Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-12

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

Alleged Copyrighted and Out of Scope Files.[edit]

Topic: Accusations of Copyrighted media files and reported Out of Scope media.

I invoke my right against self incrimination.

Several files was reported for statements of such and few were removed from my uploads link not notifying on my discussion page.

In my defense, the images were not uploaded contradicting to copyright due to the file was of my own works for educational and health purposes only. But, the image was taken from the internet from a personal reliable source which some of my works are contributed to. However, some viewers or users may find the images displays an inappropriate file which undoubtedly does contain a graphic image or a file uncommonly portrayed and used. Therefore, there is no viable reason of vandalizing a project report of any circumstances without a reasonable proof of so.

If the file is requested through its file name, then I will simply rename the file. However, my conclusion of the file is not copyrighted or taken from other sources according to any whatsoever degree of illegal licensing for the copyright or blocking. I would like a strong viable proof for this. However if it is a copyright file, I would like a strong copy of the reported copyright file or vandalizing a project but greatly want them returned for educational purposes of the matter not mainly because of its graphic content to the eyes of certain viewers.

Regards, Parker Ellis Parker Phy 08:32, 29 November 2013‎

Commons’ scope doesn’t preclude content that would be unkind «to the eyes of certain viewers», no worries there. You uploading your content via third-party websites is however problematic, and goes beyond assuming good faith. You need to e-mail satisfactory proof of authorship, here. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the files can be restored. INeverCry 21:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blue Medalha.png[edit]

Such as Blue Medalha. Reason: Morning would very much stay because the image I created this page my proof and if anything the page disappear'll get 0. I would appreciate to stay at least a few more weeks if it does not meet the requirements after two weeks be removed. --Jose David Baptista de Sousa (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like the closing admin said: «03:06, 29 November 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Blue Medalha.png (Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to upload the file, email COM:OTRS) (global usage; delinker log)». Check this page: COM:OTRS to make proof of authorship. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arkadi Duchin (1).jpg & File:Arkadi Duchin (2).jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013112810008663. Thanks Hanay (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 21:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FCS_tour_savanna.jpg is my own work[edit]

File:FCS_tour_savanna.jpg is a still captured from a video I personally made. There are no identifiable people in it. It was not taken at a paid event. I have complete ownership of it.

Even disregarding these facts, it definitely does not qualify for speedy deletion by wikimedia deletion rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerfer (talk • contribs) 2013-11-29T16:19:12 (UTC)

Please send an email as explained in COM:OTRS and the image will be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 29 November 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 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dick erect.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I joined the site about two or three days ago and uploaded a picture (Dick erect.jpg). I didn't understand the copyright guidelines at the time, and just used the recommended setting. I realize in this case it was the wrong procedure. The picture is an original taken by me of me. I now understand to release all rights for pictures such as these.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

--Wikisphotoer (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Out of COM:SCOPE - small and very blurry image. INeverCry 21:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ortsschild Grüne Eiche.jpg[edit]

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} sorry hatte vergessen die Rechte anzugeben und war länger hier nicht aktiv --Blonder1984 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 22:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dorothy Lake State Natural Area.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

File:Dorothy Lake State Natural Area.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: the photo is my own Aarongunnar (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UnsupersizeMeDocumentaryPoster.jpg [edit]

Hi,

Thank you for sending me a prompt update about the status of the picture UnsupersizeMeDocumentaryPoster.jpg I just uploaded.

It is indeed the poster of a movie documentary called "Unsupersize Me" directed by Juan Carlos Asse. Mr. Asse is also the owner of the Web site http://www.unsupersizeme.com where this picture is located.

As I am creating a page about this documentary, I have explicitly asked Mr. Asse to grant me a written permission to upload in Wikimedia Commons and use this poster on Wikipedia. To this effect, Mr. Asse have used the official Wikipedia form for this purpose. Therefore, I have sent the completed and signed form of Mr. Asse to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as requested by Wikipedia.

Therefore, I would like you to please double-check with the person in charge of this end (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). If you wish to receive personally a copy of the signed permission of Mr. Asse, please let me know by providing me with an address at Kone.Mamadou@gmail.com

As soon as everything is alright, I would appreciate that you lift your ban on this picture and relaod it where it was.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Kone

Thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that you sent. Your continued patience regarding this matter is appreciated -FASTILY 10:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phablet.jpg [edit]

Did not elaborate why it was non-free. The devices shown were displaying wallpapers and content contained within Android's open source code, no non-free content was visible. Recommend rename to "Samsung Galaxy Note series phones.jpg" if restored, however. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It was deleted because the uploader claimed "own work" for three screens full of images that were clearly not his work. No mention was made of the fact that these might be free images. So far we have nothing but a third party's assertion that these are free - it would be nice to have a confirmation of that. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the "own work" claim applies to the photograph itself, wouldn't it? All three images were stock Android wallpapers (Samsung devices usually come with their own non-free wallpapers), and they were all on the "flying jelly beans" easter egg screen from Android 4.x., which means that the user's intent was to make a photograph of all three devices that does not display any non-free Samsung elements (i.e. their UI) ViperSnake151 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the inclusion of the screen backgrounds is obviously a matter of controversy, I've gone ahead and edited them out. The file should be acceptable for Commons now -FASTILY 21:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brødr. Jørgensen logo.JPG[edit]

This logo merely consists of an old, public domain version of the coat of arms of the town of Sønderborg and some simple text. I therefore request undeletion. --Urbandweller (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously some creativity in the medallion itself, and that dates from 1953, so it is certainly in copyright. I think we're out of luck on this one (at least for another decade or so). - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jmabel. INeverCry 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Florent Marcellesi.png[edit]

I demand that picture must be replaced because it has been taken from a page with creative commons: http://florentmarcellesi.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/hay-que-aprovechar-la-oportunidad-de-la-crisis-para-repartir-el-trabajo/ You can see the logo of Creative Commons in the below part of the page. Thank you.--EQUOeditor (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You can demand all you like, but it will not succeed. The source page which you cite is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND. Commons does not accept either NC or ND. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done ND licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RichmanLarryL.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:RichmanLarryL.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.

I am the copyright-holder.

Richman9 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richman9, this needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. Once they process the email you send, they will restore the file. -FASTILY 22:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

eigene Werke von Klaus Götze[edit]

3 File:NK1112.jpg

4 File:NK0809.jpg

5 File:Germinaltitel.jpg

11 File:Sternenstaub.jpg

12 File:EXL Pferde.jpg

13 File:T neu.jpg

14 File:Geräte.jpg

Diese Fotos wurden von mir ,Klaus Götze, (Wikiname: Eberhardklaus) angefertigt und auf der Seite : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Eberhardklaus/Artkelentwurf eingestellt. Zunächst beim Hochladen mit "Eberhardklaus" als Urheber und in den letzten Tagen in "Klaus Götze" als Urheber umbenannt. Erbitte die Löschung zurückzunehmen. Danke--Eberhardklaus (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at all of these, but they appear to be posters or other printed matter. Are you the photographer of all the images shown on them? Did you yourself actually create the posters? If you cannot answer "yes" to both questions, then your photographs cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the people who actually created the works that you have photographed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Das sind Fotomontagen die aus nicht selbsterstellten Inhalten zusammengesetzt sind. Damit keine alleinige Urheberschaft und keine Lizenzzierung unter einer freien Lizenz ohne die Zustimmung aller Urheber. English: Commons:Collages. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ich kann nur nochmals versichern: Diese Fotos bzw. Montagen aus eigenen Fotos stammen ausschlieslich von mir und alle Urheberrechte liegen bei mir.--Eberhardklaus (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"aus eigenen Fotos" --"from your own photos"[Google]. From whose photos? If the images are from Commons, they require listing the sources in all cases and giving the author credit in most cases. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at them all and I think we have a communication failure here. These images include advertisements from several different companies and a variety of other graphic works. I do not think that they were all created by one person, and, even if they were, at least some of the copyrights would be owned by the companies whose products they present.

Do you understand that the problem here is not the photographs or scans, but the fact that the posters, advertisements, bookplate, and other materials you have scanned all have copyrights and that your images infringe on those? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Out of Scope, likely copyvios -FASTILY 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marlon Brando - 1954.jpg[edit]

Fails to recognize U.S. copyright law:

This work is irrevocably in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978.

Rationale for deletion, per DR: 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.

