Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-03

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


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

File:Kampung Quest Poster.jpg

This file has been wrongfully removed. I own the content and it does not violate any copyright. It is free to use by any persons.

--Iskaziz (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Milu260

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Its the picture of a Shahed Person who has sacrificed his life in the war of Liberation,1971.As a elder brother I published this news/Articles in the News Paper.Naturally this is the Scanned copy of that news paper.Since the Article was prepared by me it is presumed that no copy right violation has been occurred here.Mt Taivo should know the history Bangladesh Liberation war.The picture of a martyred should not be deleted.Rather We should feel proud to have the Picture.And everyone should know the history of this war.Rather I would request everyone to spread this Picture with the events of his death.I feel proud to be the Brother of this Hero of the Liberation War of Bangladesh. Milu260 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:JudithButler2013.jpg

I got a message from Czar on my talk page which read: "That Butler picture is great, but it's missing the photographer's permission. Please forward the permission to the address above. czar" In response, I was in touch with Professor Butler, and she sent the necessary email agreement to publish the photo under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License to the following email address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please let me know if anything else is necessary to rectify the situation. Thank you very much in advance. --Bmwer2000 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Once OTRS processes the email that was sent, they will restore the file -FASTILY 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Joseph Sullivan MP.jpg

And:

Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DimSum38. The closing sysop has offered no reason at all why he might believe that those files should be deleted. He may not have read the discussion. The files Sullivan, Turner and McNeil are PD-UK-Unknown + PD-1996 and the file Wedgewood-Benn is PD-UK-Unknown + PD-1923. Commons accepts such free files. The sysop did not offer any explanation of why he thinks the above four files should be exceptions. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, apparently ok -FASTILY 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bohaterowie Grecji.pdf

Posting on behalf of M.Tarnowski (talk · contribs) that this file was legitimately in use on Polish Wikisource and therefore falls under Commons:Scope regarding educational content. See GlobalUsage report and the original deletion discussion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently useful -FASTILY 09:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Matador (album).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission received. Ticket:2014021510006052 and Ticket:2014021510006123 --Mdann52talk to me! 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done JurgenNL (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Tracey Shelton.jpg

File:Tracey Shelton.jpg

Please undelete this image. Reason: The photo file Tracey Shelton.jpg is a photo of me (Tracey Shelton - photo journalist). It was taken by me in a mirror and uploaded by my cousin to be included as an image on my wikipedia page. I gave permission for the upload and would like to request the file be undeleted. The image also appears on my website and I agree to the terms of use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.139.195 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.6.26 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File : SnehavinKadhalarkalPoster1.jpg

Earlier I followed the wizard and gave common permissions to all for 'SnehavinKadhalarkalPoster1.jpg' file. Please undo this delete and let me know what other permissions should I give. Ashokeprabha (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to look at the deleted image, but it does not display correctly. However, the image description reads "Snehavin Kadhalarkal Film Poster". If that is correct, then it is copyrighted material and cannot be kept on Commons without permission of the movie's distributors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Displayed ok for me, and it's a movie poster. COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. INeverCry 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Azersu21.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These works were painted by me (see signature on the upper right corner of the picture) and originally contributed to Wikimedia. Hand-made pictures are not FOP violation. Please, restore these files. Vita86 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

    • Main and single purpose of those images is to illustrate corresponding articles, but not artistique one. Those pictures were created especially for wiki-projects. In the settings of FOP absence, these means are the single way to illustrate articles legally and globally. Those images don't violate any copyrights and, it seems, the reason to be there is more pointful than not to be. Respectfully, Vita86 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


I don't see that we have any blanket prohibition on uploading artwork -- drawings are another form of illustration, no different than photographs really. We really just don't want to be a promotion vehicle for an artist trying to gain notoriety; the focus is on educational use, so any deletion on those grounds would have to be based on a) not much illustrative value, and b) that self-promotion appears to have been a goal. On the other hand... if these were drawings of other copyrighted works, then yes they would be derivative works just as much as photographs, unless there was a FOP provision in the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg, I deleted the files because they where high detailed drawings of copyrighted buildings in their natural environment in a country without a FoP-exeption for modern buildings. Natuur12 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Twitter icon.svg

This was covered under Commons:Deletion requests/Twitter icon.svg so I presume it's the image of Twitter's famous blue bird. But I think we can also claim that small icon image does not meet the threshold of originality, so it should be allowed on Commons. For comparison, here's a different version of the blue bird icon: File:Twitter blue bird icon.svg TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - that other bird is a different bird icon, not the one used by Twitter. The twitter icon is easily complex enough for copyright protection. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Mattbuck:: You said that other bird is not the one used by twitter, but the title of the file is "Twitter blue bird icon". If it's a misleading title should it be renamed then?
    • I can't tell for sure but I thought the simple icon would look something like this, so I wanted to check if there are any previous versions of it I could resurrect or if I should just transfer it directly from mediawiki.org over to here. (BTW does that picture on MediaWiki fit Commons:Threshold of originality?) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
      Under British law, that could certainly be eligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per mattbuck, this logo is definatly com:TOO. Natuur12 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ian Jazzi.jpg

This Picture seemed to have been submitted by the Person themselves to the profile at the named website, http://rapgenius.com/IanJazzi and the use and attribution are proper. Mpmayenge (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:20131226黃鴻升獲三獎.jpg

This photo:20131226黃鴻升獲三獎.jpg was taken by us, Alien Huang Hong Kong Fans Club on 2013/12/16 a prize winning ceremony in HKCEC located in Wan Chai, Hong Kong. Our original copy comes from http://www.flickr.com/photos/alienhuanghkfc/11628103596/in/set-72157639141421706 and we have the rest of the photos from the same ceremony here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alienhuanghkfc/sets/72157639141421706/ we also have facebook page with our album here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.661212137263051.1073741866.162613687122901&type=3

--Alienhuanghkfc (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" is not a suitable copyright status for Commons. Here is a list of suitable licenses for Commons. If you'd like to publish your photo under a license on that page, then please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored. -FASTILY 07:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:RAUL_ERNESTO_GUEVARA_MELENDEZ_MACHUCA,_REPORTEJE_SOBRE_LA_EPIDEMIA_DE_DENGUE_2000-2.jpg

SOLICITO QUE ESTE ARCHIVO NO SEA BORRADO DEBIDO A QUE ES DE MI PROPIEDAD

 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Leo Pröstler 1992.jpg

Der Rechteinhaber hat das Bild für die Wikipedia-Projekte freigegeben. Das Bild wurde im Auftrag der abgebildeten Person für seine Nutzung erstellt. Es handelte sich um einen Agenturauftrag der abgebildeten Person. Fotograf und Datum der Entstehung wurden in der Bildbeschreibung genannt. Die Quelle ist hier zu finden http://waldkampagne.com/ueber-uns/ Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Danke Wiska Bodo (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Christmas Eve And Other Stories.jpg

hola soy nuevo, y aun no entiendo muy lo las subida de arcihvos... favor ayudarme en esa parte como subir caratulas para discos cuando ya las cartulas estan hechas y la funte es de internet mismo... que hago? --Diabulus Felix (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Felix Figueroa

 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Headshots.jpg

I was authorized to upload this photo on behalf of the photographer and the model Thank you!

--TheVivid (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:3rd pier approach 1929 022.jpg

This file should have a PD-old-70 licence and explanation. Please let me do that. Thank you.

It's a while since I've seen this file, and I've uploaded over 2000 image files so it's difficult to remember exactly, but I do remember that it was a UK photo of Herne Bay Pier entrance (Kent, England) dated 1929, being dated indisputably from the state of the architecture (one bit burnt down already, another bit not yet built). The photographer died before 1942. The licence therefore should be PD-old-70.

I had the postcard in my possession and scanned it and uploaded it myself to Commons. Afterwards I donated the postcard to Herne Bay Historical Records Society, as I do with all my Herne Bay research materials after use, That is why I cannot give you an online source link. It was a real and actual postcard which I owned.

If you could kindly undelete it, then I can give it the correct licence. If it already had that licence then it should not have been deleted.--Storye book (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that I do remember the picture, but I don't quite remember what I originally wrote in the file that was deleted. So in case it was not in the image file: I checked all my postcard books, and I checked postcard books in the library. It does not appear in any of them and I cannot find that it was published anywhere under copyright. I have also checked local historical archives and other libraries. I always check out my uploaded vintage postcard images in this way. I also check out photographers and their claims and attitudes to copyright, so I would have checked that one. --Storye book (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it's more complicated. As the image description clearly states, the photographer died in 1930, which means that image was PD in the UK on 1/1/2001. Unfortunately, that is five years too late to avoid the URAA, so it is under copyright in the USA until 2025. I note that all of this was thoroughly covered at Commons:Deletion requests/File:3rd pier approach 1929 022.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question When did the UK extend the copyright from 50 to 70 years pma? This could affect the copyright status of this file in USA. According to Wikipedia, In the 1911 Act the term of author's copyright was extended to the lifetime of the author and 50 years thereafter; this remained the case under the 1956 Act and the 1988 Act. But according to [1], Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies. So? Yann (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
According to the article you cite, as of July 1, 1995, the copyright term was extended to 70 years pma, both for works that were under copyright then and, retroactively, all works whose copyright had expired if the author died less than seventy years previously. Thus anything created in the UK after 1925 is caught by URAA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, right. The discussion on VPC explains this in detail. May be we could wait for the result of the current vote on URAA-affected images. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
July 1, 1995 was the date the EU directive became effective, but that did not immediately change laws, which had to be done by every individual country. The UK restorations became effective on January 1, 1996, which coincided with the URAA to give more UK authors U.S. rights, and this photo would appear to be one which fell under that. If it was taken in 1929, it became PD in the UK in 1980 (50 years after creation), and then its copyright was restored on January 1, 1996, and since it was copyrighted on that day, qualified for the U.S. URAA law provided the work met the other criteria (not also published within 30 days in the United States, that kind of thing). So it would appear that postcard has U.S. rights valid until 2025. The avoidance of deletion of Not-PD-US-URAA images is more to do with resources, and also checking the actual status of copyright in countries on the URAA date. The UK's situation is not in doubt though so I don't see any reason to undelete it, other than perhaps something temporary so it can be copied to a site like Wikilivres. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for the above information. Carl Lindberg, please could you kindly temporarily userfy the image for me, so that I can copy it to e.g. Wikilivres? Meanwhile, I think Wikilivres has some kind of problem with hosting images, e.g. (as of today)this page. If Wikilivres remains problematic, I guess I could host the image on a UK site. If you do this, please let me know on my WP talkpage. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Per above, this probably isn't okay for Commons. As requested, a copy of the file and it's description page for transfer to Wikilivres: [2], [3] -FASTILY 09:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Super-Farter-Screenshot-1.jpg

I am the developer of the iOS App and the author of the graphics. I have uploaded it in order to create a Wiki Entry of the App. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixhearts (talk • contribs)

 Not done Per COM:OTRS, previously published works require additional permission. The app is attributed to Bostjan Gabrovsek, who will need to provide permission. Send an email from an @lambdacalc.com domain account (see official website), and a volunteer will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:MTA Logo.png

The user that claims to have rights over the logo does not posses those. Suspicion for sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkinderz (talk • contribs)

 Not done No coherent rationale for undeletion. Logo is here and numerous other places. Эlcobbola talk 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - A Big Nice Cup Of Fuck You.wav

The Rightful owner Juan Pablo Gracia has written a permision as requested. Please review your permission emails and restore, deletion taken way too soon, If the mails werent looked through how come this file is already deleted. Jedud. Thanks--Better sooner than Later 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - A Big Nice Cup Of Fuck You.wav

