger has been censured before for attacks upon Wikipedia pages of this type and has attempted before to have images on the relevant page deleted without success. The image has been in place for years without problems except from this one editor. Therefore I request that another administrator review the page and, if necessary, let me know EXACTLY what permission was missing from a file clearly tagged "work of the uploader" with relevant permission and licence. Thanks! Redheylin (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Ad hominem attacks on the person placing the deletion tag do Commons and your cause no good. The facts are what they are and it does not matter who placed the tag.
It's a copyrighted logo, well above the threshold of originality in most countries. Your recreation of it is a derivative work and infringes on the original's copyright. In order to keep it here, we will need permission from the copyright holder. Given the circumstances, that is unlikely, but the fact that it may be a copyright orphan does not make it eligible for use on Commons without a license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Jim. I have not made an attack - I am simply stating the facts. You have said that this is a "copyrighted logo". In the first place it is my own impression of a logo that, so far as I know, never been printed. It is a simple geometric design, comparable to the "New York Arrows" logo declared below the threshold of originality. Clearly this impression has been in Commons for a long time without complaint. Please can you give your reason for saying that a copyright is in force that precludes any derivative impression? Is this merely your own assessment? Redheylin (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The logo does not have to be printed or other way published for having a copyright. And this is not a simple logo, consisting only of simple geometrical figures. The circles are simple, yes, but the S is not. S is narrower from bottom and top and wider in middle. I am not able to reproduce the logo, therefore I consider this over threshold of originality. Yes, it was in Commons for years earlier – probably nobody noticed. Happens. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Telling us:
"The tagger has been censured before for attacks upon Wikipedia pages of this type and has attempted before to have images on the relevant page deleted without success."
is an ad hominem attack on the nom, which is completely irrelevant to this UnDR. The fact that the nom may or may not be a bad actor has nothing to do with the question at hand. Therefore, as I said, it does Commons and you no good.
Either
  • the logo is a recognizable derivative of a logo used in the 1970s, in which case it is a derivative work and cannot be kept without permission or
  • it is not in any way a DW, in which case it is personal art and out of scope.
Either way it cannot be restored, unless, assuming it is a DW, we get permission of the copyright holder.
As for the argument that the circles are too simple, please remember that the Olympic circle logo is copyrighted and aggressively defended. These circles are at least as complex as the five Olympic circles, probably more so.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clear agreement to restore. Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:32, 19 October 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/Files on User:Lymantria/Check[edit]

Can someone check these files again. I see they have added CC-BY-SA to at least some since.[9] --Sporti (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that is a good use of anyone's time. Since some of the files are now CC, perhaps you could re-upload those files? -FASTILY 00:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't check them all, because i can't see the links, but I saw these are now CC:

Can't really see why it would be a waste of time to check the rest. These files were already categorized and fitted with descriptions once. --Sporti (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing… I will go and check them again. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well never mind my earlier comment! :) -FASTILY 08:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I progressed up to the F (alphabetical order) and have undeleted 10 photographs. In many cases I had to repair the source link. Not only these are really released under cc-by-sa now, but also the source gives higher quality scans. I uploaded the higher quality scans, but not in all cases I have cropped/rotated etc. them as well. So if necessary, please check. And I will keep on progressing in bits and pieces (so it may take a couple of days). Lymantria (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is being taken care of, so this UDR is now moot -FASTILY 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Coat of arms - Jászberény.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-Coa-Hungary}} -- ato (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Have a nice weekend. -- ato (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Zscout370 -FASTILY 21:32, 19 October 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/File:Odprtje mostu v Podvelki 1960.jpg[edit]

I respectfully request the undeletion of File:Odprtje mostu v Podvelki 1960.jpg and File:Brezno Podvelka Brücke.jpg. Per User:Denniss,[10] the bridge does not surpass the threshold of originality on architectural objects (specifically bridges) in Slovenia. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is nothing in the statute which suggests that there is any TOO for architecture, including bridges,in Slovenia. Architecture and bridges are, by definition, creative and original by the very reason of their complexity. In the absence of case law to the contrary, I think we must assume that all such works have a copyright, as it is in the USA and other countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RGS3.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I donated this picture because he was my grandfather and I am an old picture collector, I have colaborated in the family members or people that I have seen in my pictures I am a member of a family with many prominent persons that are in Wikipedia and I am giving some pictures I own to contribute Deslumbra (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose All of that may be so, but this is a formal studio portrait. Since the photograph is of an older man who died in 1979, it is unlikely that the photographer died before 1943 as would be required for this to be in the Public Domain. While you may own a copy of the photograph, it is very unlikely that you own the copyright and have the right to license it freely. The copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just gave this picture for the book Of him that they published for the inaguration of the University of Monterrey (UDEM) Roberto Garza Sada Center of Arts and Architecture by Tadao Ando Japanesse Architect it is really an old small teared picture that I fixed on photoshop but if you do not want it that is fine I just thought it is the best I have I am the only member of the family that owns this picture because I collect all the antique family pictures fix them and many members of my family are on wikipedia but you make it very difficult for people who wants to contribute I am getting tired for working in trying to understand how to colaborate and getting erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deslumbra (talk • contribs) 07:58, 19 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Book publishers work under somewhat different rules than we do -- among other things they can evaluate the risk of getting sued by the copyright holder, while we are not allowed to consider that, see COM:PRP. The best way to avoid getting images deleted is to be certain that you own the copyright, or have permission to license the image, before you upload it. Also, do not claim "own work" when it is not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Unclear copyright status. If you do actually have a written agreement from the photographer to relinquish all copyright over the photograph to you, please email COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Comenius-Emblem.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture is just an excerpt from File:Orbis-pictus-001.jpg 89.13.213.255 19:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done That is the case. Next time, please put the source in the image description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trs-80_color_robot_battle.png [edit]

I captured this screenshot. It's freely licensed.