See also pending discussion about this and many other deletions (ten others today) based on the same rationale. --Light show (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, it was not published without notice, because it was never published with the consent of the copyright holder at all. The very restrictive license statement on the front says that it was distributed under controlled circumstances which would not constitute "publication" as defined under the 1909 Act. The fact that someone later violated the license does not affect its copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not being able to see the photo, and there may not be enough evidence to keep, but just want to note that the presence of some text that the publicity materials be returned or something like that usually were not enough to prevent publication -- by their nature, publicity materials are designed to be distributed so that as many members of the public as possible will see them, which by its nature is general publication. See that aspect of this ruling (search for "limited publication"), which spells that out. Judges would be hesitant to rule that general publication occurred if the material in question was intended to be an independent revenue stream, but if they were intended to maximize the revenue stream of the TV show / movie / etc., then that was their primary purpose and most often general publication would have occurred regardless of any such text on the material. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per Jim; this is probably not ok for Commons. -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Moi, 'Coco Briaval, détiens l'intégralité des copyrights visuels de notre groupe et notre marque Coco Briaval'. Notre groupe est notoire et il a enregistré dans plus de 3 compagnies majors du disque et s'est produit sur scène au niveau international dont l'Olympia à Paris. Ne nous empêchez pas de créer une page encyclopédique avec l'intégralité de la discographie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco Briaval (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about one or more of the files at Special:DeletedContributions/Coco_Briaval. I see that these are historical photographs of a musical group, almost certainly taken by many different photographers. If the group, in fact, owns the copyrights to all of these images and is willing to license them for any use, then Commons policy requires a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Friends of Natasha 2013.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013112810008654. Thanks Hanay (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is in Hebrew, and @Matanya is our only native Hebrew OTRS agent who is also an administrator. odder (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Matanya -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WTMY Logo SMALLER.jpg[edit]

I work at the station this logo represents. We designed it. There is no copyright violation. Please undelete. Thank you, Doug Miles

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lysiana exocarpi pollen.jpg [edit]

Hi, I checked the permissions on this and believe all is in order to use it. I have provided the attribution and link to the Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas. Thanks, Lynda

Not done NC licensed content is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo 4ESO matematicas.png [edit]

Detailing appreciate the meaning of "possible copyright violation", what are they based?. Thanks

Amparo.marrero (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Logo 4ESO matematicas.png[reply]

COM:NETCOPYRIGHT, COM:PCP -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

RESeminarySeal.jpg [edit]

This seal is owned by the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church. This wikipedia commons account as noted by the e-mail associated with the account is owned by said Seminary. The Seminary has and hereby is granting us of the Seal under the Creative Contributions Attributions license 3.0 Any questions should be directed to the Seminary Dean directly and he will provide any further information or evidence you require. Dean@reseminary.edu

Reformed Episcopal Seminary (talk) 22:26, 1 December 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 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abdus salam.JPG[edit]

This is my own work, I used my snipping tool to get an image of Abdus Salam from a video and this picture is not on the internet and is made by me. NawabMalhi

Not OK: Copyright violation. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:W3C Semantic Web Logo.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

File:W3C Semantic Web Logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Under COM:TOO in US. See en:File:Sw-horz-w3c.png. Beside it incorporates 2 PD logos:

Oppose I think this is over the edge -- I'm not at all certain that the center part of the logo is PD as claimed. The source, which has good legal counsel, claims copyright and licenses it NC-ND. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. That's a logo is in PD, it's just too simple. There are 2 images considered as PD plus simple text, so it's definitive in PD.

Not done Pretty much per Jim. Definitely not simple enough to qualify as pd-shape. This is going to require COM:OTRS permission to be restored -FASTILY 23:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with you. IMO, one vote isn't enough to judge this file. So please open a DR for it, let others have denounced. --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was already deleted in a DR with 2 other delete votes and a nom. Fastily and I also don't think it's simple enough for PD. That makes a consensus of 6 for deletion. INeverCry 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pilar del Castillo, diputada en el Parlamento Europeo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

File:Pilar del Castillo, diputada en el Parlamento Europeo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This file it's an own work and we can use it on wikimedia. Maybe it's possible we don't filled correctly the information. If you restore the file we'll review the author's information. Sorry about the confusion. Thanks in advance. Carrermontse 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This image has appeared previously on the web site of the European Parliament. Therefore Commons rules require a license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that "we can use it on wikimedia" is not sufficient. Commons rules require that images be free for use by anyone, anywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raava destroyed.png [edit]

There is no reason for this file to be deleted, please let me re edit the file to this information. under The Legend of Korra copy right I am eligible to show screen shots with proper recognition.

Description: Korra from the tv series The Legend of Korra

Source From Nickelodeon Studios

Date 03:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Author "The Legend of Korra" and all characters are owned by Nickelodeon Studios.

Permission The display of TV screenshots for non-profit purposes has so far been allowed by Nickelodeon as long as proper credit is given.

Other versions None

--Jessjordan (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Commons and Wikipedia require that contributions be free for all uses, not just non-profit, see COM:L. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per COM:L, non-commercial licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 21:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rector of the BHOS, Elmar Qasimov.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that Baku Higher Oil School (in Azerbaijani: Bakı Ali Neft Məktəbi) is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of its rector image.

I agree to publish that work under the free licence “Creative Commons Attribution Share/Alike 3.0Unported and GNU Free Documentation.

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 not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Tatyana Zayseva

12/02/2013— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taty19555 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Because this image has appeared on a copyrighted web site, our rules require that you provide the license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dramane Diarra and his girlfriend Barbara Sue.jpg [edit]

Mindless, boilerplate deletion request, followed by mindless, boilerplate deletion. Here’s a new opportunity to actually use your thinking abilities and seriously evaluate the value of this image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using "Mindless boilerplate" does nothing except make people mad. The Nom actually wrote a paragraph -- I would have done less. With that said, I would agree with Tuvalkin except that it is completely unknown whether either of the subjects consented to having their intimate moment posted here. Without that, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Jim - consent in doubt - also, very low quality image 720 × 540. Nothing to get pissy over. INeverCry 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as per INC and Jim. Yann (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sofía y amigas.jpg [edit]

Mindless, boilerplate deletion request, followed by mindless, boilerplate deletion. Here’s a new opportunity to actually use your thinking abilities and seriously evaluate the value of this image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Out of scope - just a group of unknown girls mugging for a snapshot. INeverCry 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as per INC and Fastily. Yann (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antarctica Service Medal.gif [edit]

The image has been deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:AntarcticaServiceMedal.jpg because of missing information about the photographer and the license on the photograph, and other issues related to photography (lack of exif, and so), but it looked like a computer generated graphic and not a photography. Therefore, if the image had to be deleted, it would be under a different rationale.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No valid reason given to restore the image, which is the purpose of this page. You can alternately discuss this with the deleting admin on their talk. The image looks like a photo of a medal to me. INeverCry 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alopekis wirehaired.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: The file File:Alopekis_wirehaired.jpg was wrongly deleted.

I am the original author of this photograph. It was published in my magazine in Greece and subsequently used and reproduced by many authors, with my permission, in articles about the Alopekis breed. It is also included in the article of the Greek wiki that I authored el:Αρχείο:Alopekis wirehaired.jpg and carries a FREE licence.

The file was wrongly deleted. I am the author of both articles and of the photo. en:User:Fainomenon

I wish the photo re-instated. Thank you, Fainomenon (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The image hasn't been deleted. Comments should go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alopekis wirehaired.jpg. INeverCry 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alopekis dogs working with sheep.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

File:Alopekis dogs working with sheep.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The file was wrongly deleted. The photo is included in the article of the Greek wiki that I authored el:Αρχείο:Ποιμενικές Αλωπεκίδες 1960.jpg and carries a FREE licence. (see the licence in Greek wiki under the photo). The file was wrongly deleted. I am the author of both articles and legal user of the photo. I wish the photo re-instated. Thank you Fainomenon (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted as a copyvio from here / here. Are you the photographer/author of the image? INeverCry 21:24, 2 December 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 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.svg[edit]

Closing admin did not acknowledge COM:COA, which appears to apply. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COM:COA, this file and other related ones (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.svg). --Nafsadh (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "acknowledge", I do not mean "agree with". I mean that JuTa did not acknowledge the existence of the policy and therefore did not state in their closing summary why they feel it doesn't apply in this case. For that reason, this DR was not properly conducted. The files should be undeleted per COM:COA. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I posted an undeletion request as per COM:COA in a different section. I noticed your post later, and some subsequent edits merged my post to this section. I do not know why the closing admin could not adhere to COM:COA. Those file had been there in Wikipedia and Wikimedia since forever. Suddenly, someone thought those were copyvio and an admin rushed to blithely delete them! This deletion has caused a sever consequence on a lot of Bangladesh related articles. Nonetheless, those files were works contributed to PD. Again, the emblem of "Bangladesh" is the property of the people of Bangladesh, not simply of the government and thus in PD. Other emblems are either in PD or exempted copyvio per COA. --Nafsadh (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Support I do not agree that all versions of the emblems are PD, but our rule on CoA is clear that individual representations of a CoA that are drawn from a blazon have only a copyright belong to their creator and do not infringe on any other representation. The blazon is clearly set forth in the document BANGLADESH NATIONAL EMBLEM RULES, 1972 (Amended up to January, 2002) which is linked in the DR:

"The Emblem consists of Shapla Flower on water flanked on two sides by shoots of paddy and decorated by four stars and three jute leaves at the top."

Since we have licenses from the creators, I think we must undelete these. And yes, they can be PD if the creator wants that.