I am the rightful Owner of this file/ composition and I have forwarded the written permission with signature and ID to permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org days ago. Why on heavens name is it deleated? Please restore. Thanks. --Picturechina (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - Now Or Fucking Never - Schizophrenia.wav

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - A Big Nice Cup Of Fuck You.wav

I am the rightful Owner of this file/ composition and I have forwarded the written permission with signature and ID to permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org days ago. Why on heavens name is it deleated? Please restore. Thanks. --Picturechina (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - Now Or Fucking Never - Schizophrenia.wav

I am the rightful owner of this composition, I have forwarded a written permission inclusing signature and ID days ago. why you deleting this so fast? Please restore, thanks--Picturechina (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - Broken Skulls.wav

I am the rightful owner of this composition, I have forwarded a written permission inclusing signature and ID days ago. why you deleting this so fast? Please restore, thanks--Picturechina (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - Broken Skulls.wav

I am the rightful owner of this composition, I have forwarded a written permission inclusing signature and ID days ago. why you deleting this so fast? Please restore, thanks--Picturechina (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close: File not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Puritans.jpg

I own this poster, I am the producer and can provide any clearance needed. I am requesting the poster of The Puritans be returned to it's Wikipedia Page. This is my own film. I am the author/producer. There is no copyright infringement on this poster as it was created by our team. Feel free to ask for any verification needed and I'll provide. Thank you.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Vollenhove, Grote of Sint Nicolaaskerk, Orgel (3).JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014030310013083, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 --Mdann52talk to me! 14:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored Natuur12 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bárbara Carrera en 'Embryo'.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: La imagen corresponde a la película "Embryo" la cual se encuentra en dominio público por no haber señalizado sus derechos de autor: http://horrorpedia.com/2013/03/24/embryo-aka-created-to-kill/ http://66.147.244.77/~horrotic/tag/public-domain-film/ http://retrofilmvault.com/publicdomainfilms/embryo.html http://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?role=nm0001369&page=1&sort=release_date_us,desc&keywords=public-domain&explore=keywords&ref_=asrtt_ref_key Inri (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - if there is no license given, the image is all rights reserved. Please see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. JurgenNL (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Highway Aditya Srivastav.jpg

This is a still captured from a TV show which was duly credited as well. I don't see how it violated copyrights.

 Not done - the copyright holder, in this case the TV show producent, has to release this image under a free license. Just mentioning the show is not enough. JurgenNL (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Jenny-Holzer 1986.jpg File:Jenny-Holzer.jpg

I am handling ticket:2014021210002105 which appears to relate to these files. Could they be restored so that I can confirm they match the emails received and add the tickets if suitable? --Fæ (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this does not match the files sent by email. I will email the correspondent for more information to verify precisely which images they are referencing. Please re-delete. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 6 March

2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Merchant Illusteration.jpg

Hello,

Published in USA in 1913. The original may not be in the public in India, but this reproduction is OK for Commons, as it is in the public in USA where it was published. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment — This file was originally deleted per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Asit Kumar Haldar. I'm not sure if I follow the logic of this undeletion request. Yann appears to be arguing that the "country of origin" for reproductions is where the reproduction is published, not where the original work was published. If I understand this correctly, he's arguing that any painting published in a pre-1923 US work is acceptable on Commons, even if the painting was first published abroad well before it was published in a US work. This is really a matter of Commons policy, not copyright, since these works are all unquestionably PD in the US. I think it has been Commons policy to treat the origin as the country where the original work was published, but If this logic holds, there are whole bunch of Pablo Picasso paintings (the vast majority of which are currently still under copyright in their source country of France) that could be scanned from pre-1923 US works and uploaded to Commons (in fact I bet a bunch are on en.wp right now marked PD-US-1923-abroad or something similar). —RP88 08:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, do we know if these were published in India before being published in the USA? Were they made specifically for this book? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That's an entirely separate issue :-) If we knew, with reasonable certainty, that the first time this illustration was published was in the US in 1913, then the discussion above is entirely moot. Since Asit Kumar Haldar first left India in 1923, we know this illustration was created in India sometime before 1913. As I mentioned in the DR, I don't know of an earlier publication of this particular illustration. However, it's possible that "public exhibition" constituted publication in India at the time ( it did in the U.S. prior to 1978), but that is something we should consider as a possibility (Asit Kumar Haldar had many early exhibitions of his illustrations, at least as far back as 1908). —RP88 09:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
All files on Commons have been published in the US, since they're served from a US server by a US organization. By that logic, we shouldn't worry about any foreign copyrights. I strongly object to File:Asit Kumar Haldar 1913 The Beginning Tagore.jpg having its speedy delete removed as well; if a work has been deleted by DR, it being undeleted for the purposes of copying to another wiki does not reopen the question of whether it should be deleted or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
To summarize the comments above, and my understanding of the law and Commons policy.
  • If the work was published in India more than thirty days prior to its publication in the US, then it is still under copyright in India, its source country for Commons purposes is India and it must remain deleted.
  • If the work was first published in the US more than thirty days before it was published in India, then the source country for Commons purposes would be the US and it may be restored.
  • Given the state of our ignorance, I'll ignore the case of simultaneous publication.
It seems to me that since we do not know beyond a significant doubt that the second case applies, it must remain deleted. Indeed, given the circumstances, it seems to me more likely than not that it was first published in India. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes and Jim: I think that your argument forgets one thing. There is obviously a difference between the original work, and this reproduction. From [4], it is clear that the book was first published in the USA in November 1913, and the first Indian edition I can find is in 1919 [5]. It was also published in UK for Christmas 1913. I agree that the original work is not in the public domain in India, but I think that this reproduction is in the public domain in USA, and that's sufficient for us. BTW, we have Category:The Crescent Moon. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that I forgot anything -- you have just repeated my second case. If you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the book was first published in India in 1919, then we have my second case, the source country is the USA, and it's OK for Commons. But you don't say that -- you simply say that the first Indian publication you can find is 1919. I don't know enough about the case to understand why the book would have been published in India six years before the USA, but perhaps so.
I realize that we do not carefully define "source country", but it seems to me that if we have an Indian creator and a work first published in India, we cannot take a reproduction from a later edition published in the US and justify keeping it by saying that the source country is the USA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
A "reproduction" generally means copy, so the only copyright involved is that of the original. It does happen sometimes that reproducing a work in a different medium can give rise to a derivative work copyright in addition (such as an engraving of a painting, or a mezzotint -- see here). Other times it's not; see here for two cases where were not different enough. But if the original is still copyrighted, you need permission to distribute any derivative or to make a straight reproduction. In this case it would see as though the original is PD in the U.S. due to publication before 1923, so no permission would be needed for acts in the U.S., but would still be valid in India, for either reproductions or derivative works. It's more a matter of Commons policy, but if we are respecting the copyright of the original in the country of origin, then we probably would not allow copies which happened to be printed in a country where they are PD. It is the same work. The country of origin is the country where first published; subsequent publications do not change that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 10:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ludendorff Bridge Remagen Germany.jpg

The deletion request has been filed by Rosenzweig stating "I simply don't believe that the US Army actually photographed a bridge in Germany _in the 1920ies_ (quite unlikely), as claimed here". It is very likely that the US Army has photographed the bridge because after World War I the US Army was part of Allied forces occupation of the Western part of Germany. The US army took care of the Koblenz area where the bridge is located. Kennedy Hickman names the source of the picture of the bridge "Photograph Courtesy of the US Army" (http://militaryhistory.about.com/b/2008/03/08/world-war-ii-the-bridge-at-remagen.htm) Ken Hechler wrote the book "Hero of the Rhine: The Karl Timmermann Story, Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, (January 1, 2004), ISBN 978-1-57510-110-1". Karl Timmermann, the son of an American soldier of the occupying forces, moved with his father to the United States and returned later in World War II as leader of the first group of Amercian soldiers crossing the river Rhine on that Remagen bridge.

I strongly recommend to undelete this picture!

--Wvk (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hrrrm. The reason for deletion isn't great -- simply saying "I doubt" -- but is a decent question to ask in a DR. The original source was this page, which gives no provenance information on the photograph at all. It's a reasonable question to ask, since the photo may have just been pulled from elsewhere and used in the article. There is no date mentioned there; not sure how the "1920s" dating was arrived at but maybe there are clues in the picture that people with knowledge of the area could use to date it. Unfortunately since this photo has been here since 2005, it could turn up elsewhere on the web with reference to the PD-USGov-Military-Army license we had on it -- those are not independent confirmations of the license. On the other hand, stating "I simply don't believe that the US Army actually photographed a bridge in Germany _in the 1920ies_" is an incorrect assumption. That region (and parts of Luxembourg) was the area of U.S. Army occupation following World War I; it appears it was occupied by the US Army from December 1918 until late 1922 or January 1923.[6][7] There were undoubtedly many photographs of the bridge taken by the U.S. Army during that period so it is not at all unreasonable to assume that as a source. It would be nice to find a better source with a more certain provenance though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 10:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Commons:Categories/preload/enWP

Hastily deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Categories/preload/enWP. Deletion that is neither consensual nor supported by Commons:Deletion policy. Please undelete. --  Docu  at 08:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 10:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Swati Bhatia.jpg

This is entirely my own creation and i have the right to use it.may be because i m new on wiki and learning to write an article i would have made some error in choosing the option, but if u can help me with the options to put it in my own creation category , i would be grateful to you.

Everything seems to be in order -FASTILY 07:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File: Marketing Social Bernardo Rabassa.jpg

buenas noches, los derechos de autor son de nuestra propiedad, represento los intereses de D. Bernardo Rabassa Asenjo si necesitan algo más diganmelo gracias

goodnight copyrights are owned, I represent the interests of Bernardo D. Rabassa Asenjo if you need anything else let me know thanks

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Offizielles Foto Herbert Woerlein 2013.jpg

Betrifft https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Offizielles_Foto_Herbert_Woerlein_2013.jpg und weitere Bilder: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Mlucan

Dieses und die weiteren Bilddateien wurde ohne eine den Löschkriterien entsprechende Begründung gelöscht. Bei dem ersten Bild in der Liste wurde nicht einmal beachtet, dass es sich um ein von der Bayern-SPD zur Verfügung gestelltes Bild handelt. Ich hatte der Löschung wiedersprochen (oder glaube, dies hier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Pixeldost#Files_of_User:Pixeldost und auf den Seiten mit den Löschanträgen getan zu haben) , die von einem neuen User Bolzerei aus persönlichen Gründen beantragt worden war, und konnte mir nicht vorstellen - da sich niemand sonst für eine Löschung ausgesprochen hatte und es sich in meinen Augen um eine persönliches Problem des Users Bolzerei handelte -, dass dieses (wie auch die anderen Bilder) tatsächlich gelöscht werden könnte.

Mit diesem Foto wurden viele weitere gelöscht, meine eigenen Fotos, wofür ebenfalls keine den Löschkriterien entsprechende Begründung angegeben war.

Ich weiß nicht, ob es geht, hier eine Liste anzugeben, für die dieser Wiederherstellungsantrag gelten soll. Ich mache es einfach mal, wie beim Löschantrag.

Infos hier / See discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Pixeldost#Files_of_User:Pixeldost

Deleted image file list / Liste der gelöschten Bilddateien:


Ich bitte, die hier aufgelisteten Bild-Dateien wieder herzustellen. Please do undelete all image files listed here. There was no reasonable reason for deletion, only reason was user Bolzerei's annoyance. Thank you und Dankeschön Michael Lucan (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done -FASTILY 10:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I own the image and uploaded it to Commons. There is no copyright on the contents of the sign as confirmed in email correspondence from the Alsakan Department of Natural Resources, who made the sign, and the Alaskan governor's office:

From: "Elizabeth Bluemink (DNR)" <elizabeth.bluemink@alaska.gov>

To: xxx

Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 6:15:37 PM

Subject: RE: Historical Marker

I don’t believe that the State can assert copyright on your image of public property, just on our own image. While I’d encourage you to caption the photo as being a historic panel developed by Alaska State Parks, or the State of Alaska, it is not a copyright matter.