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Májo.jpg[edit]

esta imagen es publica Conxurus (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:" 12 - ITALY - Manichino carrozzeria Bertone per Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint - wood tecnical model.JPG[edit]

Deletion done, spite of general explanation of the reason about the erroneous interpretation of the image (and its consequentially deletion request). The only explanation about deletion is that the image has already been deleted previously via another discussion (burocratic explanation not involving the specific subject) and COM:UD is the proper venue to take. That's the reason for this UD: let to consider the reason telling the image is correct for Commons. --Bramfab (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was the nom in the recently closed DR. The image is of a wooden mockup -- an armature -- of a custom automobile body. Just as a car body that is not a complete automobile (no wheels or engine) has a copyright as a sculpture, this also has a copyright. It is much the same as an architectural model, a sketch for a painting, or a wood model of a sculpture that will be created in bronze. Since its shape outlines the shape of the car body, it is clearly well past the TOO. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim: you got already a plenty of replies against your erroneous interpretation, and even your consideration has been not considered in the file deletion, which has been only burocracy together with the indication of DU. The DU has been requested because 1) there the possibility of DU, 2) the DU has been indicated by the eraser as "the proper venue to take", 3)No reason discussing the regularity or irregularity of the image itself has been made supporting this deletion. It would be correct at least to read a comment from a third user, not a refrain of what has been already written and repeat spite or without reading opposite opinion.--Bramfab (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and considered all of the comments in the DR. Your comments I have addressed above. One of the others was a simple "Keep" -- no comment. DRs are not votes, so a simple "keep", even from a user with 37,000 edits here, is not relevant. A third user said:
"Many pictures of cars should be deleted if we consider the commercial use a competitor could have (i.e. Ferrari could use a picture a BMW car)."
Since that is simply wrong -- automobiles, as utilitarian objects, do not have copyrights -- I ignored it. A fourth user said many things that were simply incorrect. I refuted them point by point at the DR.
So I am not sure what you want of me here. The image shows an object that has a copyright. We can be sure that it has a copyright because it is a created work that does not fall into any of the categories that may not have copyright and, actually, explicitly falls into a category that does -- models -- it is a full scale model of the body of an automobile. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From you I don't want nothing because: 1)Commons is not your property, and it would be more correct to have a third comments from somebody less involved in the discussion to be fair 2) you are even not correct reporting selectively some comments, as forgetting "It'not art, it's just a tool, useful to develop an object that eventually will have the rights of an intellectual work" from what the third user wrote, and 3) you do not explain why your interpretation should be the correct one, not providing counter arguments, but repeating your refrain already demolished.--Bramfab (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Deletion was correct and proper. Of the three keep votes! not entered by the uploader (who canvassed on multiple projects [11][12][13], by the way), one said nothing at all, and the other two simply insisted that this is only a tool without offering extended rationale, analysis or legal opinion (be it statutory, case law, or expert opinion). To accuse Jim of “not explain[ing] why your interpretation should be the correct one” seems entirely hypocritical and is patently false. Indeed, the notion that this is a mere form for metal seems contradicted by its fit and finish, by its structural characteristics (such narrow pieces of wood suspending the roof look to provide inadequate support if one were intending to pound metal over it) and by its very title: “wood technical model.” Even if it does have a utilitarian purpose, Superior Form Builders, Inc. v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co., 74 F.3d 488 (1996) found that the “utilitarian” forms used to structure the overlying fur in taxidermy were eligible for copyright. If there's a case better applicable to armatures, by all means present it; currently, retention seems solely based on I DIDN'T HEAR THAT insistence that this is only a tool. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, finally a serious and documented explanation, to discuss, because its application in this case is unfortunately wrong. The page User:Elcobbola/Models tells that model "as merely (sculptural) portrayals of the appearance of the actual vehicle" are protected by law. Correct! Actually, the subject of the photograph is not a portrait of the appearance of the actual vehicle, (spite of the fact that in the name of file "manichino" Italian word has been loosely translated as "model" instead of "mannequin", but actually the subject of the photo is used exactely as the tailor uses the mannequin) and it is not a mockup, because a mockup is recognizable as it is just from a visual observation and I bet anybody to recognise the "Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint" simply from that wood assemblage. And it is no a "narrow pieces of wood suspending the roof look to provide inadequate support if one were intending to pound metal over it" and it is not applicable to a "form used to structure the overlying fur in taxidermy" because on taxidermy such structures are component of the final product, that's the reason why they are not tools, on the other side the wood mannequin is not component of final product either with car and tailor. -Please take few minute to consider that.-Bramfab (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trains of thought are getting crossed here. The point about the roof is that, if this were indeed a form for bending metal, narrow pieces of wood would not be expected to be used to support the roof structure. Why, if one were to be hammering and bending metal on something, would that something be attached on ca. 5 cm thick strips (at the front) above another form? Logically, I would expect a competent engineer to utilize a roof metal-bending form separate from the main body all together. That those elements are together as a single, uniform object--in conjunction with the other considerations I mentioned--suggests this is meant to be a model, not a utilitarian article. Эlcobbola talk 18:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because Bertone is/was not an industrial firm, but at those time they worked using the same manual skill handkraft as when the firm was established. Have you try the difference between bending a metal lamina using steel hammer over iron anvil and using a wood mallet on a wood base? Obviously today it is too expensive to make cars on this approach, but it was possible time ago. We have to be carefull while evaluating old stuff using today approach.Bramfab (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I tried to explain in every way: the photo depicts a tool to work, it is not a model, is not a reproduction or a mockup. According to the law is not covered by the same commercial rights of artistic works. the copyright has expired after 28 years, and 60 years have passed.--Pava (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, I simply don't think that is correct. This is a whole car. There are, at the very least, eleven separate panels that make up this car (front, rear, roof, hood, trunk lid, two doors, two front quarters and two rear quarters). If you were setting up armatures on which to beat out those panels, each panel would be flat, at waist level, and they would all be separate. I cannot imagine forcing a worker to reach up to the roof to shape it or across the quarters to shape the hood -- it simply doesn't make any sense at all. There are also no demarcations between panels -- when you have finished shaping a panel, you have to be able to turn its sides around a corner to bring it to an end. Also, the frames are not frequent enough. The photographs I have seen of Rolls Royce workers shaping panels show armatures with many more frames. It would be extremely difficult to shape metal over the frames shown here without creating hard spots. Granted, the panel beaters are very good at their work -- but the person designing the armatures would still make it as easy as possible for them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but Jim, how do you say "you're skeptical about what is said" that is your personal impression here if there are two users, plus two others on the previous discussions, that tell you that this is a working tool? and the Museum of Turin declares that it is a dummy for the realization of the body? in short, you have 4 opinions and authoritative an entity that claims one thing and just because you're not convinced commons should be deprived of this photograph? does not it seem a bit 'undiplomatic and not consensual? Will be parties that were merged to be exposed? or who knows what was the process of realization, because they do not have to believe the description of the museum? why would he lie? Do you understand that it is not convincing your skepticism? looks (and excuse me if I would, I do not really think in fact I wrote "seems") that there are other reasons why you do not want this image on commons. --Pava (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the description of the museum is clear: "Mascherone in legno per la carrozzatura dei prototipi del coupé Alfa Romeo "Giulietta Sprint" ("Wooden mask for the bodywork of prototypes of the coupe Alfa Romeo "Giulietta Sprint") - "Il modello è stato costruito in serie dalla Carrozzeria Bertone, partendo dalla base di questo manichino per sviluppare le necessarie attrezzature produttive." "The model was built by Carrozzeria Bertone in series, starting from the base of this dummy to develop the necessary production equipment." clearer than that source: MUSEOAUTO.it --Pava (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are frustrated because of my opinion -- I am equally frustrated because you cannot see that this model cannot possibly ever have been used for actually beating panels.
We've probably got translations problems here, but "starting from the base of this dummy to develop the necessary production equipment" does not say that this is a piece of production equipment, but only that it is a dummy used to develop production equipment. As for my opinion, I have seen many photographs of panel beating being done at Rolls Royce. This does not look like those armatures. I am someone who does a great deal of work with my hands in wood and metal -- I cannot see why any factory would force a worker to reach over the top of the automobile to shape the roof -- it simply does not make sense. The armature for the roof would be horizontal at a convenient height, as would the armatures for the other panels. Each panel's armature would be separate, because, as I said above, an automobile panel is not simply a sheet of metal that is the exterior of the car -- it has formed edges, either rolled under or at ninety degrees, in order to attach to the rest of the structure. There is nowhere in this model to form those edges.
As for my depriving Commons of this image -- I do not make the decision, the community does. I am only one voice, but there are at least two others on my side of the discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but Jim only you have discussed arguing about this, in previous reports other users who have deleted the image did not even cast, and they have completely ignored the question .