I think the idea of a CoA template is good -- not itself a license, but pointing out that the work was drawn from a blazon and therefore has only one copyright, that of the creator. Fry is the logical person to do that, but if he is can't or won't, I'll do it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to, but I don't know how to create a license or template, I've never done either before. If I'm pointed in the right direction I could learn. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done per above. -FASTILY 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Constantin I. Istrati - Parcul Carol-2013-cod LMI B-III-m-B-20007.JPG [edit]

Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Romania and Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_36#Romania_-_extension_of_copyright, authors who died before 1946 are in the public domain. Oscar Späthe died in 1944.--Strainu (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Not done}} FoP Romania applies 70 years after the author's death. This author died in 1944, which means the image can't be restored until 1 January 2015. There's nothing at the talkpage you reference invalidating the 70pma. INeverCry 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to

Done per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Romania (at bottom). Author died before 1946. INeverCry 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Pablo Torrijos Foso.jpg[edit]

Solicito que deshagan el borrado de la imagen, ya que es una foto cedida por el propio atleta a traves de su facebook. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medioropesa (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First, there is no evidence that the subject of the image is the copyright holder. In general, the copyright will be owned by the photographer, not the subject. Second, there is no evidence on the Facebook page of a free license. Simply posting an image in public does not give the world a free license to use it. IN fact, the page has Facebook's usual copyright notice. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EPLAX - Vero Catalogue.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: new Source, new Licensing, new Permission Tfitzp (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to un-delete what appears to be a copyvio. -FASTILY 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg[edit]

File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg is an entirely different monument from those images listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial. This work is by George Henry Paulin not Basil Gotto. If a DR is desired it should be given due and proper consideration.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Actually, there already was a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg. Yann (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haymarket Metro station, 5 March 2006 (1).jpg[edit]

I came later to the party above (it was already closed when I tried to participate) but, honestly, I don't believe this image has any replacement at all in Commons. It shows a part of the metro station not shown by the other files, and apparently the visual changed meanwhile, so a replacement will be very difficult to find. It's a bit blurred, but still quite useful IMO, and it was indeed in use when it was deleted. I've no opinion on the other deleted file, however. With excuses to Fastily, I request this case to be reassessed once more. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're wasting your time. It doesn't seem to matter that there are now three people here who are all in agreement on all the core issues - namely that (for this image at least), it does show something educationally distinct, it shows detail not found in other images here, people could/would use it, and it cannot be replaced, and therefore it's obviously within COM:SCOPE. All that matters it seems to me, is that more people think the opposite, even though their views are in places completely contradictory and mutually exclusive, and hint at vastly different beliefs of what Commons is for and who uses it:
- Elcobbola (talk · contribs) thinks it is "disingenuous" to claim that it shows anything not present in other files
- Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) claimed the image doesn't show anything not present in the others, and were too blurred to be of satisfactory use
- Avenue (talk · contribs) admits that the image shows details the others don't, but they are not educationally distinct
- Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) thinks that the image is not usable because you can't make out the specific method of rail mounting due to the "significant motion blur"
- P199 (talk · contribs) completely ignored the issue of educational distinctiveness, instead preferring to cast doubt on the idea that anyone is even interested in illustrating such things, and claim that even if there are, they "wouldn't/couldn't use these pictures [because they are] garbage"
- Stefan4 (talk · contribs) thinks the images are too blurry and "hardly useful for any purpose."
And that's how you delete files from Commons, even if they are used. Make of that what you will. How that adds up to a consensus to delete, without defining 'consensus' as a vote, I will never know. It does of course help in this system that it seems perfectly acceptable to overlook just how many (but thankfully not all) of the delete side, are all too willing to simply stop talking if they fear that they are about to be shown to have misunderstood the issues at hand or mis-applied policy, or were just mistaken in general about anything. Ultra7 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Personally I also find the image somewhat uninteresting, even if it wasn't blurred. But I could say the same about almost all soccer game files. :) I well understand the point that it shows something not shown by the other images of that metro station, and that being precisely the wall where everyone is looking at while waiting for the train, even from a non technical point of view it seems well worth of keeping here.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Obviously. Don't hold your breath though. Expecting it to be reviewed here again will be like waiting for a clarification from Rodhullandemu. It just doesn't happen. Not once the numbers are not on your side. You're interjection just makes it 6-3 instead of 6-2 (or 7 if you count Mattbuck, the nominator). You're already being actively ignored by Elcobbola, who has been posting in other sections on this page. Others have no doubt already read your post and decided that they're better off ignoring it, just like they did when I said the same things in the original pages. That's just the way it works here it seems. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, per Ultra7. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include Rodhullandemu on that list, so will do so now. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion, the closing admin assessed consensus correctly, as set out in the above request. Thanks for the reminder, I might not have been able to contribute but for your intervention. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, the closing admin can count. Whoop-deedoo… -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that comment intended to be helpful or satirical? Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both, of course. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wish I had posted the first version. I should have put it in an edit comment somewhere, because in it I had predicted that, if you posted here at all Rod, this would be all you would have to say for yourself. I almost got it word perfect. I also predicted that your prior stonewalling would continue - there is a growing list of people, on the keep and delete side, who have all rubbished the claim you made in the original DR about how the other images satisfied the same purpose. Consensus is a process where people make considered arguments and defend them when challenged. You do neither. You just ignore people if answering them would undermine your own position, then hope to win the vote count. That's why when you say things like "the closing admin assessed consensus correctly", you're doing it with zero credibility whatsoever. Ultra7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can there be consensus if those points remain unanswered? I don't believe matters here can be resumed to a mere sum of votes, and that's not "consensus" either.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now listen here, y'all. I am not here to be cross-examined. I understand the difference betwee a consensus and a vote. If my reasons for voting to delete or keep any image are insufficient, by all means let the closing admin disregard what I have to say. But I'm not prepared to be hounded. That's all I have to say, apart from urging others to apply a little good faith. End of. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem here Rod - despite your protestations, your own words show very clearly that you really don't understand what consensus is. A bunch of people turning up, giving a view, then sitting back and ignoring everyone and everything else, expecting an admin to do all the research on everyone's comments to decide who is and isn't right or who has the better case, is not remotely what consensus building is. It's just a vote with words and a bit more work for the vote counter. In a genuine consensus building process - anyone who has the audacity to declare "I am not here to be cross-examined" is automatically discounted. Cross-examination is a part of consensus building, because consensus building is at its core, an exchange of ideas and arguments - only once that has occurred can an admin assess the quality and strength of arguments, and draw a conclusion. This is really basic stuff, so basic it's amazing to me that you could have got this far without understanding it. That's not to say disagreeing is not part of consensus building - after a few exchanges people can, and often do, agree to disagree. But that's the key here - your unwillingness to even acknowledge the flaws in your arguments that others have pointed out means the closing admin doesn't even know if that's the case here. At best, all they can conclude from your stonewalling, is that you're the sort of person who has no problem with stonewalling. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it impossible to apply any good faith to someone who would rather stonewall than be 'cross-examined'. Ultra7 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know at what point this case turned into a kind of POV or political dispute, apparently it's something that precedes it. In any case, the fact is that those 2 images show an important part of a building or structure that is not shown (in a reasonable way) by any other file here in Commons. I know you understand that point, Rodhullandemu, as you even cited your own example of a similar situation. I really do not understand why there is so much interest in deleting it. I have no doubts myself that that structure is within the scope of Commons, even if it's not as interesting as that synthesizer.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see the images, so won't comment on their quality. But if these were legitimately in use in Wikipedia articles (i.e. not simply added by the uploader then taken down by other editors shortly thereafter), then that fact means they are educationally useful, regardless of any other opinions here. Commons should not be dictating what is and what is not acceptable for other projects; for files never used in projects it is reasonable to have a discussion, but for in-use images (or ones which were in use for a reasonable time) the question has been answered outside of Commons and the images should be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images weren't in use on Wikipedia - but they were in use on Haymarket Metro station (a Commons gallery) which I created. Although I didn't take the image, I did upload it to Commons in order to use it there. Make of that what you will - clearly some people seem to think I am the sort of idiot who wastes time uploading and using images that are of no use because they're "garbage" - I think my record shows that up for what it is. As for the actual deleted images, you can still see the best of the two on Flickr, here. Ultra7 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the sort of image I'd call "boring but harmless." I see no downside to Commons keeping such an image, and some upside if we don't have a better one to replace it. I'd be inclined to restore it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would then be up to the community... but if some people think it could be useful in some situations, I'd probably err on the side of keeping it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Per Darwin, Jmabel, Carl, etc, since this is a scope issue, and several editors see value in it, I can't see the harm in keeping it. INeverCry 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zdravljica.ogg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: The file was deleted before discussion was finished - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zdravljica.ogg. The relevant message was written by a Copyright agency of Slovenia representative and is now in the OTRS system under ticket no. 7232200. It clearly states that the music of the anthem can be freely reused. Not melody - music, implying broad interpretation.

Furthermore, the last argument for deletion by User:Eleassar is obviously invalid because it invokes non-copyright restrictions, despite Eleassar being well aware of the fact that they are not considered grounds for deletion of works from Commons (as per COM:NCR). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: ticket:7232200: "Oops! An Error occurred. Error Message: No TicketID is given!" and search: "No ticket data found." Thank your so much for being an honest and constructive contributor. By the way, my comment was not an argument for deletion but the reason for the doubt about the claim that an e-mail has been received. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2013112010019291 is the correct one, I made an error in copy-pasting. So if the "thank you" above was an attempt at sarcasm, it wasn't terribly on-the-mark. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should rather check what you write. Two remarks in regard to the reply:

The e-mail has been sent to the Copyright Agency of Slovenia (a private company), not to the Intellectual Property Office of Slovenia (a government institution) as has been stated at the DR page. This was done only on 10 November, but Miha claimed that it had been sent already on 20 October.
The reply is very vague; per it, any version of the anthem is in the public domain (even the rock version by Lačni Franz), which is nonsense.