I think that some property owners in the wider world have sought to restrict photos of certain public or private property, but that’s not an issue in our case :)

From: xxx

Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:08 PM

To: Bluemink, Elizabeth (DNR)

Subject: Re: Historical Marker

Elizabeth,

Great! So does this mean there is no copyright associated with the image I took?

Best regards,

xxx

From: "Elizabeth Bluemink (DNR)" <elizabeth.bluemink@alaska.gov>

To: xxx

Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:10:59 PM

Subject: FW: Historical Marker

Hi xxx: Here is your answer. As far as we’re concerned, you have permission to use the attached image or your own image. We’d appreciate if you could provide the credit suggested.

Best regards,

Elizabeth

From: Lochart, Emily S A (DNR)

Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:09 AM

To: Bluemink, Elizabeth (DNR)

Subject: RE: Historical Marker

That’s definitely a panel that was developed by Alaska State Parks. It was part of a very large Gold Rush Centennial project that we worked on with the Office of History and Archaeology too. Most of the panels are at DOT waysides. I suppose all that agency-mixing is why there were no logos. If it needs a credit, you could always say “Developed by Alaska State Parks.” We are, after all, the ones who have the files.

This panel seems to have seen better days. I have attached a digital version that will look much better on the web. We love when our work is desired on the web!

Emily S. A. Lochart

Natural Resource Manager II

Interpretation and Education Program

Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation

p 907.269.8742 / f 907.269.8917

From: Bluemink, Elizabeth (DNR)

Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:06 PM

To: Lochart, Emily S A (DNR)

Subject: Fwd: Historical Marker

Hi Emily: This looks like one of ours. Do you know anything about it? He said the sign didn't indicate who it belonged to. Thanks! Elizabeth

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: xxx

To: "Bluemink, Elizabeth (DNR)" <elizabeth.bluemink@alaska.gov>

Subject: Historical Marker

Elizabeth,

Thanks for taking my call today. Pleae find attached an image of the marker in question. As I pointed out, the sign is on the Glenn Hwy, Interstate A-1, turnout overlooking the Matanuska River, which is just north of the intersection with Fishhook-Willow Rd.

I am interested in:

1) Who owns the sign and any associated copyright.

2) Would the owner be willing to let the image be used in Wikipedia (e.g. Wikimedia Commons specifically)

Best regards, xxx

From: Soukup, Michael D (GOV)

To: xxx

Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:11 PM

Subject: Hatcher Pass Sign

Dr. xxx,

Thank you for contacting us regarding your photo from Hatcher Pass. Since you took the photo, it is your property, and you do not need permission to upload it to Wikipedia. Let us know if we can help with anything else.

Best,

Michael

Michael Soukup

Press Assistant

Office of Governor Sean Parnell

(907) 269-7450

Pi3.124 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose All of the above was considered at the DR. This is a typical response from a government agency that does not really understand copyright. In order to keep it, we will need someone at the Alaska State Parks to clearly state that they own the copyright to both the text and to all of the images shown and that they have licensed it for all use, including commercial use. So far, all they have said is that the sign was developed by the Alaska State Parks and that you may use your image, without any understanding that your image is derivative of the text and images on the sign. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. If you receive an email from a park representative (who understands the copyright of the sign) determining the sign to be published under a Commons-compatible license, please email it to COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Edgarborges2009.JPG

El archivo Edgarborges2009.JPG fue borrado aduciendo una posible violación de copyright. La imagen en cuestión fue provista por el autor Edgar Borges y los créditos con los que fueron subidos son correctos.--Jorgeletralia (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Undelete FC Denver Logo.png

Please undelete FC Denver Logo.png.

I emailed logo copyright creation and permission authorization information to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 03/07/2014

Synopsis: A player on our team in 2007 asked if his girlfriend at the time (a girl by the name of Karen, which I never met) could make a logo for our new soccer club. She created several versions, which we edited, until we got the right one. She and Josue Oqueli (the player on our team) implicitly created and gave permission of the logo over to the club as a favor (to be helpful), which is described in the emails. I do not have any communication with Josh once he stopped playing for the soccer club in 2009.

Thanks,

--Ericmfulton (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric Fulton FC Denver Owner

Thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the photo once they process the email you sent. -FASTILY 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:IOC Youth Olympic Games inspire Sochi successes.jpg

This is my own work - but it was shared on Facebook group "Golden Yuna"

The picture was not directly from an outside source with a copyright.

--Lazeks042186 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Georg Christian von Homburg.JPG

Warum wurde die Seite gelöscht, obwohl der Rechteinhaber mir die Datei überlassen hat, um sie in Commons einzustellen? -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Bitte eine Freigabeerklärung an COM:OTRS senden. Danke. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

MileyCyrusPerforming2013.png

MileyCyrusPerforming2013.png first DR was closed with "kept". Second was open one week later, closed in ten days, with only one vote and because "is only used in 4 articles". Thing is, File:93.3 FLZ Jingle Ball Tampa Florida IMG 6955 (11490119034) (cropped).jpg is not better': it's bad iluminated, her face looks blue and purple and it's got less definition than the deleted one. If I've had some clue of these DR certainly I should participated on them. Please, reconsider to restore it. Thank you. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If the licensing is OK, then  Support. That should never have been deleted unless it was a complete duplicate. If an image even *was* used on an article, it should be kept regardless if it is replaced or not. If there is some subjective differences between the two images, we keep both and let editors decide which to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:RAUL ERNESTO GUEVARA MELENDEZ MACHUCA, REPORTEJE SOBRE LA EPIDEMIA DE DENGUE 2000-2.jpg

Solicito que este archivo no sea borrado porque es de mi propiedad, y no se esta violando ningun derecho de autor````

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Happily-unmarried-logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi I am the online marketing manager of the company and I would like to state that I have the rights to use this logo. We request you to kindly reinstate it. My email id is jayesh@happilyunmarried.com Jayesh1989 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Orley Cruz.jpe.jpg

--Zuleikis (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you mean File:Orley Cruz.jpg? Why do you think this should be undeleted? --rimshottalk 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close, no reason given to restore file. Feel free to create a new request, but please specify a reason for your request -FASTILY 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Nick Offerman PAID for the use of this photo

I work for Mr Offerman. He paid for the use of this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmasst (talk • contribs) 18:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Which photo? Did the contract include publishing the photo under a free license? --rimshottalk 20:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Barouk_ariana.jpg

It say that someone (Nick Offerman) paid for this photo I don't know such person and he had no permission from me to own this picture. If that person really paid for that picture he needs my permission and who did he pay for it without my permission. My mom I took this picture, there is NO reason to have it deleted nor have a copywriter. I have used it for lots of things. Please undelete so it can be used in my Wikipedia page.

Thank you Ariana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautyqueenfan (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Glass_of_Mango_Juice.jpg

A user removed my upload without a good reason. It is about a Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) upload. The user did not notify me on the removal and now ignores my requests for further explanation. I truly believe it is a false positive. The user who removed the file, left a note at removal saying "found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work". But, this seems legit to me as it is part of photo serie made at a visit in Phuket. See for example the same glass of juice on this full table, which is part of the whole photo album of 235 photos the photographer made on their trip in Phuket. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored A direct link to the source page was missing. That seems to be the reason of deletion. Thank you for contributing to Wikimedia Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fuckr med dn hjrne.jpg

This is a free promotional poster for a television program. We made it and hereby declare it public domain.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Male flaccid penis..JPG

Was wondering why the deletion?????

COM:SCOPE & Commons:Nudity#Very similar to, and no better than, existing images -FASTILY 09:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australia W6-3.svg

The Government of Queensland, where these signs were taken from, licenses their content under {{Cc-by-3.0-au}}. Fry1989 eh? 02:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Not done The file is derived from images in this file. Their copyright statement states "With the exception of content specifically licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, the remainder of the content on this site may only be reused for personal or non-commercial purposes, provided that the material also remains unaltered, and the State of Queensland is recognised as the owner." I can see nothing in the pdf which states that the document and images, etc in it are licenced under a CC licence. russavia (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you read where it says "Unless otherwise noted, all copyright material available on or through this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence."??? So I ask you, where is the PDF's note about exception from this notice of being under {{Cc-by-3.0-au}}? Fry1989 eh? 02:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.qld.gov.au/legal/copyright/ is not http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Help/Copyright.aspx, and http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Help/Copyright.aspx is the site which we need to follow. russavia (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, and another user and myself are working on a license specifically for these files based on this copyright notice. We see no reason why any material from the Queensland Government's portal (being the master site for all Queensland GOV websites and documents) should be excluded from this notice unless there is proof of such exclusion. Fry1989 eh? 03:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:配布ライブＴＶ.JPG

ファイル名：File:配布ライブＴＶ.JPG


このファイルは私と妻が「配布ライブＴＶ」のスタッフと協議しながら描いたイラストであり 著作権を侵害している恐れはございません。 ファイル削除の解除をお願いします。


--Rhythbo 2014年3月12日(水)Rhythbo (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bianca Ryan promo.jpg

Proof of permission to use this image was mailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on February 13, 2014, at 21:25 PST per the tag I placed on the image page. More than 3.5 weeks have elapsed since. Please process this ticket and restore this file. Thank you. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose The only recent Bianca Ryan OTRS tickets I find are for different images and cover only WP. When you ask for permissions for use here, please be certain to refer your correspondent to Commons:OTRS, as they must provide a valid license for all use, not just WP.
Also please remember that Commons is an all volunteer project, with more than 10,000 new images every day. Sometimes the OTRS backlog runs many weeks..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I forwarded two e-mails; the first included a head shot and the full logo from Ms. Ryan's Web site; I originally uploaded the head shot. Sunni at biancaryan.com then sent a second e-mail asking us to use a full-length image which I cropped and uploaded as existing file:Bianca Ryan headshot.jpg, followed by a request to change it to the file name leading this section. Sunni specifically said, "Thanks for helping Bianca with this. The image that was loaded last year by us was copy-right free, dunno why its not there. Attached is the image...the photographer gave us all rights to this photo", which was not WP specific.
Do the tickets you find reflect this, or should I re-send the e-mail? (re-sent) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 15:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Meantime, I just noticed that the e-mails I forwarded kept my original subject line to bookings[at]biancaryan[dot]com, namely, "Re: Bianca Ryan's Wikipedia article". This did not mean the images I was forwarding were specific thereto. :D —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 18:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, neither of the e-mails is a general license. Both are in response to your request for use in WP and say nothing of more general use. Please have your correspondent read Commons:OTRS and have her e-mail an acceptable general license directly to us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Sent to correspondent. Thanks for your assistance. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 19:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems this is now being resolved via COM:OTRS. They will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 00:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Dulhae Hazrath Rahe Bhander.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received ticket:2014021610009904 --Mdann52talk to me! 14:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Common Good (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tox_logo.svg

BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

This logo is our own trademarked work, licensed CC BY-NC-SA, and we're in the process of registering it with the US Patent and Trademark Office. A troll has been going around making claims that it isn't ours, and that it isn't licensed as such. This is false, said artistic styling is our work, and ours to license.

Any claims otherwise to this fact are false, done maliciously to harm to project.

BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTIKzUAAoJEBPSBDFp0l30OYAP/jBht883ejxhzdqJ4t5R4cdJ lLLE66ZjDIBbYHwxAHXfyZ/BFhknHgmf4LT4oxpNBra7pVzb+evZzN7AEXE1Xo/8 o/FidSDObk99WB7vV1413CMKTFGpP6TD0RqnvrAoi9CmPYn8ChtCqh5jtSWxX8jA +hIsoGZ3dUblw436dItSOqOOZKHuLVXGd5u3sz/QbxtxfgnMf3P/393BIqoDZQny p5wCUN50u7Z6Hnj28Te+zhzKxtb8Zb/pfBuXL/OMqNXIUuAQllq/tJJZR0617s+f rvTwJJXCQQNewU5dD9jpgXZvr3HtHWFrhzYvfICtEsJOsfHBOdG96SPKf68oK/Eh QnrFBIKMLdYNQlfBKf5fW2V1bPWFG8VZCIgUVakIb1kBPIFPIh/1fstgS9JDXntU vqDOnUMPb1gCpGTcXH6RpIBaitUPJavNRZ/GGbPgp0lNJCVBS/kuagg6UOIUqN4Z wwsui7ZI2Mk8Wa9jy79Y/E7WD7HJHwJiw5a1Y6NWDgzahsfdLZe7jpo/q7XeJ8qx MwW1BZK/KxPOYWOPlt1YcUde4voo8phzzctdK1YSKNaXMI8FOQbGkSpyUe8YdUXq Gj2jM9eJ8f5w+5JLwLsa0ff54WTtZRobOxz+MXeEJzBVj5dJCL+6Gbaeio+bYMk/ 4caXjs9/VAjZ8kRmZaUo =1iHK

END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This message was signed to verify it's authenticity, and ownership of the account. --Stqism (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose First, CC BY-NC-SA is not an acceptable license for Commons or WP in general. Second, it is not clear beyond a significant doubt (Commons formal standard of proof) that you are the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We've been using the logo commercially for some time now, and can re-license it without the NC. The current argument is about as intelligent as me stating a photo you took with your cell phone isn't yours. The image was drawn by Project Tox, for Project Tox, and isn't something that can be disputed logically otherwise. --Stqism (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

--Alexgreycosm (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Dear Wiki Masters

Bless you for your important work. My image, Alex Grey 2013.jpg has been deleted from the wiki page on artist Alex Grey. I am Alex Grey and I uploaded the image. I sent an email to permissions that explained all rights are transferred to the wiki commons.

Please friends, undelete my image.

Thank you,

Alex Grey March 12, 2014 Alexgreycosm (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing your work to Commons. Since we have many fans who impersonate notable artists and try to upload their work without permission, Commons policy requires that users who are famous people must verify their identity by sending a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. That message should come from an address @alexgrey.com. That covers the permission for reproduction of your work. However, since you (and one of your paintings) are the subject of the photograph, there is also the question of the photographer's copyright. If you have purchased that copyright from the photographer, then please say so in your message. If not, please have the photographer send a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 00:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

About these photos I uploaded.

Reason

I officially gained permissions from the publishers and photographers, and they appreciate the uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1123 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 March 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Each of the named photographers must give a license to Commons using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If and when that is done for each image, it will be restored to view without further action on your part. There are several very good images here, please make the effort to get them properly licensed. They also will need appropriate categories if they are to be useful. Category:Whale is a category redirect and its target, Category:Whales, is far too general..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holders is needed. INeverCry 19:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Reino Barack 1.jpg , Reino Barack 2.jpg , Reino Barack 3.jpg

Dear Commons admin,

I request that these three files be undeleted, because screen caps of permission from author to release the copyright have been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and communication with user: Martin H. have received no reply.

Reino Barack 1.jpg Reino Barack 2.jpg Reino Barack 3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ennio morricone (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 mar 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: If you've emailed OTRS, you'll have to wait until they process the email. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 19:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fernanda Nobre.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this photo is mine and it is not violating the copyright, Rmantesso83 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears in many places on the Web. If you are actually the photographer of the image, please send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Pcollins.jpg

There is nothing wrong with the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjcollins61 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 March 2014‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose Commons is not Facebook. We do not keep personal photos, except for a limited number for use on the user page of active users. Since your only contributions to Commons have been these two deleted images, you are not entitled to keep them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kohtla-Järve 2007 5.jpg

I assume it was this image. It's not clear why it was deleted: the image has license contrary to statement in deletion log. It's true that there's no freedom of panorama in Estonia, but the restriction would apply only if the statue was the main subject of the photo. Statue being far, out of focus and in a shadow in a no eye-catching position probably isn't the main subject of this photo (unlike here). So I believe this image can be restored. 193.40.10.181 19:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason for deletion was indeed COM:FOP. I however disagree with your opinion. The intention of the photographer is to show the sculpture and its surrounding area, the caption of the photo in this edit makes this pretty clear. Bad photographic abilities or other artistic shortcomings, bad camera equipment or a bad timing are not relevant for the creation of a derivative work. --Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well exactly, intention is to also show the surrounding area where the graves are (ühishaud), not specifically the statue (the copyrighted artwork depicted). "Main subject" is a term specific to FOP clause of the law text. If the depicted artwork cannot be considered the main subject, then the restrictions on FOP are not necessarily in effect. Here it's not about derivative works in general. 193.40.10.180 07:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image shows the copyrighted statue, trees, and grass with a fence around it. A building is slightly visible in the background. Without the statue, there would be no reason for the image to be kept -- we have plenty of images of trees and grass. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
So you oppose, because without the statue the image would have little educational value? But in case the statue is there. What am I missing? As for the statue being copyrighted, this isn't necessarily a reason for deletion in this case (see above).
Though, I don't understand the other part of your reasoning either. Even without the statue this image would have plenty of details (specific trees among them) that make it clearly identifiable part of the town and as such make it in an informative and unique illustration. And even if, say, the grass was in focus then I'm pretty sure we don't have limits on how many images can depict similar subject (other than perhaps some specific cases where the subject is "disturbing" to many viewers). Similarly we could easily delete all new images of, say, Buckingham Palace, because we already have plenty of images of it, but this would make little sense. 193.40.10.180 12:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. There is no FOP in Estonia, and there is no way De minimis is applicable. -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm very dissapointed in the way this was handled. So let's try one more time. And let's try to at least pretend that we have read the justifications (in light to Commons policies of course) and comperhend the subject.

At COM:FOP#Estonia you can read that the reproduction is permitted except if the work is the main subject and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes. This means that the reproduction is permitted if both conditions are met. If the work isn't the main subject then the commerical use isn't permitted. Commerical use being allowed essentially means that the restrictions on freedeom of panorama don't apply. So it is about judging what is the "main subject" (in Estonian põhimotiiv) on this image. It is not about de minimis. 90.190.114.172 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, de minimis is a tougher standard than "main subject". Something can be a secondary or even tertiary subject and still not be de minimis. It is completely clear to me that the statue is the main subject of this image -- as I said above, there is nothing else in the image but trees and grass. The statue is not only the main subject, it is the only subject -- the rest is just background.
And, by the way, erasing the closure of an UnDR is a violation of policy. Don't do it again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Reclosed. Original closure was disruptively reopened -FASTILY 11:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Collage Chimbote.jpg

La imagen fue hecha con fotografías publicadas desde una pagina de facebook de la ciudad de chimbote, y solicité que me otorgaran el permiso de hacer un collage de importantes sitios de aquel lugar para aumentar el turismo en la ciudad y colocar una imagen de lo que es Chimbote en Perú. No creo que haya violado el derecho de autor de alguien, pero si lo hice hágamelo saber con un mensaje. Mi ciudad necesita una imagen e intento desde el año pasado darle eso. No tengo intensión alguna de violar ningún derecho a nadie, pero si podría permitir darle una imagen a mi pequeña ciudad le agradecería muchísimo. No violo derechos de autor con aquellas fotografías porque en verdad mi ciudad necesita mostrar sus atractivos. Gracias por entender. Algerald96 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Gerald Alexander Velasquez Guailupo Algerald96 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Almax comprimidos.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is relevant to the page and the medical company agrees in the insertion.Are the same images used in their site but also in other pages in the web, they don't mind to be shared. I don't know exactly the steps to prove that, or how remove the copyright of them to be inserted. Thanks ALRstark (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to restore the image, we will need a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail will have to come from an officer of the corporation owning the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Firstdukeofalbadetormes.jpg

Ya encontré el verdadero retrato del 1er Duque de Alba de Tormes. I found real portrait of 1st Duke of Alba de Tormes.--Parair (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing as inactionable. File has not been deleted -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:HTS-logo-horizontal.jpg

This is the logo for the organization and I believe can be used in accordance with the procedures on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos. It needs to have the "non-free use rationale logo" tag applied to it. The image is from their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/halfthesky Nor*cal skier (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Fair use/Non-free content is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 03:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Boris Vian - WIKI.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: following the OTRS ticket #2014030810010399 , a picture taken from a photo booth has no author and is considered as being in Public Domain. Linedwell (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose This looks like a posed studio portrait taken by a very competent photographer. While I agree that an image made in a photo booth is PD because there is no creative control, how do we know that this fits that description? The image description and source tell us nothing that would confirm it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I just had a look and this doesn't look like a picture from a photobooth to me. Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jim: About the photo booth, Vian's heirs told that in the OTRS ticket mentioned above. Linedwell (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that the Cohérie Boris Vian has to lie about the origin of a photograph, when they lent so many of their archives Cohérie Boris Vian to the Bibliothèque Nationale de France for an exposition (2011), where they very accuratly mentionned the author of all the photos when there was one ? See there iconographie de l'expo. --[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't seriously believe anything about Cohérie Boris Vian. We have more than 20,000,000 images here and more than 25,000 contributors every month. Do you seriously believe that any Commons user actually knows more than a very small percentage of either? I simply expressed an opinion about an image -- an opinion that is shared by one of our colleagues. The thought of a lie never crossed my mind, but people do make mistakes and that is certainly a possibility. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a purple watermark at the image. That is what I found unusual. The file is quite large for a photobooth photo and the image is still very sharp and the pose of the subject looks profesisonal. A picture made by a photbooth is 40 mm wide by 205 mm long. When I use a simpel tool to convert the number of pixels to the actual size it learns me that this file is 192 by 210 mm. So there are some things we need to be sure of before this file should be undeleted. Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
All right then. I shall tell them they are mistaken and send them a copy of your technical remakes. It is no skin out of my nose. I am just sorry because they probably won't send any photograph again, provided they might get mistaken again. Thank you.--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: last minute. I just received a message from Cohérie Boris Vian. It is in french. If you have any difficulty reading it, I am ready to translate. But I better give you the original first. To make it short, they say YOU are mistaken James, together with Natuur12. Here:

From Cohérie Boris Vian (contact@borisvian.org)
Et bien,
c'est un job à temps-plein, de discuter avec ce monsieur.
Si cela vous tente, vous pouvez toujours lui répondre ceci : Il s'agit bien d'un photomaton (et si le monsieur est si spécialiste des photomatons que ça, il aurait pu se dire éventuellement que la photo pouvait provenir de documents officiels, en l'occurrence ici de son permis de conduire international). J'ai scanné la photo, comme vous le dites si bien, car en 1950 on ne faisait pas de photomatons sur clef USB...
En outre, la photo a bien été retouchée par mes soins sur photoshop, afin d'enlever l'agrafe qui tenait la photo au document cartonné.
Enfin, un photomaton est par essence libre de droit. Il n'y a donc pas de copyright dessus. Mais l'objet photo appartient à la Cohérie Boris Vian. cela s'appelle le droit patrimonial. On note également "Collection" ou "Archives Cohérie Boris Vian", pour signifier son appartenance physique.
Je vais imprimer la discussion ci-dessous parce que vraiment, c'est assez fort !
Merci en tout cas de votre patience. et pour l'heure, on ne nous y reprendra plus de vouloir mettre des photos à disposition...
Bien sincèrement,
Christelle Gonzalo
I am still ready to translate all this for you James, and for Natuur12--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't need translation, thank you. I am not certain why you offered twice.
Your correspondent asserts that the image was taken in a photo-booth, but tells us nothing of how she so certain of that. Not all driver's license photos are taken in photo-booths. Is she guessing? Does the image have an imprint on the back telling its source? How is she so sure?
The fact that it came from an official document is, of course, irrelevant and repeated assertions without facts about an event that happened 63 years ago are not convincing.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I offered twice because I was not sure. But one thing I am sure about is : you know very little about photograph in general, getting mixed up bethween a photobooth and a posed studio portrait taken by a very competent photographer. Ha!. So do not loose your time making out you are a specialist. You said you simply expressed an opinion about an image . But you indeed wish to block the undeletion. So please yourself Jim. I am not sure that will get you The Red Badge of Courage [8].--[[Lepetitlord]] ([[Discussion utilisateur|d]]) (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored: The copyright owner says it is a photo-booth. I don't see the need to contest that, and be more royal than the king. She certainly knows what she says. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Bollywood Hungama "film sets" images

The following images were deleted by User:INeverCry with note as "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing".