Now we're seriously discussing, after the third time you try to argue, and in previous reports there are 5 users besides me who have given consent to keep it because they recognize the reality of the facts. but let him lose this now, I do not want to debate, it is not important, we talk about the subject of the image. I'm not saying that you do not recognize, I just say that your concerns are personal, based on personal experience, but that can not counteract an official source .

I understand and be skeptical, but let me ask you notice you're a little 'misunderstanding the source, in a way that genuinely is poorly understood and justified, that is, I can not understand the meaning of this misunderstanding that your doubt and assume (forgive me if I I write with little rhetoric, but little good between the English and the fact that I do not know how to say things, I get maybe a little diplomatic tone, but it is not desired)
Anyway here is not about who has the most votes , here it comes to trust the sources ( and the museum is the most authoritative of our words , our personal impressions ) here Your word is like mine and does not matter if you are a shaper of wood , I do not I can verify that you are, and even if it was not even if he wrote here Bertone himself would have more authority than you or me , that only the sources that matter . And sources (official) says it is " a tool (template , dummy , figure , mask ) for the realization of the prototype of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint . : Pattern wood for construction of the bodywork of the prototypes of the coupe Alfa Romeo " Giulietta Sprint. Trust me, not the google translator that works very badly. I am Italian I know what I read , and other users will be able to confirm definitely Italian . there is then written :
The Alfa Romeo Giulietta sprint was built by Carrozzeria Bertone in series , starting from the base of this dummy.
and adds :
This wooden structure [...] is the result of a ' craftsmanship and a manual that did not yet know the computer.
is clearly a work tool . Then I do not know why it is full , maybe I have combined to expose and was originally separated .
however, it is irrelevant that this dummy is used as a "positive" to make another mold "negative" (production equipment) such as is done for the plaster or the lost wax casting, or that have been used directly to model the body, it remains what it is: a working tool. What else do you want it?
If this is not a work tool , explain to me please what do you think ? --Pava (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people are debating whether the image shows something utilitarian. The file name is in Italian, so is this something from Italy? COM:UA doesn't apply in many European countries, but I don't know whether it applies in Italy or not. In countries where COM:UA doesn't apply, the outcome of a deletion discussion should be unrelated to whether the photographed object is utilitarian or not. However, in some countries, for example Denmark, COM:FOP appears to apply to some utilitarian objects. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents. I'd tendentially undelete for several reasons that I wish to point out:
    1. Back when that car was produced, the biggest names of the Italian car design used to handcraft (that apart only big car manufacturers like i.e. FIAT, had an assembly line in those years in Italy); plus, Nuccio Bertone was not a car manifacturer (and has never been), he was a producer of custom made coachworks. Eventually the brand evolved to car design;
    2. the reason of the above point is also because Nuccio Bertone used to create niche works at that time, thus the production was relatively small and compatible with handmaking;
    3. plus, at that time cars didn't have the monocoque like now; there was a châssis that sustained the coachwork (why am I saying that? keep on reading and you'll find out);
    4. the image doesn't show a mock-up but a jig. "Mascherone" is not to be translated as "Big Mask" when we are talking about mechanics or car industry. It is synonim of "dima", in English "jig". Is the ultimate sample for a handcraft coachwork;
    5. particular that must be kept in count, that type of car had the coachwork in aluminium (not in iron), thus the wood sample is perfectly consistent with the handcrafting (the coachwork being only decorative, as it was the abovementioned châssis that sustained engine, mechanics and eventually the coachwork);
    6. just because of the success of that car (no longer compatible with hand-making process) its production had to be moved to an assembly line by Alfa Romeo, with coaches made of machine-modelled iron sheets.
    7. thus my humble opinion is that we are dealing with a wooden sample used for the original coachwork, not with a mockup. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat it again. This is not an armature -- a form around which the 11+ aluminum body panels were shaped -- it cannot be that for all the reasons I have put forth above -- it is not smooth enough, it is not possible to use it reaching over the car to reach the roof, there is nothing to shape the edges of the panels, etc. It is a model from which such armatures were made. While I grant that the actual armatures used to form aluminum might be free of copyright (I think they would not), this is a model from which they are made and as such certainly has a US copyright and almost certainly has an Italian one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure, Jim? This is a Ghia's wooden armature for a 1960 Plymouth. Not different as structure from Bertone's Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint's ... -- 13:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with SERGIO, also in Italy the copyright of the subject is expired 30 years ago. It will be a suit of armor from which the molds are made​​, but more of a working tool it is, it will declare the museum itself --Pava (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment how do we proceed? the situation seems clear to me, the image should be restored, it seems to me that different users have given concent to recovery (more exposed to the consensus HERE, by 4 users, that we can not ignore) . I would expect the answer to Jim because the last response carried by SERGIO understand that this is just a working tool used to make the body. --Pava (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request temporary undeletion : in addition the real nature of the tool portrait in the photo which exclude copyright, other users indicate that even it was applicable, it has been already expired by age.