I've sent a request for clarification to the Intellectual Property Office and suggest that we wait until we get a reply from this institution. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are already presented below (sorry for opening a duplicate request). To sum it up brifely: both text and melody are in public domain, as well as this particular file is extempt from audio recording rights and prformers rights. Please do not try to manipulate: I never stated that the answer is from IPI, they didn't respond (yet), so I contacted API (which is also clearly seen from the OTRS ticket). It's a proffesional opinion and their answer perfectly makes sense to me. Please also note that, the version by Lačni Franz is the entire Zdravljica and not the 7th stanza (which is the national anthemn). There are no significant doubts, that the file wouldn't be free, so I suggest that we undelete it (unless someone can provide a better recording from one of the official celebrations). --Miha (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have stated that you asked the Intellectual Property Office for a reply, but have provided an answer by the Copyright Agency. You stated that you had sent an e-mail on 20 October, but it was sent only on 10 November. One can only speculate why: was the reply by the IPO unfavourable for your position and you had to ask someone else, who provided an opinion vague enough to allow you to argue that it tells us the file is in the public domain? Do you think the rock music of the 7th stanza by Lačni Franz is in the public domain? That's what one could infer from the reply by the CAS. I suggest that we wait a few more days to possibly get a reply from the Intellectual Property Office; perhaps it will be more clear. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miha said that he didn't get response from the IPO, and you're accusing him of lying with your speculation that the response was unfavourable (not to mention that between the lines, you accused me of lying about the OTRS ticket). Are you sure this is what you want to say?

I agree that we can wait a few more days, but I also think that we can apply the API's message to this case if there's no response, as per Miha's reasoning. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but he accused me of being manipulative. Otherwise, I agree that we can undelete if there's no response. It's unfortunate that this file was deleted before the discussion was finished. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your mouth. Today I got another reply (to the email I have send on October 20th), by IPO, which goes a bit against the other opinion: "avtorska pravica na delu traja za čas avtorjevega življenja in še 70 let po smrti, ne glede na to kje je delo objavljeno. Medtem, ko je na samem besedilu avtorska pravica potekla, pa je potrebno upoštevati glasbene podlage, na katerih pa očitno še traja avtorska pravica". They didn't even took into account the act regulating national symbols and 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP, so I suggest we also try to contact the ministry in charge. According to their reply not even the version published in the official gazzete is free, which obviously is not true. --Miha (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your mouth too. Otherwise, thanks for being honest and having provided this reply. This makes it clear that the reply by the APA is vague indeed and that the file can't be restored without a third opinion that must be clear and on the point stating that the musical versions are free. Translation of the received response by the IPO for those who don't speak Slovene: "The copyright on the work lasts for the time of the author's life and 70 years after his death no matter where the work is published. Whereas the text itself is not copyrighted anymore, the musical bases must be considered too, which are evidently still copyrighted." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct translation of "očitno" in this context is apparently and not evidently. --Miha (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under EU law, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death no matter where the work is published, provided that the author was a citizen of an EU member state. The music appears to have been composed by w:Stanko Premrl, who appears to have been a citizen of Austria-Hungary. Most parts of what constituted Austria-Hungary at that time are part of the European Union, so it is likely that a citizen of Austria-Hungary would be considered as a citizen of an EU member state with regard to copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here: AAS is accredited agency to represent authors, so their opinion is important. Furthermore, "the copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death no matter where the work is published" is an overgneralisation. The Slovene Copyright Act (article 9.2) states, that copyright protection shall not be afforded to official legislative, administrative and judicial texts. national anthem is an official legislative. --Miha (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In article 2, "written works" and "musical works" are listed as two separate kinds of works. Does article 9.2 perhaps only apply to "written works" but not to "musical works"? One could also perhaps question whether musical notation constitutes text. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt so. Coat of arms are also not text, but are categorized eitgher as "informacije javnega značaja" (Information of public interest) or official legislative. And precisely, Eleassar's example with Lačni Franz shows, why the version from Preml can not be proetected, because if it was so, then Lačni Franz could have never published his version that is based on version by Premrl.--Miha (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that no-one took care at the time, which is not good enough for us. This version was performed in the 1980s, when Zdravljica was not the official anthem yet, so the melody was clearly protected by the copyright law. As to 'Informacije javnega značaja', as explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zdravljica.ogg, public information by third parties are not in the public domain. And per the above, the IPO does not consider the orchestral version 'official legislative'. Also, as clearly explained here, even in the case Premrl's (his surname is Premrl, not Preml!) Zdravljica would be in the public domain, the performed versions have been modified by later composers. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no third parties: Orchestra of Slovene Army is a governmental organisation. IPO's reply is very vague. I ask them to provide with a more detailed one in a reasonable time - they did not provide an accurate answer at all, for they only incorrectly stated that it doesn't matter where texts are published (this goes against the article 9 of the law itself as shown above). On the other hand we have a reply by API (which in fact is the organisation that represents creators of intellectual property and deals with such disputes), that perfectly clearly states, that free reproduction of anthem is guaranteed by the Act regulating national symbols and Copyright law. As an off-topic, in the reply you've mentioned above it is also said, that you could contact the Protocol, which deals with this "problem" (which turns out not really to be a problem) on a daily basis, before opening the deletion request – he exposed that the entire debate is unnecessary and result of your need to show off and deficient knowledge in this area. --Miha (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third parties are Premrl as well as the rest of the listed authors (Jani Golob, Vinko Štrucl). Only the a capella version has solely Premrl as the author of the music, but this file is not a recording of a capella singing. The API reply is very vague, whereas the IPO's is at least in my opinion not (however, you may argue about this, which defaults to deletion due to the unclear copyright situation). The IPO is responsible for the field of industrial property and copyright and performs complex analyses of the copyright law,[1] so it's an authoritative organisation just as much as the API. As to the rest, it is irrelevant to the copyright status; if you haven't spotted in the DR, I've contacted MORS but got no reply... --Eleassar ^(t/p) 00:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this and provided you with counter arguments. Sorry, but the only thing that makes this situation unclear is you driving us in circles. If you've read this reply you'd see that a capella version is almost never sung in the official events, the instrumental version is defacto our anthem and if they made it free to reproduce (released it under the free licence), then it is not us to argue that they've made a mistake. --Miha (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're driving us in circles. The copyright status of this file is non-free or in the best case unclear. Unless you provide some new argument, I think this discussion is over. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not unclear, but waaay to far-fetched. In general, there are various copyrights on each anthem (performers' rights, recording rights, copyright of text author, copyright of composer) and in this case the first three are definitely not applicable (both performance and recording are exempt from copyright as work of governmental organisation, and the text is PD-old), whereas the third one is made free with the act regulating national symbols, which was confirmed by external lawyer. What you are trying to say is that works are per se copyrighted by the law and that we should be careful about small nuances between different versions that are performed as national anthem. Just as well you could argue that we should delete all pictures of Mona Lisa, because we cannot be sure that it is not a picture of some modern replica, that might be copyrighted in some countries. Laws are not an axiomatic system and some things are left for interpretation. I think, that this file is compliant with the mission of having a collection of free artworks here on Commons. --Miha (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, what I'm are trying to say is that works are per se copyrighted by the law and that we should be careful about small nuances between different versions that are performed as national anthem. However, it can't be compared to the example of Mona Lisa because unlike that case, here we know almost without any doubt (per [2]) that this is a derivative work. The derivative works have their own copyright. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are derivative works, but as long as they are used as anthem on official events, I think, that it is far fetched to argue that they are not free. I have nothing else to add. It's upon admin closing this request to decide, if we are happy with to accept something that de facto is free here, or evaluate every tiny article of Slovene jurisdiction and deal with all the underlying contradictions. --Miha (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're correct. Given that translations of official texts (which are derivative works too) are free if published as official texts, officially used musical arrangements would also be free. This is in accordance with [3], pg. 28, which states that different official works are used in the same manner as official texts, and are therefore like them copyright exempted. I therefore do not object to the undeletion anymore. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done per above -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Microsoft Office XP logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

File:Microsoft Office 2000 logo and wordmark.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Microsoft Office XP logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: IMO these files have been judged wrongly. They're under the COM:TOO in US. Optionally, if you disagree with me let's open a DR for it. Rezonansowy (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done These were already deleted via deletion requests. 4 other users, including myself, disagreed with you and thought these were above TOO, and nobody else has come forward here to support restoration. INeverCry 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Podzemlje Pece (18).JPG [edit]

This is another case of stretching FOP way too far. --Sporti (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add File:Bled Toplice.JPG. :( Yann (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on both. For the first one, the question is whether the two mannequins and the cart form a single work (model) or not. In my opinion, they do. For the second one, it is a depiction of architecture comparable to [4] that has been claimed by an experienced administrator at [5] as copyrightable. Now we have obtained the opinion of another experienced administrator confirming this. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as a stale discussion (no new comments for over a week) with no clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hakusanjima, Tsuruoka -March 2011 a.jpg[edit]

Graag terugplaatsen. Het bestand werd vrijgegeven onder de licentie cc-by-2.1-jp (afgekort als "表示") op livedoor pics. Zie ook dit bestand van dezelfde fotograaf. --トトト (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Het kan niet met OTRS worden behandeld, want ik ben slechts de uploader naar commons. Aangezien de licenties op livedoor pics zijn moeilijk te begrijpen voor buitenlanders, ik wil een Japanse recensent de zaak te herzien. --トトト (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done the original file is under CC-BY, which is verifible at the archived source page written in Japanese: [6] [7]. --whym (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Serama_Hen2.jpg [edit]

Undelete Serama_Hen2.jpg

I owned the bird in the picture. I took the picture. I uploaded the picture. I release rights for the picture to the public domain. No copyright infringement exists. It is also on other public sites with my permission.