I am not sure what exactly the reason for the deletion was presented. But as all of these were requested to be speedy deleted by User:Boseritwik, i was honoured to witness a few reasons and contest the speedy deletion by providing my reason on their respective talk pages. However, i missed the above ones from deletion. The reason presented by user might have been; "license clearly states ...with the explicit exception of images from non-Indian events, film sets, screenshots..." The subject license template Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama was modified on 19 October 2013 by User:SpacemanSpiff to introduce this term "film sets". The original OTRS ticket 2008030310010794 does not explicitly list out film set images. I know that SpacemamSpiff had edited the template to add more clarity post various incidences of spotting dubious copyrights claims by the source site. These incidences have been discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama and others have also been noted at Template_talk:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama#Link_collection. Never in the discussions, to my knowledge, was it spotted that "film set" images are on-the-spot-copyvios-waiting-for-deletion. The issue discussed was focusing on Out-of-India location images which were doubtfully/undoubtedly proven to be owned by others and hence deleted. I guess SpacemanSpiff made a mistake by introducing this "film sets" term. Until a different viable reason is presented to delete these images, i would request that they be restored back. A possible mistake in the template editing can't be a good reason for speedy deletion. Also would request Boseritwik to list down any more images which were deleted for this reason which i couldn't trace back and include above.

Too-long-i-didnt-read version: Images be undeleted until different viable reason is presented. The current reason for deletion is based on a probable mistake in editing the license template which accidentally excluded these images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored: as per comment above. Additional I removed the film sets mention in the template. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Pietprotest.jpg + additional photos

I received a notification that several of my photos were deleted from commons after another editor made the assumption that they were not my own work and tagged them for removal. I assure you that they are and can even provide the high(er) resolution originals. They were taken over a period of several years with two different cameras. This is why the resolutions might not have matched-up. Is there anything I can do to have them restored?

Here's a list of the deleted photos. I think this is all of them...

Constablequackers (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored. AGF. Constablequackers, yes, it would better if you upload high(er) resolution originals with EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I renominated File:Peacockpeanuts.jpg as derivative work of the copyrighted characters.


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

File:Roberto Quarta.jpg

Il file immagine del regista Roberto Quarta è stata scattata da me e da me uploadata su vari social network. Oltre al diritto all'utilizzo, ne ho il permesso direttamente da Roberto Quarta.

Potete verificare la veridicità di quanto affermo accedendo al nuovo sito dell'Ecologico International Film Festival, da me gestito con il suddetto Roberto Quarta, dove troverete le immagini sue e mie affiancate nella pagina staff e comitato organizzatore. http://ecologicofilmfestival.it/comitato-organizzatore/ http://ecologicofilmfestival.it/staff/

Io, in pratica, mi occupo della comunicazione delle attività artistiche di Roberto Quarta. Quindi, anche della diffusione della sua immagine.

Spero che questo basti a far tornare File:Roberto Quarta.jpg al suo posto. Grazie --Steconte (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The image file of the director Roberto Quarta was taken by me and by me uploaded on various social networks. In addition to the right to use, I have the permission directly from Roberto Quarta. You can verify the truth of what I say by accessing the new site of the Ecologico International Film Festival, that I manage with Roberto Quarta, where you will find pictures of the staff and the organizing committee. http://ecologicofilmfestival.it/comitato-organizzatore/ http://ecologicofilmfestival.it/staff/ In practice, I deal with the communication of the artistic activities of Roberto Quarta. So even the spread of her image. I hope this is enough to bring back File: Roberto Quarta.jpg in place. thanks --Steconte (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rod Humphries and Lionel Rose 001.jpg

I'm not sure why this photo was deleted in the first place. The author/copyright holder e-mailed the permission using the required template. The lengthy discussion concerning this particular photo may be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rod_Humphries_and_Lionel_Rose_001.jpg#File:Rod_Humphries_and_Lionel_Rose_001.jpg . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beingmarkh (talk • contribs)

There was still no evidence of permission via com:OTRS. That's all. Natuur12 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've communicated with the author/copyright holder. She's an older woman who only acquired an e-mail address for the first time last year, and has to go to the local library to use it, and thus isn't too terribly technologically literate. That is, she doesn't know how to copy and paste, so I suspect she tried to type in the e-mail address and missed a character somewhere. This may take a few days because she's in Australia and I'm not, but once I have confirmation that the permission has been sent I'll revisit this page.

Looks like this is being taken care of. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email, when it is sent -FASTILY 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

In theory, the e-mail has been correctly sent. If nothing has happened in, say, two days from now, then I'll post again to find out where we are. User:Beingmarkh

File:MARINELLA-308x231.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: In quote's law: You can place image if you specify the link. Szczur97 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Junior Diplomat Initiative Logo.png

There is a permission for this file in OTRS (ticket:2014031210016312). --Harold (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Vdana snoubenka.jpg

There is a permission for this file in OTRS (ticket:2014031410007721). --Harold (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:RJ Onyx Moonshadow, March 2014.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own the photo as it is a photo of me and the photographer gave me the photo to use freely. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Since you did not take the picture and copyright may not be transferred without a written agreement, commons policy requires that you have the actual photographer send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When and if that is done, the image will be restored without any further action on your part. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said, COM:OTRS permission is required to restore the file. -FASTILY 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Undeletion requests

Dear admins, please undelete this pictures:

Reason: we have permission for cc-by-sa in OTRS, see this: 2014031610002356

Many thanks --Pallerti (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Texas Premier Soccer League logo.png

Per wikipedia:File:Texas Premier Soccer League Logo.png: ticket #2014022010014051. And please add Category:Association football logos of the United States, Category:Sports in Houston. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored Natuur12 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Игорь_Александрович_Бурганов.jpg

I am the owner of this photo. That I photographed myself using the function of delayed shutter. My site - This photo on my site - http://igorburganov.com/index.php/contacts

 Not done - please send an e-mail to COM:OTRS. JurgenNL (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Hodinovy Hotel Praha.jpg

Approved from the owner

 Not done - please send an e-mail to COM:OTRS. JurgenNL (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:מנחם פינקלשטיין.jpg

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014031610004051. Thanks Hanay (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Iris Eliya Cohen.jpg

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014031710011031 . Thanks Hanay (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Moshe WikiPic.jpg

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014031710012503. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jet Asia Airways Landing in Phuket.jpg

The image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jet_Asia_Airways_Landing_in_Phuket.jpg was deleted by User:JuTa because OTRS permission was not received at Commons. Valid permission was supposed to be sent, but it never was. I have the permission from the photo's owner that I can send over to Commons. Should I send it first, or should the file be temporarily undeleted first? Please let me know how best to proceed. Thanks. --Bernie44 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you send appropriate permission to OTRS, the image will be restored. Note that I say "appropriate" -- it must be a general license, not just for Wikipedia, and must come from the actual owner of the copyright, which is usually the photographer. Ownership of the actual photo is irrelevant. Please review Commons:OTRS to be sure you have an acceptable permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Karyn and Beyonce.jpg

I own this image. I captured this image, in person, with my iPhone. I later posted it on Twitter and media publications picked it up, but I still own the image. The administrator who deleted my image conveniently cannot deal with undeletion today, so I am doing it now. I will be reuploading the image... WHICH I OWN. Mkpr (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The correct file name is File talk:Karyn and Beyonce.JPG. Uploading an image again after deletion is a violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. As noted in the original deletion, the correct procedure is to give Commons a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. This is required whenever an image has appeared on copyrighted web sites before it is uploaded to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Frasers Bridge Glen Clunie Scotland UK.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2014021810015073 --Mdann52talk to me! 14:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Please fix the author, source and categories. Yann (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:William Lobban.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2014031710017188 --Mdann52talk to me! 08:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:132971-6 lakeside.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2014021510010341 --Mdann52talk to me! 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File has been restored and OTRS ticket is now linked in the permission field. Please check that there is no mistake (from me). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@PierreSelim: nope, all is ok --Mdann52talk to me! 14:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Steven goldstein - Capital Club Magazine.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS received Ticket:2014021810015822 --Mdann52talk to me! 13:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:La_Intervia.jpg

Please restore the following pages: File:La_Intervia.jpg No infringe el copyright ya que se trata de una captura de una pantalla de una página web en Creative Commons y de mi propiedad. --Vicencmm (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Vicenç Márquez

 Not done: Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Commons. INeverCry 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Josh Sinder and Tom Niemeyer of The Accused 1990.jpg

please let me know why a picture of myself and my other band member from a photo we own cannot be used here? because mtv.com is using our pic does not mean they own it. thanks --DWRseattle (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Josh Sinder

 Not done: This has been previously published on another website. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed to host it on Commons. Also, owning a photo doesn't necessarily make you the copyright holder. The copyright usually belongs to the photographer. INeverCry 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Shmuel Dotan.jpg

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014031810019951, Thanks. Hanay (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Sangero Book.JPG

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014031810013751, Thanks. Hanay (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Steven Goldstein - 2 European Champion.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014022010015247). --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

this image is not a copyright violation this image is on Flickr here released by its owner LunchBox Studios see their official site they produce the videos for the Walmart Soundcheck see this page for more information. other photos from the same Flickr account were nominated for deletion but were kept see old deletion requests and this deletion request for more information. since the other images were kept this one should be too. Dman41689 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, is that LunchBox Studios may not actually own the copyright to the file. Yes, it's posted on their flickr page, but that was probably done by someone (e.g. intern, publicity agent) unfamiliar with copyright (which unfortunately happens on a fairly frequent basis). Unless it can be demonstrated that LunchBox Studios is in fact the original copyright holder (this will need to be confirmed via COM:OTRS), this file will remain deleted as missing adequate evidence of permission. -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer another editor mainly one who didn't delete it in the first place close this discussion to avoid bias. thank you Dman41689 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Althea Gibson statue.jpg

I have contacted the sculptor of the statue, Thomas Jay Warren, regarding any objection he might have to running a photograph of his statue in the Althea Gibson article. Here is his response:

"I certainly have no objection to the inclusion of that photo or any other photo of the statue of Althea Gibson in the Wikipedia article. Please feel free to include any shots of the statue you wish. If you like, you can even pull them from my website: www.warrensculpture.com. Best regards, Jay Warren"

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the photo in question be un-deleted.