However in order to let people to recognize if it is or not a mockup I'ma sking for temporary undeletion, otherwise the discussion will be restricted only over the opinion of the very few people having the opportunity to see and observe the image, and not only this is unfair and not productive for the wikipedia project but let this discussion to move from the actual deadlock condition.--Bramfab (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [14], [15]. -FASTILY 07:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to reconcile the logic, or lack thereof, of the above comments;
1) Anyone actually reading the discussion could see the work being discussed at the museum site, or Pava could have linked to the copy he/she reupload to it.wikipedia. The request(s) to undelete temporarily is just bizarre and, frankly, thoughtless.
2) The museum site dates the work to 1954. Italy is pma + 70, meaning the work couldn't be in the public domain until at least 2024 (1954 + 70), and that's assuming the creator died immediately after creating it.
3) Perhaps it's the broken English, but arguing semantics of the term used for this work ("we are dealing with a wooden sample used for the original coachwork, not with a mockup") does not establish anything. Dummy, mask, model, jig, mockup, sample - it could be called a cheese sandwich for all copyright law cares; what matters is its function. Besides, the site itself calls the object "a true work of art" (!) (propria opera d’arte). The site's comments about the function only support the position Jim and I have taken. It was used as a basis to develop the production equipment (manichino per sviluppare le necessarie attrezzature produttive) - meaning it, itself, was not production equipment. It was model used to portray the physical appearance of the car so engineers would have a basis for the equipment's dimensions, etc. (i.e. it's essentially saying to the engineers: this is what the car should look like, now go make the equipment needed to produce it). A useful article is "an object that has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." This is not a useful article. Эlcobbola talk 08:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) and 2) : no, the Italian law speaks of +70 years for works of art, this is a working tool +28 years. the emphasis of the museum tells you exactly which is a working tool, seen from the museum itself as a work of art, but the Italian copyright does not recognize it as such, it is a working tool, so it is declared by the museum but it exposes as if it were a work of art because obviously cares about the thing. But the museum displays many cars, and for all of them are works of art on wheels but it does not mean that it is recorded in the middle rights as a work of art. You take into consideration a wrong law, the law that you have to make is about the Patent Law and tools, that is 28 --Pava (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3) maybe you want to deny the obvious: take for example also the working tool of Ghia's wooden armor for a 1960 Plymouth shown by SERGIO, the description does it understand what it is: a working tool. and also the museum of turin expressly says mask FOR reallizzazione of the Giulietta Sprint, when there were no computers available. So it is a working tool that they used as a template to create the molds of the body. E 'useless climb on the mirrors --Pava (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@elcobbola: At begin of this discussion you indicate the page User:Elcobbola/Models telling that model "as merely (sculptural) portrayals of the appearance of the actual vehicle" are protected by law. but actually, the subject of the photograph is not a portrait of the appearance of the actual vehicle, as anybody can acknowledge by looking now the photo (where is teh place for driver and apssengers for istance?). If you say that it is a copyright because the museum contains the expression "a true work of art" (!) (propria opera d’arte) this is a misunderstanding due probably to a cultural divide: in Italian we are used to indicate that something is so beautiful to be a "a true work of art" or a masterpiece , just have a look of this masterpiece (capolavoro) of cake [ http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/perlei/articoli/1080312/cake-design-cosi-nascono-le-torte-capolavoro.shtml Cake design: così nascono le torte capolavoro], this happen in the museum too, mainly if it is setup to promote the quality of its exhibit. You would not read expression as "a true work of art" side of Gioconda portrait because either the picture and the Louvre does not need to put emphasis on the exhibit description. It is a marketing jargon. --Bramfab (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bramfab, I appreciate your good intentions, but this comment suggests you have misunderstood the entirety of what I have said. The broken English and non sequiturs suggest this is a linguistic disconnect, not a cultural one. You may wish to consult with someone with a stronger grasp of English as I think you’ve unambiguously missed the boat here. For example:
the subject of the photograph is not a portrait of the appearance of the actual vehicle, as anybody can acknowledge by looking now the photo (where is teh place for driver and apssengers for istance?)
An actual vehicle would have a place for the driver. That this model has no such place only supports the notion of being a sculptural portrayal. That is moot, of course, as this is not a discussion about whether this object is utilitarian by virtue of being a method of transportation. Further, I did not invoke the model essay - that was you. In that essay, "actual," in the line you quoted, is an emphasizing word, not a literal modifier of vehicle. The statute (i.e., the authorative document, not a user essay) says "to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information" which is exactly what I said above. Эlcobbola talk 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that it is a copyright because the museum contains the expression "a true work of art" (!) (propria opera d’arte)
I don't say that's why it's copyrighted. I understand the meaning and non-literal usage. I was being glib, and criticizing the continued deference to the museum site when the site only supports the position Jim and I have taken. I'll repeat myself: Per the museum, this model was used as a basis to develop the production equipment (manichino per sviluppare le necessarie attrezzature produttive) - meaning it, itself, was not production equipment. Эlcobbola talk 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it is a tool, even it would be a tool for making a tool it is still a tool! The absence of driver place indicates that it is not a model and confirm that the scope of this tool is to be used for the external body. And as Pava wrote the Italian law speaks of +70 years for works of art, but +28 years for a working tool.--Bramfab (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said it is a tool; please read critically. Italian law, like US law, does not pertain to "art" (as you erroneously imply - law speaks of +70 years for works of art) but rather to "Intellectual works having a creative character and appertaining to [...] the graphic arts [...] whatever their mode or form of expression" including "works of sculpture, painting, drawing, engraving and similar graphic arts [...] even when such works are applied to an industrial product if their artistic value is distinct from the industrial character of the product with which they are associated" [16] This is a model to inform and guide the industrial engineers (i.e., go forth and create molds/forms that will produce panels to create an automobile that looks like this model). This model, therefore, merely “portray[s] the appearance of the article [and] convey[s] information”. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"if their artistic value is distinct from the industrial character of the product with which they are associated": the point is that there is no an artistic value distinct from the Industrial character. It is a beautiful handcraft instrument designed to let to build a beautiful car. I bet that if the photo would portrait a wood structure for make an ugly car or a less intuitive object (like this File:Keel assembly jig - NARA - 298556.jpg) it would be not proposed for deletion, but the concept, its manufacturing and scope are be the same. --Bramfab (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've neglected an essential word in the quote: the preceding "even" (i.e., "also in the case of", not "only"). I again recommend you consult someone with a firmer grasp of English if the distinction is unclear to you. Эlcobbola talk 18:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not neglected, simply I do not see or I do not recognize its artist value. The little sculpture in front of R.R. shows artistic value. In this case it is just a handcraft instrument (a jig), beautiful but necessary, i.e. not replaceable, to start the manufacturing processing of a beautiful car, without it the production line cannot be assembled at those time. Cheers. --Bramfab (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done as a stale request with no new activity for over a week and no clear consensus to restore anything. -FASTILY 09:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tartu rahu allkirjad.jpg [edit]