--NCOCEO (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a recreation of File:Seramahen.jpg, which was deleted because it appears on copyrighted web sites and is low quality. Recreating images outside of process is a violation of Commons rules. Please don't do it again. Because this image has appeared on the Web, Commons rules require that the actual copyright holder provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. However, it is so small that it is not clear that it is useful in any case. If, after providing the OTRS license, you would upload it again at full size, that would be better. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)INeverCry

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

Lysiana exocarpi pollen.jpg [edit]

The Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas website cites terms at their page http://apsa.anu.edu.au/terms which link to this You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.137.149 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the non-commercial requirement is considered too restrictive for publishing here. See Commons:Copyright#Acceptable_licenses. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done NC licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniel Scioli Infancia.jpg[edit]

Solicito la restauración de dicha foto, que sirve de aporte a mi biografía personal DANIEL OSVALDO SCIOLI. Muchas gracias

Oppose It seems highly unlikely that this is "own work" as you claim. The copyright belongs to the photographer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spanish poster in Farwell.JPG appealing a deletion[edit]

As I was keying in a reply to a message about speedy deletion, the photo file was deleted. Not a lot of discussion in that process. The image was not a movie poster as stated by the editor who flagged it for speedy deletion. It was for a concert. And no copyright indicated. The bands on the poster will suffer no financial loss by the posting of this image on Wikimedia nor its use in a Wikipedia article. If anything, the publicity may help them. The poster is a wonderful way to show that Spanish speakers are not a significant part of the population of Farwell, Texas -- that is why I took the photo and inserted it into the article on Farwell.

No harm to anybody, benefit to Wikipedia. It seems to me it should be undeleted. Pete unseth (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is a copyrighted poster (copyright is automatic, the copyright holder doesn't have to state copyright directly). OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before it can be restored. INeverCry 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escudo Municipal de Concón.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Soy miembro del equipo de comunicaciones de la Ilustre Municipalidad de Concón, y el archivo que estoy subiendo es el escudo oficial de la comuna. Los derechos de autor pertenecen a este municipio, por tanto no estoy violándolos al cargar este archivo. Vanesa.fez (talk) 18:21, 4 December 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 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colemono.png [edit]

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

Esta imagen y la marca de este logo fue creada por mi y es 100% libre para cualquier tipo de uso. Curax (talk) 18:33, 4 December 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 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:incwala.jpg [edit]

I would like to request undeletion for the file incwala.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvonga (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oppose From the source site:

"Copyright statement

The material - including text, sound, and video - featured on this site is the copyright of The Swaziland Tourism Authority (c/o Geo Group) unless otherwise indicated. It may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided it is used for non-commercial, informational purposes only. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context."

That is an NC and ND license, which is not permitted on Commons, see COM:Licensing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done NC/ND licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rochester Community High School Zebra.jpg [edit]

Follows Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy/Rules:

"This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc. This is an official logo of an entity that is the subject of a Wikipedia article. It will be included as that entity's primary means of visual identification, at the top of the article in question."

Image was previously uploaded and was not removed. Made a minor image edit (crop).

Image is a public high school's mascot/logo from the school's website.

"The file will serve an important function in a particular article; (NFCC8)" **Serves as the article's primary visual identifier.

"It cannot be replaced by any other, free illustration that might yet be created; (NFCC1)" **It is the only official mascot/logo of the high school.

"Its use does not negatively affect the commercial interests of its owner (NFCC2)" **It positively promotes the school.

"There will not be more non-free material used than necessary. (NFCC3)" **It is a small sized file and the only photo for the article.

--Paradox0232 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons cannot accept Fair Use images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 08:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barolo - bottle.jpg [edit]

This image is my own work, a bottle of wine. I do not understand why that file was deleted, since I have allowed all licenses. User Eleassar marked for deletion due to "Non-free image on a bottle". Where did he get that? There are thousands of them in the commons Otherwise, I didn´t found any debate page or anything else. Thanks, Renzo Grosso ^{Parla ! Fatto !} 11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. Also, please bear in mind that files for deletion are judged based on their own merit, and not in comparison to other files -FASTILY 01:28, 6 December 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:Hum-Top-Direction-Plate-01.jpg[edit]

I was the closing Admin on this deletion -- I have changed my mind. This simply shows a range of facts -- the azimuths to various nearby points -- using a form that is in use all over the world. There's nothing with a copyright here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as above. Yann (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nestor con DOS y Balestrini.jpg[edit]

La fotografía es de mi autoría. Motivo por el cual no estoy violando derechos de autor. Solicito por favor la restauración. Muchas gracias.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WTMY Logo SMALLER.jpg[edit]

WTMY Radio logo]] Please undelete. I work at the radio station described here. We designed this logo. Thank you, --Bobdouglas (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please send an email to OTRS confirming that the copyright holder of this logo wishes to release it under a free license. If everything checks out, an OTRS member will restore the file for you. INeverCry 21:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:736052_10151152475090356_835797344_o.jpg[edit]

--Fashomecca (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)John DeFazio, the owner of the image has given me written conscent to use his images on the article. The image was deleted because the same image was also found on his facebook page which belongs to him as well. --Fashomecca (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)fashomecca december 5, 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 07:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:صلاح الحمود.jpg [edit]

I have the right to publish this picture, there is no any wrong, i know what i do. So, please undelete this picture.

This was deleted as a copyvio from http://www.alyaum.com/News/art/101221.html. INeverCry 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[[:reponer todos los archivos subidos hoy en esta cuentae por este usuario

Buenas tardes, favor subir (deshacer el borrado de todos los archivos subidos hoy por este usuario) att: luciano de los santos m.

Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMG_2455-Medio.jpg[edit]

File:IMG_2455-Medio.jpg

borre sin querer

Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P1-120613.jpg [edit]

It's a daily paper and I'm the online editor. Ken Johnson, kjohnson@ledger.com

Not done Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CasaMariaMariá-05.JPG[edit]

Please, Undelete above: 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8  9 10 11 12 13 14  15 16   17 18

{{OTRS|2013120210020669}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 02:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ancient Mechanical Artillery. Pic 03.jpg[edit]

Per Avron at the deletion request. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a model. Models have copyright, see User:Elcobbola/Models. This model would certainly have a copyright in the United States and the assertion that it does not have one in Germany is unconvincing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you suggest that all the modern ship models should be deleted, too? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes. Of course that applies only to those that are still under copyright and there are a number of countries where FOP exceptions will apply.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question/comment here (I don't want that we delete images unnecessarily): this court case in conjunction with [8] (pg. 847) and [9] (pg. 42) clearly shows that models are not copyrighted, unless there is some substantial original addition to them. See also [10]. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your cites are on point. The bank case is a case of a copy of a PD model, it was held that that the copy did not have a copyright of its own. The Toyota case is not a physical model, but a computer generated wire mesh. The William and Mary Law review quotes Alva, which upheld the concept that a smaller model of a Rodin sculpture had its own copyright. Interestingly, these are all US cases, where the law explicitly mentions "models". Read through User:Elcobbola/Models -- it's pretty clear. And see 17USC101:

"“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans." [emphasis added]

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting to me is the following quote: "Alva Studios not only had reduced the size of the Rodin bronze, but it also had brought about another variation: The originality and distinction between the plaintiff's work and the original also lies in the treatment of the rear side of the base. The rear side of the original base is open; that of the plaintiff's work is closed. We find that this difference when coupled with the skilled scaled sculpture is itself creative." It seems therefore that there must be some originality on the model, if it is only a simple scaled copy of a pd work (this may not be with this image, but is probably true with most of models), the model is in the public domain too. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand this to have been taken in Mainz, Germany. Would {{FoP-Germany}} not apply? Эlcobbola _talk 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's indoors, or, at the very least, under a roof structure that is visible in the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on display indoors, in the de:Museum für Antike Schifffahrt. I think we need more input from uninvolved users, making a decision based on the views of the same editors who participated in the deletion request including me as uploader is kind of pointless. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Procedural close. No consensus to restore, and no new comments for 1 week. INeverCry 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rory Uphold 3.jpg, File:Rory Uphold Tour.jpg.[edit]

I have an OTRS photosubmisson from Rory Uphold covering several images. I successfully uploaded four, but these two failed, because they had been previously uploaded and deleted. Can they be undeleted, and I will place the OTRS permission tag Template:OTRS ticket on the images? --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ajuste de cuentas - la poesía colombiana del siglo XX.gif[edit]

(No reason given for request)

This file has not yet been deleted. It can be fixed by compliance with the deletion notice. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nepal10rupees2008Reverse.jpg[edit]