If you would like to contact Mr. Warren personally to verify that he is the author of the above message, and that he has no objection to using a photo of his statue, his e-mail address is warrensculpture@yahoo.com.

Thanks, DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts here. Since Gibson is widely known and respected, it would be good to get permission to use an image of her statue. Please have Mr. Warren send a free license to Commons using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the license he must give is considerably broader than "the inclusion of that photo or any other photo of the statue of Althea Gibson in the Wikipedia article" -- it must include derivative works and all commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am told that Mr. Warren has e-mailed the necessary paperwork. Could we proceed with un-deleting the photo, please? DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An OTRS search turns up no recent hits on either "Althea Gibson" or "Thomas Warren". Also please note that OTRS, like the rest of Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog often runs several weeks. Polite requests for special attention may be honored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close. This matter is now being resolved via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jet Asia Airways Landing in Phuket.jpg (see above)

This file was deleted at Commons, I put in an undeletion request earlier today, which was for some reason closed a few hours later as "not done". Just wanted to note that I have sent in permission to OTRS, hopefully it is sufficient.--Bernie44 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Not done I am not satisfied by the OTRS on this one. The signed agreement leads me to believe that this is simply Bowrey allowing JAA to use his photo. The photo is here. I will contact Bowrey to find out whether he transferred copyright of this photo to JAA; he's quite prominent spotter/photographer here in Australia. Leave this thread open for the time being. russavia (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, thanks. Please let me know if Bowrey verifies the copyright transfer, or if I can be of any help.--Bernie44 (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Greg and husky during filming in Hudson Bay Canada of the polar bear survival documentary, ON THIN ICE. (2007).JPG

Accdg to Wikipedia, this file has been deleted because of the ff. reasons:

Reason for the nomination: Images appear to be taken here as well as elsewhere, suggesting the source might be either corporatevideoaustralia or antarcticchallenge both of which retain all copyrights reserved.

I like to let you know that I am an authorized representative from Corporate Video Australia and that I am tasked to write this Wiki on their behalf.

Thanks! --Corpvideopr (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, As these images were published on the web before you uploaded them. So in this case, we required that you send a permission, even if they are your images. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay will do that, but the file has already been deleted and I have 2 files (also ownworks, waiting to be removed). I can certainly provide permission but accdg to the OTRS "Before you upload the file to Commons,". Can I then, reupload the files? (with the correct persmissions/free license) already?? --Corpvideopr (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Okay I can certainly give the permission. After that, should I re-upload the file (that is already under free license)? And should I do the same procedures accdg tot he COM:OTRS rules for the 2 other files that are candidates for deletion (because they don't have permission yet also). Thanks a lot. --Corpvideopr (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In general your user account represents you, the person who created the account. It doesnt matter if you represent someone or not, content that you not created entirely yourself is not own work. So if you upload something that you obtained from the organization that pays you for the Wikipedia editing, you should
  • use the "Its someone else work" option in the upload wizard
  • provide true source information with the upload - instead of "own work" this means name of the company that provided the content, previous publications etc.
  • the correct author name.
Then provide written permission from the source following COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I already edited the information from the 3 photos off my Uploads page. I edited the portions: Source and Author under the category> Summary. However how can I edit to make it: "It's someone else work"? Would it be allowed if I just delete the said photos and re-upload again using the tips you provided me with? The written permission is on its way.--Corpvideopr (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Игорь_Александрович_Бурганов.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Igor Burganov (login - Igorbur) is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this file

Please follow the instructions at Commons:CONSENT to let us know you have permission to use the file. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:WEG PARQUE FABRIL II.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Those files where uploaded to complete the https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/WEG_Ind%C3%BAstrias article. I'm in WEG's Marketing team and did it under our management request and authorization.

As for the logo, the one currently used (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/WEG_LOGO.gif) , came from a unauthorized website and has a shadow. Such thing is forbidden according to our brand guidelines. 

Luizl weg (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Licenses says that "publication of derivative work must be allowed" for media hosted on Commons. The version with the shadow added (I've made a deletion request) is an example of a derivative work. If the company only wishes that its logo appear in the Wikipedia article about it, the image can be uploaded to Wikipedia rather than to Commons (on those Wikipedias which allow fair use). Rybec (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:FComite - Headshot.jpg File:Doctor Florence Comite (Office).jpg

To whom it May Concern: Nick Coleman sent the release which came as an attachment to an email listed below and attached in this dropbox link Nick Coleman Photo Permissions Please restore the photos Thank you

Hi Juda,

Attached is the photo release information...

Let me know if you need anything else.

All the best, -- -Nick-

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Nick Coleman nick@colemanphotographix.com

/// Coleman Photo/Graphix /// Photography | Design | Graphics 448 West 37th Street, #9B New York NY 10018

PH: 917-447-8056

The permission is insufficient. The required, allowable and non-allowable terms can be found at Commons:PS#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain. The release that you linked is a permission allowing you (we require: everyone) to reuse the file for personal or portfolio purpose (we require: every purpose) except commercial purposes (we require: must allow for commercial purposes). See Commons:OTRS for a template of a declaration of consent and for further instructions. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

New Permission uploaded Here: CPG Permission Juda S. Engelmayer (talk)

 CommentHi Juda, The dropbox file states "Bearer agrees that he/she may not use any CPG images for commercial or editorial purposes", and "Your license does not include use that results in financial gain". This is incompatible with Commons (see Martin H.'s link above). Unfortunate, since they were excellent photos. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The Photographer and Dr Comite send this to me - Please let me know what you need to make this definite. It's a bizarre process when it seems so clear.

From: Nick Coleman <nick@colemanphotographix.com> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Follow-up - Isreal To: Brent Halsey <bhalsey@comitemd.com> Cc: Florence Comite <fcomite@comitemd.com>

Hi Brent,

I think maybe there's a miscommunication - the images may, of course, be used for Wikipedia.

They may not be used to say, accompany an advertisement for a drug company's product line (without consulting first). Similarly, the image couldn't be used as the sole cover for a book or magazine without a conversation with the publisher.

-Nick-

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Nick Coleman nick@colemanphotographix.com

/// Coleman Photo/Graphix /// Photography | Design | Graphics 448 West 37th Street, #9B New York NY 10018

PH: 917-447-8056

http://www.colemanphotographix.com

http://www.Facebook.com/NYHeadshots

http://Twitter.com/ColemanPhoto

On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Brent Halsey <bhalsey@comitemd.com> wrote: Hi Nick,

I guess I was under the impression we bought these pictures from you? Did we never purchase them? Let me know what we need to do to follow-up.

Best,

Brent

Juda S. Engelmayer (talk)

Hi Juda, He needs to say something like "This picture may be used for commercial purposes, and anyone is free to create derivative works based on it". Alternatively, you could point him to a license like Commons:Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License, and have him say he releases these photos under that license. Note, just to save time, that any license that includes language like "You cannot use this for commercial purposes" (like the cc-by-sa-nc) license is not acceptable. Please read what you have been pointed to a few times: Commons:PS#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain, specifically the section "Non-allowable licence terms". Can you see that the photographer very clearly contradicts this when he states "the image couldn't be used as the sole cover for a book"? Commons only allows images for which that statement is not true. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That is the most helpful response I have on this. Thank you. Let me see, maybe I will just go and take pictures myself... :)
Juda S. Engelmayer (talk)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Charles Green Shaw, UNTITLED, oil on board, 11 x 9.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The American artist died in 1974, AND I am the current owner of his original oil painting, which I purchased at auction (Grogan & Co, Massachusetts) several years ago. The picture of Shaw's abstract painting in its frame is of the original work of art in my art collection at my home, and I uploaded the picture personally. 172.56.2.19 21:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright normally subsists for 70 years after an artist's death, so unles you acquired the copyright when you purchased the picture itself, it can't be hosted here. If you still have the documentation from the auction house, I'd advise you to check it to see if the copyright was part of the sale. It might get slightly complicated if it wasn't included, but that's the essential first step. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't date of publication be more relevant for a US-made painting? We don't have the "artist's death" thing here. (Of course, if the copyright was bundled we can skip all of that anyway.) —SamB (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is extremely unlikely that the owner of a US painting owns the copyright unless he is the artist or the artist's heir. Transfer of copyright requires a formal written agreement, not simply an auctioneer's bill of sale for the painting.
I also note that 172.56.2.19 did not upload this image -- IP users are not allowed to upload images. Unless 172.56.2.19 is User:BoolaBoola2, this is not a valid request.
However, I see no copyright notice on the front of the work. It is possible that a notice is hidden by the frame or on the back, but without notice, if the user can show that it was published before 1989 (which would include being exhibited in public, but not being hung in a private setting), then it is PD.
So, there are two routes to keeping it here:
1) Get formal written permission from the artist's heirs using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
2) Provide images of the front and back proving there is no copyright notice AND prove that work was exhibited to the public between its creation in the 1940s and 1975. Note that for a 1940's painting, the only notice required is the creator's name and the symbol "©".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. This will require COM:OTRS permission for restoration. -FASTILY 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:African Honey Bee Logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was deleted due to suspected copyright violation. As the owner, I give permission for this file to be undeleted. Stubbs6 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Democratic Burma (Myanmar) proposal.svg