I rather wouldn't consider this as 3D. I understand the rules and that the seal technically is 3D, but hopefully there's room for reconsidering. Compare this to old painting, which on close look also isn't 2D as the canvas isn't smooth and there's more and less paint in different areas. Nor are e.g old maps that are printed using different engravings or other older printing techniques that also result in clearly heterogeneous texture. Compared to a coin, which has strict dimensions and which can be viewed from all angels off from a 2D surface, a seal also is quite close to being 2D. 90.190.114.172 21:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose -- I was the closing Admin. As I said in the closing comment, Bridgeman covers only Old Master paintings. Although WMF has extended that a very little to include all painted (2D) works of art, policy explicitly does not allow PD-Art on coins or any other 3D material. Since a coin is very similar to a seal, it seems to me that rule should apply here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there clearly is room for further discussion, so I take the opporunity to reopen the request. As you state yourself this specific court case is only the background of our policy. Our policy doesn't explicitly state that only repros of painted works are considered PD, so you are being more rigid on this than needed. Scans (of, say, books) in general are not paintings either, though that sort of repro in considered PD here. My experience is that our aim is to keep as many images as possible not vice versa, so if it's easy to justify why this image could be kept (rather 2D as above) then we should consider this justification.

To be clear, it's not a coin on this image, it's a seal. Seal is similar to coin only in it's projection, its way less similar in it's third dimension. Like old maps (see above), a seal is more like a figure in a special printing technique too. A seal is attached to the paper, quite close to being part of a 2D surface. So a scan of a paper with seal on it can't demonstrate originally, that is compared to coins where different choice of framing, lighting, point of view etc. is possible. Yes, the seal can reflect the light little different than the rest of the paper, but that's the case for examples of painting and old maps etc. too, not to mention that different scanning techniques give slightly different outputs. So I see no good reason to consider seal as a 3D object rather than a 2D object. 193.40.10.180 10:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely difference between seal and seal. For example, File:Seal of Náchod town from 1570 (big).jpg and File:Town privileges Wroclaw.gif are clearly 3D objects, but File:Late bronze age seal.jpg is not. For this one, I do not know. Therefore I will not close this undeletion request. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"My experience is that our aim is to keep as many images as possible not vice versa," is not quite correct. It is our aim to keep as many images as possible that can be proven beyond a significant doubt to be free. It is up to the person who wants to keep the image to prove that it is, in fact, free.
Note that WMF policy on PD-Art stretches Bridgman, which itself applies in only one section of the United States. Bridgeman is not the law in many countries, including, for example, Scandinavia. You would like to stretch Bridgeman well beyond its limits and apply it to Estonia, a place where even the original intent of the Breidgeman decision may not apply. Unless you can show statute or case law from Estonia that this is reasonable, I don't think you've met your burden of proof. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course images must be beyond a significant doubt to be free too. But arguments related to Bridgman still seem irrelevant. If you question whether 2D reprors (i.e scans) from Estonia can be considered free, then this shouldn't be the question either, as according to our policy 2D repros from any country are OK. What I rely on considering this image free per our policies is that this seal can be considered 2D in comparsion to examples above. 193.40.10.180 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, in Italian "Beyond any reasonable doubt" is different than "In doubt, don't keep". "Beyond any reasonable doubt" means that a thing is very unlikely to happen, with a probability of, say, 5-10 per cent or less. When we are talking about "reasonable doubt" on Commons, I guess we should prior agree to such threshold. Because as for now there's no threshold. If there's a 0.5 per cent of doubt the file is deleted. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I understand, the only we need is permission from photographer, and photographer is unknown. Is it possible to get a new photo with permission from photographer? The paper itself is free, because it is official law, and law is not copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The law itself is PD, but we still need written permission (via COM:OTRS) from the photographer to use this file on Commons. -FASTILY 09:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Younglabourlogo.jpg[edit]

DR can be seen here. File deleted without reasoning and is a derivative of the main party logo which is PD. Fry1989 eh? 17:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed this as deleted without comment because, as the nom said, the source site has an explicit (c). The fact that it is derivative of something else may or may not be relevant -- derivative works usually have their own copyright in addition to the copyright on the work from which they were derived. Fry, please give a link to what you're talking about so I and others can consider your point of view. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noooo, what the Nom actually said was that the website has a "standard copyright notice", which as we know applies to the website itself and it's general design but can not apply to photos, logos, coats of arms or other elements which garnish their own independent protections. If that was your only reason, this should be immediately undeleted. Fry1989 eh? 00:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, you have so much experience here that sometimes I wonder when you put forth an incorrect statement such as this one if you are just putting something out there to prove your point, hoping it will fly.
It is well established that a single copyright notice in a publication -- a newspaper, book, magazine -- covers everything in the publication that is editorial content (ads must have separate notice). That long practice continues to web sites -- you are, in effect, claiming that every item in the web site must have a separate notice. All of this is very clear in USCO Circular 3, Copyright Notice, pages 3 and 4. Of course, notice is not required, but its presence strongly suggests that the content of the page is not freely licensed.
Again, I ask -- your original reasoning was "File ... is a derivative of the main party logo which is PD." Please give us a link to the "main party logo" so I and others can see for ourselves. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not stated anything dishonest. If I design a website and put a general copyright notice on it, I CAN NOT claim that notice applies to the photos or other images contained within that website which may garnish their own protections. If I create a website and input an image which is copyrighted from somewhere else, or is PD for some reason, I don't get to claim new copyrights to it just because it's on my special website, that is a FACT! You on the other hand were purposefully dishonest in misrepresenting what the Nom actually said. I will not link the original file because I do not trust you at this point. You had no reason to delete the file from what I can see, not any valid ones anyway and it was certainly a leap of bad faith from a nomination with no actual substance to it other than simple doubt in the wording the license that was used. Fry1989 eh? 16:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still no proof has been provided that a general copyright notice for a website can apply to a party logo which would (depending on various factors) garnish it's own independent protections just like photographs or coats of arms or any other work that is independent of the website. Fry1989 eh? 00:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And i am still waiting on actual proof. It is impossible for a website copyright notice to apply to everything on that website when images could be PD-ineligible, or borrowed from somewhere else and have independent protections, or for whatever other reason. I do not get to claim copyright on my website to images that I get independent from my website. Fry1989 eh? 17:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably okay. If any new evidence arises suggesting that it is not ok for Commons, we can easily start a new DR -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a software bug preventing me from undeleting the file. If someone could re-upload the file under a different name, that would be great! [17], [18] -FASTILY 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:TK YM ZENIT FP 338.jpg[edit]

Ich möchte obengenannte Datei wieder zurückholen.