All scans or pictures of Nepalese banknotes should be reinstated. There is no difference between the status of Nepalese and for example Thai or New Zealand banknotes which are represented as scans in Wikimedia commons.Schlechtmensch (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The rules on bank notes vary widely from country to country. Quoting other country's rules has no relevance to what the rules might be in Nepal. Since we do not have a section on Nepal, you are welcome to do the necessary research and cite any applicable provisions of the Nepalese law, but without that, these cannot be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim. INeverCry 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to add that there indeed is nothing different between Nepal and Thailand (we don't know anything about the copyright status of Thai money either), so I have nominated all Thai coins and banknotes for deletion (except for the coins in Category:Historical coins of Thailand which might be sufficiently old); see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coins of Thailand and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Thailand. There is something different with money from New Zealand (we know that money from that country isn't OK), so I have nominated everything for speedy deletion as copyright violations, except for one coin which is old enough to satisfy case B in {{PD-New Zealand}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eminem headlights.jpg [edit]

this picture is under the laws of the wiki commons. --Faizannehal (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)22:11, 7 December 2013[reply]

Oppose It's a copyrighted cover and as such is non-free and cannot be hosted on Commons. It might well be OK on a Wiki that allows Fair-Use of images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyrighted album cover. INeverCry 19:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"Nagarikathegala Sangharsha" by S. R. Ramaswamy.jpg[edit]

File in question was scanned by me directly from the book. It is not stolen from some place on the internet. Neither is it a copyright violation as no part of the book has been reproduced. If anything, the book cover serves to act as a representative of the author's many works. The book is a critical analysis of Samuel. P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations and a New World Order" in Kannada Language. I would like to clarify few things and have few things clarified. 1.Is the reviewer who deleted the file well versed in the Kannada language.? 2.Does the book cover show up "anywhere else" on the internet to support the "Copyright violation" theory..? 3.When the author of the article uploads an image under a license tailor made specifically as his own work for the purpose of ample and unrestricted reuse, where then is the joy in deleting it..? 4.The comment says that "it may be a violation". Now, if a public work on a free encyclopedia is suspected of "maybe being in violation" then indeed we in the civilized world have thrown to the wind all requirements of first sufficing "hard proof" to assert that it is indeed a "copyright violation". 5.Kindly in the name of humanity, show the proof for copyright violation. 6.I re-iterate as civilly as possible, that such unilateral action bordering on audacity is highly unbecoming of Wikipedia and her beloved principles. 7.It is not a violation. Period. 8.In the interest of wider reading public and aficionados of Wikipedia in India, Please reinstate a perfectly legal image devoid of any and all copyright violations. --Rkkrupa (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The copyright of a book cover usually belongs to the publisher. If you get a permission, then you can upload it here. Otherwise, you can upload it under a fair use rationale on Wikipedia. Best wishes from Ahmedabad. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No permission. Yann (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial[edit]

This item is a collective work (at least Rudolph Cochius and Basil Gotto in terms of design and an unknown number of workman) that was commissioned by the Dominion of Newfoundland. Requesting that a demonstration that the supposed individuals gave up their copyright is an erroneous conclusion given the work is a work of the Crown and Crown copyright thus applies. There is equally no demonstration that the Crown gave up it's right to the copyright, which is something it normally retained in that time period. This is demonstrated by images of the sculpture was still under Crown copyright, such as:[11].--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I deleted these on the grounds that no evidence was offered that there was, in fact, a Crown Copyright. As a general rule, creators retain copyright to their works made for governments unless they were actually employees of the government (as opposed to contractors or vendors). Since the burden of proof here is on those who would restore the images, they must provide proof beyond a significant doubt that the creators of this work actually transferred their copyrights to the government. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know of any general rule wherein copyright was held by artist commissioned by the Crown to complete national memorials. If that were the case, every Commonwealth memorial in France (cemeteries included) would fall to question.

A couple of counter points:

Although in France, the subject item is on Canadian crown land and the monument commissioned by the Crown.
The subject is a collective work with overall supervision by Thomas Nangle, as representative of the Dominion of Newfoundland, wherein we know Basil Gotto sculpted and R.H.K. Cochius was responsible for landscape and design, and an unknown party responsible for the memorial panels (Commonwealth War Graves Commission?) at the monuments base; all elements being integral to the monument.
The Government of Canada had classified images it took of the monument as being subject to Crown copyright.
The National Library of Scotland equally views the images of the subject as being subject to Crown copyright as was shown in the copyright tag that existed on File:Beaumont-Hamel - Official Opening (7 June 1925).jpg.
The Imperial War Museum equally viewed images of the subject (at a different location but still in France) as under Crown copyright [12].--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, the ownership of the land is not relevant. French law applies with respect to all of the copyright issues. That would be true even if this were an embassy, which it is not. There is no extra-territoriality in copyright.

To your second point, that simply makes the issue here harder -- if the contributions of all of those persons you list were integral to the monument, then the copyright will last until 70 years after the death of the last of them, and it will up to you to show that all of them explicitly transferred their copyright to the Crown following the procedure required by French law.

To your last three points, the copyright status of images of the monument is not the issue. The question here is the status of the monument itself. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ownership of the land and the commissioner of the work is indicative of the most likely copyright status. Same goes for the work being a collective work that was commissioned by a government. Further, postcards of the monument are sold at the memorial site and I think it would be more likely to conclude that the subject is Crown copyright than the Canadian government is violating French copyright law. Although less significant, there is also no indication that this memorial has any copyright registration in France.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Again, there is no extra-territoriality in copyright. We had a case of an embassy in, if I remember correctly, Iceland. After discussion, Jacklee came up with a cite that made it completely clear that local law applies to all copyright issues. I can probably find it if you insist, but it will take a while. There is no reason to believe that a work first published in France should have any copyright law apply other than the French.

In other words -- if the work were in Newfoundland, then clearly Newfoundland law (then) or Canadian law (now) would apply, because in its home country, the government has a special status which is recognized in its laws. But when the government of Newfoundland commissioned a work in France, it had no special status there and was subject to French law.

The issue is, by the way, clearly set forth in the third sentence of French copyright law -- the French put great importance on the creator's rights:

"L'existence ou la conclusion d'un contrat de louage d'ouvrage ou de service par l'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit n'emporte pas dérogation à la jouissance du droit reconnu par le premier alinéa, sous réserve des exceptions prévues par le présent code."

"The existence or conclusion of a contract for hire or of service by the author of a work of the mind shall in no way derogate from the enjoyment of the right afforded by the first paragraph above."

That is a clear statement that the "work for hire" assumption in UK, Canadian, and (probably) Newfoundland law does not apply. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the cites didn't take as long as I though it would. Both quote the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The second has comment from both Carl Lindberg and JackLee agreeing, after some discussion, that only local law applied. It is notable that the second case is also a war memorial in France and that the sculptor was American, so it is very much parallel to this. See:

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Support Jim's points are reasonable and well taken, but I would suggest the following:

For reasons set out in detail (along with statutory references) on Jim's talk page, copyright under British/Newfoundland/Canadian law in the memorial vests in the Crown, not in any particular individual. The relevance of this will become apparent below.
In terms of French copyright law, Jim rightfully cites Article L111-1 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle which states that a contract for hire or service does not derogate from the rights of the author. The issue here, however, might not involve a contract for hire or service. To the extent that elements of the overall memorial were created outside of France (which may be the case, since a number of identical caribou were created, one of which is in St. John's, Newfoundland, the other in Belgium), Crown copyright did not arise by any contract, but rather automatically by statute. Although Art. L111-1 also refers protects the rights of the author where "l'auteur de l'oeuvre de l'esprit est un agent de l'Etat" (unclear here if the capitalized "Etat" is only a reference to France or to any state), the reference to a state agent was added in 2006 and did not exist at the time in question (the previous provision). It is unclear to what extent Art. L111-1 applies.
In any event, even if Art. L111-1 was applicable, there is an exception for collective works (Art. L113-5), which is the case here given that several authors made inseparable contributions to the memorial (notably Nangle, Gotto and Cochius), with the Dominion government having initiated and directed the process and taking responsibility for the overall project (I refer to the discussion on this point in the deletion discussion concerning the Vimy Ridge memorial). The fact that the work was owned by the Crown, and that copyright to the work in the Commonwealth vested in the Crown, is further evidence that this constitutes a collective work. For collective works, Art. 123-3 states that copyright expires 70 years after publication. In most countries, exhibition of a 3D work is not necessarily publication, but publication of the work is usually considered to occur upon the publication of reproductions of the work in 2D form (photos, etc.) For a work of this nature, exhibition and reproduction would undoubtedly have occurred in the same year (1925). The 70 year period expired 15+ years ago.

For these reasons, copyright has expired and the images should be restored. On a related note, the point I made about File:Beaumont-Hamel - Official Opening (7 June 1925).jpg in the initial deletion discussion has still not been addressed. The sculpture is almost entirely draped in the Union Jack, and any visible elements (the caribou antlers) are DM in the overall composition of the photo. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see we had an edit conflict -- I suggest you read my cites above, as the American cemetery is on point and has two of our best legal scholars agreeing that French law applies.

To take the easy point first, I agree that the caribou antlers are probably de minimis -- let's undelete that one.