Invalid reasoning, nominator has been told dozens of times in previous DRs that this is not an acceptable reasoning for files to be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Fry may have told us dozens of times that fictional flags are acceptable, but that is not the case. Personal art is not generally useful for educational purposes and fictional flags that spring out of someone's imagination simply confuse Commons users. Would we keep a US flag that had 50 stripes and 13 stars? No. So why should we keep fictional flags from other nations? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward -- We could choose to delete a random pointless variant of the U.S. flag which did not seem to have any real purpose (especially if there was an attempt to present it as being official, which would be hoaxing), but in fact we have many strange-looking variants of the U.S. flag, some fictional -- File:Flag of Easton, Pennsylvania.svg, File:Flag of the United States Customs Service.svg, File:Jericho flag (TV series).svg, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I can link dozens of these DRs where that reasoning has been completely rejected. The consensus says otherwise. Fry1989 eh? 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I care all that much about this individual file by itself; however, its deletion was contrary to longstanding de facto practices, according to which personally proposed flags or "special or fictional" flags are not normally deleted just for being special or fictional, unless there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). We have many "special or fictional" flags and coats of arms, so occasional sporadic deletion nominations are really not the way to clean up anything -- instead, if it is desired to change the established de facto practices, there should be a centralized policy discussion in a prominent location, such as Commons village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Why, I ask, do we distinguish between fictional flags invented by users, which are likely to confuse other users into believing they have some real basis and other personal art, which we do not keep unless the creator is notable? Our policy on personal art is clear -- are flags not just one case of personal art? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It has always been my understanding that files which are deliberately meant to mislead or confuse are out of scope, while valid expressions of proposals or personal art which is clearly marked as not official in any way is ok. These files were clearly marked as not official and only as a proposal. The notoriety of the proposal or personal work isn't the issue. Fry1989 eh? 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Fry1989 -- the great majority of personally-proposed or "special or fictional" flags and coats of arms are not really "personal artwork" in the sense of an aspiring artist's creative portfolio. Instead, they're usually combinations of previously-existing relevant symbolic elements in new forms. I don't think that the phrase "personal art[work]" is too helpful in the context of this file... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Keep deleted, self-created artwork, not realistically useful for educational purposes. The scope of this project is still to serve as a shared media repository for other projects and to save disc space and capacities. The scope is not to give every individual on the planet a little disc space and a chance to freely express themself by publishing self-created artworks. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How many DRs do I have to link to show that the long-standing consensus for these types of DRs is that Antemister's reasoning is not acceptable and an additional harm must be established for the file to be deleted? I'll link 50 of them if I have to, because this has gone on for a long long time. Fry1989 eh? 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - There are numerous examples of original artwork that are uploaded here. Wikimedia Commons has a specific section devoted to the topic of "flags that do not exist": [9]. It says: "Such subject-matter disputes remain inappropriate even when they are expressed (as they normally are) in absolute terms: "that flag does not exist"; "that boundary is wrong"; "that country does not exist"." There is even a template for fictional flags here. Therefore Antemeister has been violating Wikimedia Commons policy with these deletion requests. Behind the rhetoric used here I see what is really going on: there are a group of deletionist users who are damned intent on saving space, the problem is that they are breaking policy in the process, as I've shown here.--R-41 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • COM:EDUSE is also a policy, and it gives "artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use" as an example of files that are out of scope. COM:NPOV acknowledges this ("If an author has made a clear factual mistake about which there is no serious dispute, an unused file (as-is) may fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose and can be deleted on that basis."). Rybec (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's one interpretation of abstract overall generalized Commons policies, but in the specific realm of "special or fictional" flags and coats of arms, the policy has not traditionally usually been applied in that manner, which is why we have hundreds of "special or fictional" flags and coats of arms images on Commons. Given this situation, sporadically sniping at a few individual files with occasional deletion nominations is really not the way to clean up anything or resolve policy issues. AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
According Commons:Project scope, 3.4.4 Examples, item 2 ("Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use"), it should be clear that such flags are out of scope - Commons is not a webspace provider ofor private image collections. To make it worse, such files confuse editors of smaller language WPs with little knowledge of the english language, which leds to the fact that such images are shown as officially used ones. That de "facto policy of keeping such files" is somewhat invented by users like Anonmoos - it just seems that in the past there were few DRs for such images.--Antemister (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't nominate these files because they're out of scope, you nominate them because "No fictional stuff, please". You're under the strange impression fictional content has no place on Commons period. That's simply not true. Fry1989 eh? 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Antemister -- unfortunately for you, that happens not to be the case. Many hundreds or even thousands of image files organized into elaborate category hierarchies, and uploaded by many different individual users over six or seven years, don't persist on Commons over long periods merely by accidental neglect. That's simply not the way things work here. Furthermore, random sporadic deletion nominations here and there every so often are simply not a viable solution to the claimed problem which you perceive. In any case, you certainly aren't making friends or influencing people here with your dogmatic denial that a longstanding de facto practice has existed when other people know that it has in fact existed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Which we have hundreds of. If it was such a valid reason, they would all be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The probably should, however en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a reason to keep anything. LGA talkedits 22:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies do not organically translate to Commons, you know that! Even if they did, you're completely misusing that policy to justify your beliefs over the longstanding consensus. Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Fictional Flags I nominate are private artwork and thus out of scope, that's why I want to have them deleted. Fictional flags, that apeared, for example, in movies, can be uploeded on Commons to illustrate articles about such movies.--Antemister (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The general opinion and LGA's explanation is conclusive: ... however en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a reason to keep anything. --Alan (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Anonymous Venus of Urbino.jpg

It is not a duplicate as stated by user who have deleted the file approx 5 min after uploading not even giving me the chance to discuss. It is a 17th cent copy of the original painting allowing us to make comparison in style and technique changes. Please restore the file and it's description Vert (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you undelete the file? Vert (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Similar but not the same. --Alan (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Purple hand.svg

not coyrightable, perhaps own work 89.71.161.130 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PRP. It is not clear his copyright status. --Alan (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Katihar jn..jpg

--Ahmad5.farah (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ahmad5.farah 22 March, 2014

 Not done per Jim. --Alan (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Natalia Poklonskaya fanart.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have provided the exact source and explicit permission to upload this file to wikipedia, this is entirely outragious!

http://puu.sh/7FFXd.png Cipheos (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
Hi Cipheos, a permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Wikimedia Commons only hosts free content, see Commons:Licensing. If you receive a permission to publish the image under a free license, please send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the file can be restored. (See Commons:Email templates for an example how a permission mail should look like.) As long as there is no permission to use this image under a free license:  keep deleted. --ireas (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is a clear copyright violation. ie: ©2014 deviantART. All rights reserved See COM:OTRS. --Alan (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Hélène Frédérick.gif

Bonjour, Cette photo, fournie par l'auteur, est libre de droit. Bien cordialement, --Shanahan (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violation: 1, 2, 3, ... --Alan (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:EATC insignia free.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no copyright violation - the file comes from the EATC website and is freely available for download.


Moreover following text is written above the file:

"EATC Insignia Preview image: Left click. To download: Right click and select "save image as" (or something similar)." There is no copyright on this file - it can be used without restriction.


See also: http://eatc-mil.com/46/Media- Pasbal (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an image is freely available on the internet does not mean that it is free as in ‘free content’ (see Commons:Licensing). To undelete this image, we need a permission by the author to use it under a free license (see Commons:OTRS). As long as we don’t have that permission:  keep deleted. --ireas (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. From eatc-mil.com: As not otherwise stated, all contents of the EATC web presence, especially information, texts, pictures, graphics, voice and video files are under the EATC copyright. Any multiplication, publication and / or distribution of any content of the web page require the confirmation of the EATC. The commercial use of any content is prohibited. Alan (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ransom Riggs - 2013.jpg

Hi there. A photograph I took of Ransom Riggs was deleted, apparently on suspicion that it infringes copyright. It does not. I am the author, owner, and sole copyright holder of this image, and I have placed it into the Commons legally. Please undelete this image, as it is a far better illustration of what this guy really looks like than the image currently on his page.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Viskosität von Flüssigkeiten.png

new

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete at least temporarily. Although the image has been removed and the article w:de:Viskosität has changed quite a lot since then, there is still a section which refers to the image and is hard to understand without. The reason for deletion might have been correct, but even then, I am curious what it looked like. Furthermore it appears to be made up of two "Points". The first seems to be a visualisation that might still be useful. Debenben (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. The picture is not wrong, but very very missleading. The velocity profile that was criticized is supposed to be the the white dashed line that is merely visible and the black one is just a visualization of what a gradient or a velocity profile in general is. The problem seems to be, that this illustration and explaination was not given in the description but only in the article w:de:Viskosität so that everyone mistook the black line for the actual Velocity profile. I am going to create a new image based on this one without this problem. Maybe it is best to leave the file restored, so that I can upload a new version, otherwise I will have to create a new file.--Debenben (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a new one based on the old one, where the dotted line is visible and added a proper description. Unfortunately I couldn't just replace the old with a new version because I wanted to upload it as an svg file and not png.--Debenben (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved; new version uploaded at File:Viskosität von Flüssigkeiten svg.svg -FASTILY 04:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Me and my hero Ryan Hiley.jpg

I tried to remove the deletion request as I am the one who submitted it but I guess it was still in the deletion log. I would like to undelete it if possible. HappyHubie415 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-upload it if you still want to use the image -FASTILY 04:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:DalaiLama-13 lg.jpg

http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaksan:DalaiLama-13_lg.jpg This image is in the public domain, because it was published in : Francis Younghusband, India and Tibet, Ed John Murray, 1910. I saw it in this book. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In the US, this image is clearly in the public domain as it was published before 1923 ({{PD-1923}}). But what about the country of origin? That seems to be India. In India, photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation. So this image is in the public domain both in the US and in the country of origin.  Undelete. --ireas (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Alan (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Adolfo Suarez Illiana.jpg

Es una foto publica esta en internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioantolin (talk • contribs)

 Oppose:
  1. The file has not yet been deleted.
  2. Copying my post from two hours ago: The fact that an image is freely available on the internet does not mean that it is free as in ‘free content’ (see Commons:Licensing). To keep this image, we need a permission by the author to use it under a free license (see Commons:OTRS).
--ireas (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 No está borrada Que esté en internet no implica que esté libre de derechos de autor. COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Alan (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Deleted: Copyright violation. --Alan (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Labanya Dutta Goswami.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: that was my mothers picture and i dnt understand why i need license for that Kasturi saikia (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Out of project scope, non educacional use. Commons isn't a hosting for personal photos. Alan (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Violetta_Dimmi_Che_Non_Passa_2014-01-26_17-54.jpg

It is the cover of an EP I'm writing an article about. I'm not sure about the policy of Commons in such cases, but for sure I find several album covers in Wikipedia articles. What am I supposed to do in order to legally upload it? Thanks for helping.

It may be possible to use the cover e. g. in the English Wikipedia based on the fair use exception. However, the cover is not free content, and fair use is not allowed on Commons. See COM:FU for more information.  Keep deleted. --ireas (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:FU. Per Ireas. Alan (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Carole_Aurouet_chez_Lipp.jpg

Auteur - Feriel GOULAMHOUSSEN

 Not done: The file hasn't been deleted yet. COM:OTRS permission from Feriel Goulamhoussen/Saffraa Photography is needed. A permission email should be sent to OTRS as soon as possible. INeverCry 22:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Nyzzy Nyce.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We own this file and can provide proof of ownership. How can we provide the proof of ownership so that this can be undeleted? 80.15.105.11 23:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, see COM:OTRS and COM:Email templates. --ireas (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. See COM:OTRS and follow the instructions. Regards, Alan (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rabbits-lynch.png

This image is shared publicly and it is not copyrighted. David Lynch shared his movie under a free license, that is a creative commons license, and it is the Share Alike 3.0 license. I request undeletion and I request to have a look at the Rabbits article in English.

 Not done As far as I can see, this image is 100% non-free. The exact same image on enwp has fair-use rationale -FASTILY 04:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ConexiónDigital.jpg

The Undeletion request is taken as the ConexiónDigital Trademark was publised under the Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons License as shown in their own page.

Files uploaded by Gamera1123

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I gained official permissions from photographer/publishers and they appreciate uploading, however, I need to know and show them how to give permissions on Wikimedia to undelete each photos. Gamera1123 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send the permission to COM:OTRS. Thanks. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:European_Parliament,_Strasbourg#Files_in_Category:European_Parliament.2C_Strasbourg_2