Offenbar ist diese Datei gelöscht worden, da Angaben nicht gestimmt habe. Ich bin ein blutiger Anfänger auf Wikipedia und finde mich nicht wirklich zurecht auf dieser Plattform.

Unser Kunde Loepfe Brother Ltd. hat uns als seine ausführende Marketingagentur damit beauftragt, einen Firmeneintrag zu erstellen. Unter anderem gehört auch diese Bild dazu. Ich will versuchen alle nötigen Ergänzungen zu machen und möchte an dieser Stelle um Hilfe aufrufen. Denn Wikipedia ist für mich nicht nur ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln, es sind bestimmt dreimal so viele.

Vielen Dank für euren Support. Beste Grüsse, DACHCOM --Dachcom (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The source for this file was www.loepfe.com, a web site with an explicit copyright notice. That is the reason that the file was deleted. In order to restore the file, Commons will need a license from an officer of the company, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The Google translation of the comment above is a little rough, but if I understand correctly, User:Dachom is a paid publicist for the company. Both Commons and Wikipedia have policies concerning this, see COM:Advert. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Natt_&_Dag.jpg Partially own work under full CC deleted.[edit]

Mentioned file is a front cover from the norwegian newspaper Natt&Dag. I work with the paper and both the editor, photographer and designer cleared this for a Creative Commons license. I feel that the speedy deletion was not warrented and that insufficent reason for deletion was provided. What, if any, documentation is needed to restore this image? --Atle r s (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that we delete around 1,000 files every day and do not have enough active Admins to keep up with the deluge of new files. A newspaper or magazine cover that is clearly under copyright falls squarely within the requirements of a {{Speedy}}. In order to restore this file Commons will need permission from the newspaper, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I don't know how Norwegian newspapers are organized, but in the USA none of "editor, photographer, and designer" would be qualified to give such a license - it would have to come from an officer of the corporation owning the newspaper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category talk:Deceased people by country[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Well - it's lately been suggested that the page - albeit evidently active and maintained - has been viewed as "orphan", the point is that the particular content on the ***talkpage*** is clearly important as stand-alone introduction and illustration for the new structure that had been discussed before. "Undeleting" it would be more than wise, allowing the continuation of category work and discussion. Salvated content can obviously harbour in any appropriate page away from "orphan" potential. I just remain wondering how come anyone who deleted the page had not just copied the content elsewhere in the first place. It's implausible that anyone thought it was abandoned or not needed. Orrlingtalk 15:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Talk pages without an associated page are, for the most part, not permitted on Commons. I suggest you recreate the page in your userspace -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Industrial_visit_kerala_cse_dept.jpg [edit]

This is a photo taken by camera when me and my friends went to industrial visit to kerala,india.

this completely my creation , i request it to be undeleted

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monte bianco dal versante italiano.jpg [edit]

this photo is mine and I have furnished the proper permission to wikimedia commons. It is also present on a my website but I have removed now the copyright symbol from it--Samehobbycom (talk)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Susane Colasanti[edit]

This is an author photo of Susane Colasanti, previously posted on several sites for public use.--Hlg10014 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Rainatou Sow.png [edit]

Deletion request incorrect: source quoted is a secondary source (personally authorised content). This photograph was taken by myself (user RedCoatOnline), and is my content to share. --RedCoatOnline (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Entesa senat.jpg[edit]

File combination of text and simple geometrical forms. Not eligible for Copyright.--Coentor (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Federico díaz sembion 2003, 2004.jpg[edit]

There is OTRS permission for this file in info-cs queue (ticket:2013102110017864). --Harold (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A software bug is preventing me from undeleting the file. If someone could re-upload the file under a new name that would be great: [19], [20] -FASTILY 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I sent an e-mail to uploader. He will upload this file under new name. Thank you. --Harold (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vladislav Kurasov 24.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I requesting an Undeletion of this file because the author had wrote E mails with permission to me and to permission E-mail to Wiki, after I had forwarded it to you on October 13, 2013.

Please check.

Thank you very much,

Aleksandra 55

Already done by Whym -FASTILY 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tersivel band 2013.jpg [edit]

Hi there, I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I own the file and everytime I upload one it gets deleted. --Sir vosslat (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:APKIT.jpg [edit]

This is the logo of the Association of producers, and it is distributed free free of charge to represent the organization in media.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OwAAABI8JAyqLA6Nv-tRVE5W0wdZ8Zi1TXMafH9PkXUOtzyBnx9UM4vs465sa8EOCVqa3rhp-xorbhCk-d9KS2ytfOYAm1T1UGMdCghlMeEINr1E8YWzOVTr tyK.jpg [edit]

Upon deciding the fate of this DR, which had a solely the nomination (a weak one — only asked for a description, which was later added) and one keep vote, the closing admin choses deletion, saying this photo is a personal image. Yet it shows a large group of uniformed footballers in pre-game formation in a high visibility public venue. It may not be worth keeping, but surely not for that reason. Lets put it back on. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The filename discloses that this file is copied from Orkut. Likely the statement "own work" isnt true. --Martin H. (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad you can make sense of that (I mean, it is even worse than MOSS!). Well, while the case could be made that the Orkut user and the uploader are the same person, it falls on the wrong side of COM:PCP — in that case I  I withdraw my nomination. However, my criticism of the DR closing process and deletion rationale still stands: You cannot stand on the beach in Copacabana looking all cool and expect to be unremarked (just ask her!); this photo would never be a private matter and surely was not meant as one! -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -FASTILY 06:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banda Pata de Elefante.jpg|thumb|Gustavo Telles, Daniel Mossman, Gabriel Guedes[edit]

I got the autorization to use this file. --JessicaRose (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Jessica Rose --JessicaRose (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1888 Kodaly 500.jpg[edit]