The work is in France. I don't actually know the French law on publication -- there is no definition in the code, but it's moot. I agree that if this is a collective work, then the rule is 70 years from publication, and that is long past. However, I'm not sure that it is a collective work. Basil Gotto is credited at WP:EN as the designer of the sculpture. Rudolph Cochius is credited for the landscape. Tom Nangle managed the project. Landscape is not subject to copyright in France (or in most countries -- Slovenia is the only exception I'm aware of). Project management does not make Nangle a copyright holder. I think the only copyright we're dealing with here is that of the sculptures, and that belonged to Gotto, and, according to me will belong to his heirs until 1954+70 = January 1, 2025. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collective works are usually dictionaries and similar works where the authors are listed but each individual contribution is not attributed (articles are not signed). Contrary to that, in a journal where every article is signed, each author gets the copyright of his articles. If the authors of each component can be attributed, I don't think it is a collaborative work. Yann (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Erecting a memorial does not constitute publication (see for example Article 3 (3) of the Berne Convention). The memorial is therefore unpublished. According to Article 5 (4) (c) (ii), the source country is France, as this is where the memorial currently is located. It also seems that the source country changes if you move the memorial to a different country.

The memorial is located in France. The copyright term in France is life+70 years, and that term hasn't expired yet. France has no freedom of panorama for things like this, so the photographs are unfree in France. See for example this court ruling: Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention forbids you to use foreign law to determine the copyright holder, and this presumably also means that Article 5 (2) also prevents you from using foreign exceptions from copyright (such as FOP) for foreign photographs.

The copyright term for a Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years since publication. This term hasn't expired as the memorial hasn't been published yet. Publish the memorial and wait for another 50 years for the term to expire. The photographs are nevertheless free in Canada as Canada has freedom of panorama for things like this.

If this isn't Crown Copyright, then the 50 years p.m.a. term has expired in Canada, but France has a 70 years p.m.a. term which is longer.

I assume that Commons would require these photographs to be free in both France (the source country of the memorial) and Canada (the source country of the photographs). Unfortunately, the files are only free in Canada, but not in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Not done per above. It looks like these are still protected by copyright, and therefore unacceptable for Commons -FASTILY 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pilgerstempel Abtei Maria Laach.gif [edit]

Bei der Datei handelt es sich um einen Stempelabdruck eines Pilgerstempels, der in der Abtei Maria Laach für jedermann erhältlich ist. Dieser Stempel wurde von mir gestempelt und eingescannt. Leider habe ich beim Hochladen mehrerer Dateien übersehen, dass ich für den Stempelabdruck nicht mich als Urheber auswählen darf. Mit heutigem Datum wurde vom Urheber des Stempels, der St. Matthias-Bruderschaft Mayen, vertreten durch den Brudermeister, eine entsprechende Zustimmung an die entsprechende Adresse (permissions-commons-de@wikipedia.org) verschickt. Daher bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der Datei. Ggf. bitte ich um Unterstützung, wie die korrekten Daten zur Lizenz eingefügt werden.

The file is a stamp for pilgrims of Saint James, which is available in the Abbey Maria Laach (Germany) for everyone. This stamp was stamped and scanned by me. Unfortunately I missed when uploading multiple files, that I may not choose me as the author of the stamp. As of today, was the originator of the stamp, the St. Matthias Brotherhood Mayen, represented by the chief, sent a corresponding agreement to the appropriate address (permissions-commons-de@wikipedia.org). Therefore, I ask you to restore the file. If necessary. I ask for support, as the correct data is inserted to the license. Woscho (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. Thanks for your patience, FASTILY 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sean Li Best New Actor.jpg[edit]

Sean Li accepts award for Best New Actor at the Chinese Film Media Awards

I request the following image be undeleted as this picture is fair use.

It is from a public media source and does not violate any copyright laws.

Please advise,

Carmen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chu.km.carmen (talk • contribs)

Fair use is not accepted on Commons. If Wikipedia in your language accepts fair use, you can copy this file there under a fair use rationale there. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No fair use on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Judge Maxine Chesney official portrait for United States District Court by Scott Johnston.jpg [edit]

Hi, I own the copyright to all images I have uploaded including Maxine Chesney Official portrait which you deleted. I painted it and I photographed it at the request of Maxine Chesney herself. Please undelete it.

Thank you, Scott

Hi, I own the copyright to all images I have uploaded including Maxine Chesney Official portrait which you deleted. I painted it and I photographed it at the request of Maxine Chesney herself. Please undelete it.

Thank you, Scott Scott Wallace Johnston (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: This file was speedy deleted, and there is sufficient doubt that it is not a copyright violation. Created a proper DR instead. @Scott Wallace Johnston: Please add your comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Judge Maxine Chesney official portrait for United States District Court by Scott Johnston.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ultrajes - Harold Alvarado Tenorio.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

File:Ultrajes - Harold Alvarado Tenorio.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Summa del cuerpo - Harold Alvarado Tenorio.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: no borrar esta imagen Mauriciomv (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piggyback by Trainload2.jpg[edit]

The file File:Piggyback by Trainload2.jpg is all my own work.

It seems to have been deleted in Nov 2013, but I was not advised about this until 9 Dec 2013.

It may not have been tagged correctly as a "self" drawn.

Please restore. Tabletop (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified here @ 20:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC). The file is missing a license tag. You may re-upload the file, but please include a license tag -FASTILY 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benfica Moçambique.jpg[edit]

File deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benfica Moçambique.jpg for being "Derivative work of a logo.". The logo in question was designed in 1930 and, as far as I could know, published first in Portugal in that date and until 1999 without stating an author, therefore public domain since 2000. Please restore.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, it seems that the copyright term in Portugal was 50 years on the URAA date, so this might pass {{PD-URAA}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Stefan4. Should we delete the old versions? Yann (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should delete them. I've left a message about this at your talk page, but you've removed it without a good reason.[13] I don't know how you plan to be an administrator without communicating with the community. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your good faith potential has gone away now. Don't come giving me lessons on communication when you can't even listen to simple advice by so many people. Yann (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your good faith potential has gone away. You even change other editors' comments.[14] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EC. Yann (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Image was restored. I've deleted the old revisions. INeverCry 23:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hakob Oshagan, 1948, Haleb, Shahinian Studio, Photo credit.jpg[edit]

You deleted file of original photo of Hagop Oshagan. Owner of this photo is an uploader and user Talinedv - Taline Voskeritchian, the grandson of Hagop Oshagan.

The photo on page Hagop Oshagan in Aleppo, 1948. Avedis Shahinian, Photo Derounian is not an uploaded original photo File:Hakob Oshagan, 1948, Haleb, Shahinian Studio, Photo credit.jpg. Compared the size and quality of uploaded file.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Owning a copy of the photo and owning the copyright are two very different things. This is a formal portrait and the photographer who took it, or his heirs, almost certainly own the copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyrighted image, per Jim. INeverCry 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colajbraila.jpg [edit]

This photo was made after hard work and is almost the same like town Bucharest, i don't see the point why one picture is deleted and another isn't! I request undelete the photo! --Cosmip2004

Oppose Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colajbraila.jpg. Taivo (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Our comments are sometimes a little cryptic. There are two problems with the image. The first is that for a collage to be kept on Commons, the source and license for each image in it must be listed. The second is that several of the images in it are of modern buildings and therefore infringe on the copyright of the architect. There are a few images in the gallery Bucharest that may have the same problem, but that does not allow keeping this one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyvio images of modern buildings per Jim. INeverCry 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:وفاء احمد التلاوي.jpg [edit]

is all my own work

Because it appears on a copyrighted web page, Commons rules require that the copyright holder send a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wiseman_infobox.jpg [edit]

E-Mail containing the permission was sent on the 9th of December 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deligabi (talk • contribs) 07:02, December 9, 2013‎ (UTC)

Not done As soon as an OTRS member processes the permission, and if it checks out, the files will be restored. This could take a week or more. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Texas Forts Trail logo.png[edit]

I have permission from the owner of this logo to use it on Wikipedia. Perhaps I didn't outline this correctly. Would you mind showing me how?

Flofor15 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. Also, per Commons licensing policy, the image can't just be "for use on Wikipedia". It would have to be released for commercial and derivative use under a free license. INeverCry 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of mali empire.png[edit]

I need somebody other than Fastily to decide whether this deletion makes sense considering the remarks posted by User:Monsieur_Fou to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of mali empire.png... Sometimes it's better to proceed carefulily, or paying attentionily, not just fastily. AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No sources were given, that such flag has ever existed. Monsier Fou said only: "yellow on red background". There is no source, that the flag was rectangular shape, there is no source, that there was smaller yellow rectangle in center of bigger red rectangle. Taivo (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Taivo, out of scope. INeverCry 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HERE.gif[edit]

how can a person not be allowed to post a picture of an album they have themselves created? that's me on the album cover. i don't understand why this is a copyright issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georger bavum (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are two issues here. The first is that if you are in the picture, you are not the photographer (this is not a self portrait). The photographer is almost certainly the copyright holder, so we would require his or her license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The second is you and the group do not appear to be notable, so that the image is out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Likely copyvio, and may also be out of scope. INeverCry 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AlinaArtts.jpg[edit]

Добрый день. Файл, AlinaArtts,jpg, загруженный мною, был удален в связи с нарушением авторского права. Я являюсь представителем артистки, изображенной на этом фото. Какие необходимо предоставить документы, чтобы размещение этого изображения на Wikipedia.com было возможным? Спасибо. — Preceding unsigned comment added by For got (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

We require a license from the photographer or other copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that has been received and processed (which may take several weeks -- there is a backlog), the image will be restored. Be sure that the e-mail gives the correct file name. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mudah Logo.png [edit]

As a representative of Mudah.my, I have right to use this logo for the Wikipedia article that is currently undergoing review

(Mudahmalaysia (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Since the logo belongs to a company, Commons policy requires that an appropriate officer of the company send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Also note that the "right to use this logo for the Wikipedia article" is not sufficient. Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for all use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder providing a sufficient free license is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Transiciones (Una nueva persona) (3352703668).jpg[edit]

This image was deleted on the basis of being out of scope with the closure statement "I consider this photo out of scope, I do not see any possible way to use it. I think, that it is impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism with that photo, because the photo is not erotic at all. I did not look, but I am quite sure, that Commons has better photos about hairy chests. The photo was unused." The only !vote in the DR was to Keep with the opinion "There is no copyright issue. The image is in-scope as a high quality shot that could illustrate homo-eroticism, hairy chests etc. without nudity." The original image size is 2448 x 3264 px.