According to Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Hungary, stamps of Hungary are in the public domain. Einstein2 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeCommons:Stamps/Public domain#Hungary quotes the following as justification for saying that stamps are PD:
"The protection provided by this Act shall not cover legal provisions, other means of state direction, court and other official resolutions, announcements and documents issued by an authority or other official organ, as well as standards made obligatory by law and other similar regulations."
That's a fairly standard sort of copyright exemption for laws, court rulings, and other documents which in most (maybe all) countries are exempt from copyright as a matter of public policy. I don't read Hungarian, so I have to assume that the translation is accurate, but unless there is something in the Hungarian that reaches farther than "documents" I must believe that it does not include stamps. Reading that paragraph to include stamps would require us to read it to include everything done by the government in the same way we do that with the US Federal government. That is not what is said at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#Hungary.
To clarify, the file name says "1888", but this is a 1968 stamp -- the subject died in 1967. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There is no evidence that Hungarian stamps are in the public domain; to the contrary, they seem similar enough to the Hungarian banknotes, for which the Hungarian Council of Copyright Experts said they're not in the public domain (see the discussion here). I'm planning to amend the section after this discussion gets closed, unless someone provides clear and undisputable evidence that these stamps are free. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is clearly still protected by copyright, and therefore forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Islamic compex Shakhi Zinda - 13.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is one of Bugzilla: 53770.I assume developers didn't saw this, and this file case is needed for fixing, I think. 레비Revi✉SUL Info 11:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is nothing to restore -- this is a file page with no file -- only the description and other text. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the result of bug. I tried to rename the item,and there was error on it, and item became like it. --레비ReviD✉CM 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but looking at the file as it exists now shows nothing restorable. It may be possible for someone to reach back into the system backups and grab a copy of the file before the loss, but that will take someone with different skills and permissions than a Commons Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I Withdrawn this request. --레비ReviD✉CM 03:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -FASTILY 08:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DEV035048A.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Image derives from bryotechnology gallery by Prof. Dr. Ralf Reski. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Source: ReskiLab, University of Freiburg [21] Dr. Esra (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source site is, in fact, licensed CC-BY-SA. However, I can't find the subject image at the cited site. It's a large site, so I am probably missing it, but I can't put the necessary {{Licensereview}} tag on it unless I can find it.
I also note that this image was uploaded with the uploader claiming to be the author and a {{PD-self}} tag, both of which were not correct -- CC-BY-SA is not the same as PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The single sources for the images are:
* for File:Physcomitrella Sporophyt.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) this is the | source
* for File:Physcomitrella Protonema.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) this is the | source
* for File:Physcomitrella growing on agar plates.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) this is the | source
* for File:Bioreaktor quer2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) this is the | source
sorry and thank you for your patience Jim Dr. Esra (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done the four -- that leaves one? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help, Jim! And thank you for reminding me of the fifth image, I'm going to provide the link to this image soon. Another question arose: Do you know how the images in Wikipedia articles can be recovered (is this a task automatically carried out by bots or shall I press the "undo" button in the page history (since some of the images are already restored and the same cited in other articles are not)? Dr. Esra (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jim
The image: DEV035048A.jpg was published in: https://journals.biologists.com/dev/issue/136/14.cover-expansion a scientific journal which publishes its articles and contents under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence (the terms of which are set out at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode) please see permissions on the publisher's website:
https://journals.biologists.com/dev/site/misc/rights_permissions.xhtml. Is this sufficient to restore the image? Dr. Esra (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All ✓ Done, thank you Dr. Esra for your efforts in cleaning up this licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Roque Agando.jpg [edit]

Tenia una foto del Roque Agando de La Gomera, File:Roque Agando.jpg ; que en su día la utilice para decorar con File:Collage La Gomera.jpg el articulo La Gomera y ahora me encuentro que ha sido eliminada y desconozco la razón. Me gustaría si pudieran volverla a ser restaurada. Gracias y si por el contrario faltaba algún dato, me lo solicitaran ya que yo soy su autora, y gustosa lo pondría. Saludos.--Martely (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, if you say so -FASTILY 21:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias a quien proceda. --Martely (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files with OTRS permission[edit]

I want to ask to undelete to following files because there is valid permission from the copyright holder via OTRS, see ticket:2013020110009425 (in german)

The permission apply to all files from #1 up to #6. It was my fault to set the OTRS tag in file #1 and file #6 only and forgot the files #2-#5 in between.--Wdwd (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files restored. --Rosenzweig τ 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Саирме 0,5л.jpg [edit]

For some unknown reasons photo of Sairme mineral waters was removed from Wikimedia. deletion of this photo was mistake, file is a property of my company branding.ge. We made this photo for our client Sairme mineral waters. please stop deletion request add add photo.

makobranding

28.10.2013

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harzhornereignis Schussbahnen Artefakte (NLD).svg[edit]

File has been deleted giving “No permission since 15 October 2013” as a reason. However, this svg file is in fact the retouched and enhanced version by German user Perhelion of this original file with OTRS-ticket: File:Harzhorn-Ereignis Schussbahnen Artefakte (NLD).pdf. Please undelete or advise what is missing. Brunswyk (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Krd -FASTILY 21:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG[edit]

{{Request temporary undeletion }}

This seems to be (or, rather, have been) the only available sample of a modern scientific article in Mongolian script on the internet. It may possibly be moved to a fair use project such as en.wikipedia. Ktotam (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [22], [23] -FASTILY 21:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SQAY MARTIAL ART OF KASHMIR 01.jpg [edit]

In the deletion discussion it is said that «image depics a public event, with journalists and decorated winners» however the closing admin argues that it is a «personal image» to favour deletion. While the point can be made that personal images (whatever exactly that may be) are not proscribed in Commons, it is clear cut that an image of a public event cannot be a personal image, per definition. So either this photo does not show a public event after all and therefore the user who raised that point should be severely reprimended for misuing the DR discussion for trolling, or this photo does show a public event and the closing admin not only acted as discribed but, by his decision to delete, reduced the scope and breath of Commons and discouraged an uploader — and he should be even more severely reprimended. Which is it? -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the closing rationale of Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQAY MARTIAL ART OF KASHMIR 01.jpg had anything to do with privacy issues, I think you're mistaken. An image taken of a public event in a public place can certainly be of personal interest only. Holiday snapshots of unidentified, non-notable persons at a sports event would be one example of content that falls outside Commons' project scope. The deletion nomination is obviously not trolling, we don't "reprimend" (sic) participants for dealing with out-of-scope files, and you'd do well to take it down a notch. You should be able to disagree with deletions in a calm and civil manner without resorting to ad hominem arguments. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LX, if you’re going to argue in favor of civility, calmness, and notch-downing (which is all peachy), you may want to avoid the petty pointing of other peoples’ spelling mistakes. (Fun fact: the remote origin of "reprimand" is "reprimendus" — mentioned here since you love Latin so much as to misuse the phrase "ad hominem").
As for your question — if I «think the closing rationale» «had anything to do with privacy issues», no I don’t. I think Fastily rubber stamped this as «personal image» implying that the scope of the image was personal and therefore uninteresting for Commons. Since in the DR discussion the opposite point was made, I’d expect him to argue in favor of deletion by saying something like «public but not notorious». He pointedly ignored the discussion and closed the DR as if it had occurred. And that notches me up a great deal: I don’t care much for this image in particular, but a care a lot for Commons — whose deletion policy should not be random caprice and whim.
The accusation of trolling I uttered for effect, finally, was directed to myself: If this were an obviously off-scope private image and I had argued it was a public event, I’d be trolling.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 03:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't care much for this image in particular." Right, then  Oppose, since you're only here to make a point. And on that basis, I'm out. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose (edit conflict) You say:
"...it is clear cut that an image of a public event cannot be a personal image, per definition."
That's just silly -- there are millions of images taken of public events every day, personal images which would be out-of-scope for Commons. Examples:
  • Baptisms, marriages, and funerals
  • Primary and secondary school sporting events
  • Many university sporting events
  • Low and middle level amateur sporting events -- local 10K races, bowling, baseball, soccer, and the like
  • School plays
  • Graduation ceremonies
Of course, some of these might be in scope if notable people were involved or if the event were itself notable, but not all events that attract journalists are notable -- small town newspapers cover many events that we would not consider in scope for Commons.
As for this image, I don't know exactly what's happening here. The only description is the uploader's username, SQAY KASHMIR. It appears to me that the deletion as an out of scope personal image is appropriate, but there may be something I don't understand about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice essay on how a public event may be off-scope for Commons. Going back to the matter at hand, this photo shows what seems to be athletes in training uniforms being awarded medals in a public ceremony. On the wall there is a Jordanian flag, and the photo is identifies these sportsmen as practitioner of sqay, a Kashmiri martial art (as listed here). All this points to an international sports competition, maybe an all-Asia martial arts event. I personally have no interest in any organized sports event, but even I see that to dismiss this image as a mere «personal image» is a disservice to Commons — especially since this photo and this other one seem to be the only images we have about this particular subject, incidental and marginal as they are. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say something silly, you should expect a reaction. Since you, as the only person who would like this image restored, can't tell us anything about the who, what, why, when, where of this image, how can we say that has any educational value? Jumping from a Jordanian flag and a Kashmiri martial art to an all-Asian martial arts event is a big leap without any justification. Certainly it may be everything you say about it, but without knowing specifics, it's useless. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can tell that this image (also if this other one by the same uploader is considered) is probably in scope — it is a reasonable assumption. When in doubt, keep it, and await someone who knows anything of substance about the subject to chime in. If it is deleted (or rather if it is not undeleted) it will never be subject to that kind of scrutiny. This is Commons 101 — why are you two insisting that the deletion was justified? (Yeah, rhethorical question.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as  Not done: Stale request (no new activity for over a week) with no clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Müglitztalbahn streckenskizze (1).jpg [edit]

Hallo, bitte die Datei wiederherstellen. Karten von http://www.demis.nl sind Public Domain. Siehe dazu auch Template:PD-Demis. Es müsste in die Beschreibung lediglich dieses Template eingefügt werden.

Translate:

Hello, please restore the file. Maps of http://www.demis.nl are public domain. See also File:Müglitztalbahn streckenskizze (1).jpg . It would have to be included in the description of this template only.

Regards --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  14:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have the subject map restored, you will need to show that it is a crop from the world map which is copyright free. I also suggest that you make corrections to the template. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. You may re-upload the file if you get the copyright sorted out. -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khyenrab Norbu.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following page:

Reason: I found a source, showing this a photo of Khyenrab Norbu (Jan van Alphen, Anthony Aris, Mark de Fraeye, Florène Cramant, Médecines orientales: guide illustré des médecines d'Asie, Editions Olizane, 1998, ISBN 2880861950, published before the file was upload on Tibetan Wikipedia). Although not the case when deleted in 2011, it is now more that 50 year old, since fr:Khyenrab Norbu died in 1962, and therefore it is certain that it is now under {{PD-China}}. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The source does not provide a publication or creation date, the various criteria for {{PD-China}}. Even the logic above based erroneously on the subject's date of death would not place the image in the public domain: Commons requires images be PD in the country of origin and the United States. Assuming the image became PD in China in or about 2012 (1962 + 50), per COM:HIRTLE, images published abroad (China) but not Public Domain in their home country as of 1.1.1996 have a 95 year term in the US. If this was not PD in China as of 1.1.1996, it would be expected to be copyrighted in the US until ca. 2057 (1962 + 95). Эlcobbola talk 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per elcobbola -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oltářík (Hrádek) – tur. mapa.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is not a copy of any existing map – it is about my own map work as I can give evidence here: http://wiki.fan-tomas.net/Hradek.png where I have moved several features of the map and re-exported. Fan-Tomas (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Street furniture in Slovenia[edit]

Per this court case, the threshold of originality is higher in the field of applied arts than in the field of fine arts in Slovenia (specifically, a couch set was found to be below the TOO). I think that the following files don't depict objects that would significantly differ from other similar utilitarian objects:

--Eleassar (t/p) 09:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photograph under File:Ducktails.jpg[edit]

The photograph listed under File:Ducktails.jpg has been removed and flagged as copyright infringement.

I am personal friends with the person who owns the copyright for the photograph and received approval from them before uploading the photograph in Commons and then to Wikipedia. I'm not sure why it was flagged as copyright infringement but I would like to request that it be undeleted and reinserted as the main photograph on the Ducktails (band) page.

Thank you.


JGroff13 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Groffman

Oct. 29, 2013 2:07pm

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr Patrick W Hsu - Houston Surgeon.jpg[edit]

My purpose is not to promote or advertise. My purpose is to share information around the web. Please Recover the page including the photo.

Thank you,

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Brewer Sports International.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted due to copyright issue, but I am a member of the organization who is authorized to use this image. File: The Jack Brewer Foundation.jpg is also deleted, and i am requesting undeletion of both image files. --Danielle.berman (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)October 30th, 2013[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-10&oldid=771250624"