Breaking down the closure statement:

"I do not see any possible way to use it" - the only statement in the DR explained a possible re-use scenario to illustrate homoeroticism.
"impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism... the photo is not erotic at all" - a bizarre rationale that puts an admin's personal interpretation of the erotic over opinions expressed in the DR. As well as use to illustrate the homoerotic, this artistic photo is titled and in discussion is intended to illustrate a 'transition' with the figure giving the appearance of a sensual pupa undergoing metamorphosis.
"The photo was unused" - re-use on Wikimedia projects is not a rationale to delete.

The photographer (NeoGaboX) specializes in high quality portraits of both men and women which are sensuous (often making eye contact with the viewer) and colourful with a high level of traffic and discussion on Flickr. This photograph has 20 different independent contributors on Flickr praising its quality and impact. In this context the value to the public as an image to be reused for illustration is obvious.

The photograph is in-scope and no significant rationale for deletion was given, in fact the original nomination was a The Photographer generated thoughtless and pointy "boiler-plate" DR raised in a batch of several hundred the same week. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Possibly in scope per Fæ. With no objections to this request, perhaps it's better to err on the side of inclusion. INeverCry 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg (also named File:Coat of arms of Papua New Guinea.svg)[edit]

According to Commons Delinker the file was "deleted by Taivo because: Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect: content was: speedy|Leftover from a file move. #REDIRECT."

I fail to see how that was a valid reasoning to delete this image that was in very very very heavy use. I think Taivo meant to just delete the redirect but now the whole file is gone! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was deleted by Jim. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg. Yann (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am disputing that DR because it provides no links or evidence that this image was a derivate from the copyrighted version. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being a virtually indistinguishable from the original, as per COM:EVID you need to show that it is not a COM:DW. LGA _talk^edits 08:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I can no longer see the file, how am I supposed to compare it to the copyrighted original??? Had you linked that in your nomination and had I seen the DR before it was closed, I would have been able to properly asses that, but now I can't. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Papua New Guinea emblem was created by copying a long-deleted png which listed a copyrighted representation as its source.

The creator of the svg said, "Source=Own work, based on Image:Papua New Guinea coa.png"
The creator of the png said, "Source: from Vector-Images.com"

The source is still there and has an explicit copyright notice.

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim. INeverCry 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.jpg[edit]

File deleted due to no FOP in Mozambique. I would like to know if there would be any problem in uploading a cropped version of it, with the copyrighted drawing removed, since the university building behind is not the main subject of the photo, and therefore allowed in FOP-Mozambique.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the file in question. Instead of cropping, I could blur (or otherwise remove) the drawing from there, and the file would still be very useful to illustrate Mozambique university education without hurting Mozambican law of copyright.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If you remove the sign altogether, then the building becomes the main subject, and the image infringes the architect's copyright. I think the same would be true if you blurred the whole sign. If you just cropped it between the head and "40" it might be all right, but it would be a close call. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in blurring only the head, since the lettering in the sign is not subject to copyright (right?). Therefore the sign, which is important on itself - commemorates 40 years of university studies in Mozambique - will continue to be the main subject, and Mozambique no-FOP would not be hurt.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally prejudiced against blurring anything -- I think it's a cop-out -- if an image is a copyvio, then we shouldn't change the reality of it to fit our needs. With that said, though, I wouldn't object and it would probably be better aesthetically. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a perspective corrected version with the drawing pixelated. Please evaluate if the pixelation is enough to cease it from attracting any copyright, otherwise I can pixelate it more, or use other technique to remove the drawing from there.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Image has been restored and copyrighted element sufficiently obscured via pixelation. I had to look at the old revision to see what the drawing was, so I think the pixelation has resolved the issue. INeverCry 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeltion of : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAhlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg[edit]

Hi, This picture is my work and have been deleted : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAhlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg

That's why I'm making an undeletion request. 11 December 2013 Sideraldream--Sideraldream (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image was in use on the web almost two years ago. Therefore our rules require that the actual copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. see http://web.archive.org/web/20120112155423/http://www.bqfp.com.qa/page?a=396&lang=en-CA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SARI logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: As a current intern at SARI, I have the permission of the Chairman to upload this image/logo of SARI. Mattysaints (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the Chairman, or another officer of the organization, send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ehrenstein color.jpg deletion[edit]

I uploaded this image and the creator, Andrew Parkinson, claims to have given permission a couple of days ago. The problem was that this permission was given a day to late and this file was deleted.

Ehrenstein color.jpg was deleted and I need it to use for the neon color spreading wikipedia page.

--ANDIRAMA 16:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Parkinson has sent a satisfactory license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, then it will be restored without further action on your part. Note that like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers and is understaffed, so that it may be as much as several weeks before a ticket is processed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.== File:Sunny Hill Logo jpeg web.jpg == Please restore the following pages:

File:Sunny Hill Logo jpeg web.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I am the administrator of the organization Sunny Hill School in Kuching, Sarawak and this specific logo / emblem is the official identifier of this entity. In context to this issue, this logo is not used to represent something else other than its official intended purpose. Hence, this is not a copyright infringement as Sunny Hill School (kuching, Sawarak) owns this emblem and as an administrator for the school, I am authorize to use it in proper representation of the school. Sunnyhillschool (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is a copyrighted logo. Please send an email to OTRS providing permission for hosting this image here on Commons. If everything checks out, an OTRS member or administrator will restore the file for you. INeverCry 23:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Transiciones (Una nueva persona) (3352703668).jpg[edit]

This image was deleted on the basis of being out of scope with the closure statement "I consider this photo out of scope, I do not see any possible way to use it. I think, that it is impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism with that photo, because the photo is not erotic at all. I did not look, but I am quite sure, that Commons has better photos about hairy chests. The photo was unused." The only !vote in the DR was to Keep with the opinion "There is no copyright issue. The image is in-scope as a high quality shot that could illustrate homo-eroticism, hairy chests etc. without nudity." The original image size is 2448 x 3264 px.

Breaking down the closure statement:

"I do not see any possible way to use it" - the only statement in the DR explained a possible re-use scenario to illustrate homoeroticism.
"impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism... the photo is not erotic at all" - a bizarre rationale that puts an admin's personal interpretation of the erotic over opinions expressed in the DR. As well as use to illustrate the homoerotic, this artistic photo is titled and in discussion is intended to illustrate a 'transition' with the figure giving the appearance of a sensual pupa undergoing metamorphosis.
"The photo was unused" - re-use on Wikimedia projects is not a rationale to delete.

The photographer (NeoGaboX) specializes in high quality portraits of both men and women which are sensuous (often making eye contact with the viewer) and colourful with a high level of traffic and discussion on Flickr. This photograph has 20 different independent contributors on Flickr praising its quality and impact. In this context the value to the public as an image to be reused for illustration is obvious.

The photograph is in-scope and no significant rationale for deletion was given, in fact the original nomination was a The Photographer generated thoughtless and pointy "boiler-plate" DR raised in a batch of several hundred the same week. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Possibly in scope per Fæ. With no objections to this request, perhaps it's better to err on the side of inclusion. INeverCry 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg (also named File:Coat of arms of Papua New Guinea.svg)[edit]

According to Commons Delinker the file was "deleted by Taivo because: Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect: content was: speedy|Leftover from a file move. #REDIRECT."

I fail to see how that was a valid reasoning to delete this image that was in very very very heavy use. I think Taivo meant to just delete the redirect but now the whole file is gone! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was deleted by Jim. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg. Yann (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am disputing that DR because it provides no links or evidence that this image was a derivate from the copyrighted version. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being a virtually indistinguishable from the original, as per COM:EVID you need to show that it is not a COM:DW. LGA _talk^edits 08:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I can no longer see the file, how am I supposed to compare it to the copyrighted original??? Had you linked that in your nomination and had I seen the DR before it was closed, I would have been able to properly asses that, but now I can't. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Papua New Guinea emblem was created by copying a long-deleted png which listed a copyrighted representation as its source.

The creator of the svg said, "Source=Own work, based on Image:Papua New Guinea coa.png"
The creator of the png said, "Source: from Vector-Images.com"