Request temporary undeletion

Please undelete the files mentioned in the deletion request by russavia as I want to transfer them to the German Wikipedia where the freedom of panorama applies (Schutzlandprinzip). Thanks. --ireas (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How would publishing these under a claim of FoP in Germany, change the potential claim of copyright by the architect under French law, which can be presumed as applying until such as time as anyone can point to alternate copyright provisions for Strasbourg? By the same reasoning, we could apply the UK FoP licence on the English Wikipedia for photographs taken in any country without FoP, which does not seem a rationale for undeletion. --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The German language Wikipedia only applies German, Austrian and Swiss copyright law, due to the lex loci protectionis. The project policy that describes and allows this approach is WP:BR (especially the paragraphs WP:BR: Wikipedia richtet sich nach dem DACH-Recht and WP:BR: Panoramafreiheit – Schutzlandprinzip, both German). --ireas (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of lex loci protectionis in IP law, however this seems an irrelevant rationale to apply as there is no claim of copyright for the building being made in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. The building remains in Strasbourg, and our necessary concern for the Architect's copyright is under French law unless someone can produce an alternative legal act that applies in Strasbourg. The circumstances would remain identical if uploaded to the German language Wikipedia, in fact this is a slightly worse situation than uploading these to the English Wikipedia as at least there one can attempt to apply the Fair Use guidelines for which there in no equivalent in de.wp. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that this policy in the German language Wikipedia can be critized – but it exists, and it is tolerated both by the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland. If you want to change this policy, you are welcome to join the discussion on Urheberrechtsfragen. But I don’t think that a Commons admin has to judge the rules of an other project in order to temporarily undelete a file for a transfer. Regards, --ireas (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no criticism for a valid lex loci protectionis policy on de.wp. However the policy is irrelevant as there is no claim of copyright that would be made anywhere other than in Strasbourg. It literally can not apply regardless of how excellent or useful the policy is for images for which it can apply. It is like arguing how nutritious apples are, when you are actually buying oranges. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Temp-undeletion for transfer to :de is not a problem.
IMO, it would be more productive to discuss the fact that the depicted building is said to be extraterritorial. Thereby, French FOP probably wouldn't apply. However, which FOP might apply? --Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
When someone starts pointing to actual copyright law that applies in the European Parliament region within Strasbourg, that is not identical to French law and is more than wild speculation, then we could discuss whether this is a FoP exception or not. Several weeks of discussion has passed and nobody has found any tangible or relevant hard evidence that the Architect does not have rights that the Wikimedia community should respect for these photographs. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the problem? Isn't the combination of de:Template:Panoramafreiheit with de:Template:Schutzlandprinzip essentially the German/Austrian/Swiss version of w:Template:FoP-USonly? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that looks similar. And in the same way that that template applies to photographs taken in the USA, the rationale presented here applies to photographs taken in* Germany, Austria or Switzerland (* - or where a claim of copyright is made in those countries under lex loci protectionis). Strasbourg is in none of those places and is subject to completely different copyright laws. --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, which law to use normally depends on where the material is used, not on the source country of the work. This is also how English Wikipedia uses its w:Template:Non-free fair use template, relying only on US law and not on the law of the source country. For example, the article w:Bamse contains an image, although using an image there is illegal under Swedish law. It is perfectly legal to use photographs of French buildings in Germany and the United States, but you can't use photographs of German or American buildings in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Undelete I agree, the rule is not about where a picture is shot, but about where the picture is uploaded/hosted. --Gambo7 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


I have started temporarily-undeleting batches of FOP-de compliant images yesterday. --Túrelio (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I transferred all files now. This undeletion request can be closed. --ireas (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

These have all been transferred to de-wiki -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Emblem of the Holy See usual.svg

The file has been speedydeleted for "Recreation of content deleted per community consensus: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Holy See, usual.svg", but it is evident that the file is not the same, and is not recreating a deleted image: mine was 100% derived from commons images (just read the file infos to see it). --Gambo7 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted to assist discussion --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. What discussion? This is not fair use, it's a free derived image --Gambo7 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So where do I have to keep the discussion? The deletion procedure has been improperly closed --Gambo7 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gambo7 is not telling the full truith, the file is a partial derivative of a copyrighted work. It must be re-deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You are in total bad faith (or so blind): this (previously uploaded in fair use as File:Emblem of the Holy See, usual.svg) is completely different from this --Gambo7 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If by "bad faith" you main I don't trust you, that's right. You uploaded copyrighted works and show no understanding of derivatives. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
With "bad faith" I mean your intentional claiming that some normal derivative works from Commons' images should be copied from copyrighted images elsewhere, even if they are 100% different. --Gambo7 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is they are not 100% different. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Everything is different in them --Gambo7 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I asked the "speedydelete" for the first revision of the emblem and now I see a substatial different image. I think it should not be removed from Commons. In the worst case, it shoud be discussed as normal DR. -- Fulvio 314 17:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussione should continue on its DR, not here... But it's been closed --Gambo7 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Partial derivative work which violates the copyright of a recent work. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL, you were claiming File:C o a Vatican city.svg was a copyviol even if it's completely derivative from the PD image in use now, and now you claim this one also should be violating copyright because it's partially derivative of a full free image? You are in such a bad faith... --Gambo7 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you capable of any reasoning without personally attacking me? If not, just shut up, it makes you look like you're trolling. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have tried and you simply reject it. That's not my fault, it's yours. Fry1989 eh? 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I reject opinions, you did not bring any fact (references), where is my fault? -- Fulvio 314 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 Support undeletion I think. I fail to see what is the copyvio here. What is the source image this is a derivative of? I see it used the tiara only from a deleted file, so the only way there could be a problem here is if that tiara is copyrighted in yet another source. I'm not even sure that other image should have been deleted. The tiara is nothing like the one in the fair-use file on it-wiki, and from the looks of the Google cache, the deleted File:C o a Vatican city.svg has nothing in common with it either (other than the basic design, which is not copyrightable). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently ok, per Carl -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:C o a Vatican City.svg

removed double request from User:Echando una mano

Please undelete File:C o a Vatican City.svg, because it is not a derivative work of copyrighted images. There has been a discussion already where every user agreed about it, the copyvio was claimed by one user only, who was in obvious bad faith --Gambo7 (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The unsuccessful Deletion Request made clear how the "copyright issues" have no reasons because there isn't any derivation from copyrighted images: who now claims violations is in obvious bad faith, taking part in a little war brought by few members who put negative feelings on here --Gambo7 (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps consideration should also be given to Gambo7's action in imposing File:C o a Vatican City.svg as the only version of the Vatican City State coat of arms in all language editions of Wikipedia without prior discussion. Esoglou (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Actions made by an user on a wiki are not not a valid reason to delete an image from Commons; especially if the deletion has the "copyvio" motivation.
And, moreover, if they were an actual improvement (the image is so good that somebody thought it was copied!): different wikis have thanked me for that (as you can see on some of my discussion pages, but I did also receive "Thank you" notifications) -Gambo7 (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The use of national emblems is typically subject to certain restrictions outside the scope of copyright law.[10] -- Perhelion (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)(stroked me, it seems out of relation here) -- Perhelion (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What is happening on Commons is a total shame, some few members are mining the bases of the concept of free works and and trying to impone their own single one view --Gambo7 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Support The User:Denniss has deleted the file File:C o a Vatican City.svg ignoring this discussion and the decision of another administrator to maintain the file. Echando una mano (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose You failed to provide evidence for PD status of the emblem used in this COA so the only choice was to delete it to prevent you and 2-3 others from damaging the project. Over the years we had too many COAs and similar images deleted because a a part of this image was found to be copyrighted. The force-replacement of the old image to this version by you and 2-3 other involved editors from it wiki in multiple other wikis wasn't a good sign, more like proving a point. --Denniss (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Part? Which part was copyrighted? You can't find any, because the keys were from File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg and the tiara was designed by me. --Echando una mano (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look between the coats of arms in this comparision --Echando una mano (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't been able to prove the original work is PD, despite all your squabbling. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the proof: the original work is File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg, which shows a PD-old tag (even if it's a own work, so it should have a PD-own, not a PD-old). --Gambo7 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Then File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg has to be deleted too. --Echando una mano (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't, because it is a completely original work. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't original work. Look at this this comparision. --Echando una mano (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You @Fry1989 and Denniss are intentionally denying the evidence that File:C o a Vatican City has nothing to do with the copyrighted emblem of Vatican State; you are in bad faith and trying to impone your own wills, acting out of Commons laws too. --Gambo7 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's just pretend that's true for one moment. How is it any different from you and Echando una mano edit warring to impose your renditions all over the place? The concerns I and Denniss have are valid, you on the other hand have no validity in anything you say or do. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Your own concerns are not a valid reason to delete an image from commons. It's just a ridicuolous excuse: if somebody, let's say, puts an image of Lady Gaga on every single article of every single wikis, would you delete that image just becuase somebody is adding it on wikis? Concerns on wikis must be debated on the single wikis, not on commons. As I already stated, some admins on wiki have thanked me for that improvement, so also your concerns are quite irrelevant --Gambo7 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
My concerns are valid enough that the file was deleted, so yeah... It doesn't matter how much of an improvement your image is if it violates copyright. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
In facts more than one user said that your copyvio concerns were wrong and without reasons, and one admin certified it. But you and Denniss went on with your bad faith, without following the basic rules of Commons and Wiki principles. --Gambo7 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Derivative work which violates copyright. Fry1989 eh? 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
How is it possible to violate copyright if it was derivative from File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg (free-use)? --Echando una mano (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a good question. All illustrations of Category:Coats of arms of the Vatican City are derivative work. If there are some PD-old (but most are PD-self what is clearly wrong and nobody cares) a derivative work can not make a new copyright. If not all must be deleted. It seems no rational handling here, rather arbitrary. I mean that all are PD-old. -- Perhelion (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No they aren't. You don't understand the idea of "derivative works" at all. You also don't seem to understand that age plays just as much a part. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
And neither do you, Fry1989, because you can't even see that this deleted image was obviously derived from that PD image wwe are using. You keep saying it's derivative from another image even if thy are totally different. --Gambo7 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand it very well which is why it was deleted. Fry1989 eh? 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Support Already discussed, discussion should be respected, there is nothing copied. -- Fulvio 314 19:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The "discussion" didn't address the original copyright of the image, it was a strong-arm of a bunch of users who just wanted it to stay. Copyright concerns override everything else. Fry1989 eh? 19:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The Commons community stated that it was only you pretending to see a copyvio. An admin certified it. So you are refusing to acknowledge the will of the community of Commons. This is not acceptable. --Gambo7 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Commons Community" didn't have a say at all. If you think a number of users who I can count on one hand constitutes the Community, that's laughable. And admins make mistakes, most importantly in this case the closing admin merely counted votes instead of recognizing the concern over copyright had not been properly addressed. It doesn't matter if 50 users voted for the file to stay, if the file is copyrighted it still has to be deleted over the voice of those 50. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The Commons community noticed how your claiming about the "copyright concerns" have no reasons, because it's clearly derivated from a PD image (File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg) and not from the official emblem. Your personal and immotivated concerns can perhaps be solved elsewhere, maybe with the help of his theories. --Gambo7 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Be careful, you might want to think harder before you speak like that. Fry1989 eh? 21:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Fry1989: It appears that your opinion is in contrast with the admin's one (Steinsplitter), I ask you again here (as done in DR) to give us the basis on which we can find evidence of copied material, otherwise it will be difficult to believe simply to your word in constrast to the admin decision, thank you in advance. -- Fulvio 314 08:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Fry1989 is sometimes in contrast to himself (from file to file). How changeable are his reasoning (in relation to here): 5.3.2014 -- Perhelion (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact it is partially derived of a document which has not been proven to be in the Public Domain is concern enough. The onus is on the uploader. Fry1989 eh? 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not a fact. Up to now it is your opinion. The uploader stated clearly that was derived from a PD file plus an original design invented by himself, up to now, this is a proof. If you want to negate this fact, you must provide a contrary proof, I mean the copied part. Exactly as for all other copyviol. I simply cannot imagine how to give a proof that a creation of mine is not copied from anyhing, when I upload a picture created by me, I put it in PD and stop. If somebody else finds a copyviol, indicates it and all is resolved. When you requested the deletion of the Vatican emblem (2012) it was so clearly declared (C) on the web site and absolutely copied by me (without bad intention, just ignorance) that I myself turned it to "speedydelete", without problems, no questions, no discussions. So please, make this case solid based. I would see the source picture where you found the original copied part. Thanks. -- Fulvio 314 07:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What document? --Carnildo (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Support based on previous discussions. The fact an artist used "inspiration" from existing CoA designs does not matter at all; what matters is if the specific expression is used (the exact lines, small details, etc.) If it is a different drawing, then it is a separate expression of the same idea, and an independent copyright. From what I see in the Google cache, I do not see anything derivative in here. Seems like it is just a version of an existing file with a different tiara -- so someone would need to demonstrate that tiara was copied (meaning the precise expression) from an existing source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently ok, per Carl -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Photograph album of V.W. Peters, 1928-2002 (Peters album~1).jpg and other pre-1946 photographs

Photographs in the Peters album taken during his missionary work in Korea before 1946 are all public domain in accordance with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. This was explained in the DR and has been explained again on the deleting admin's user talk page. There seems repeated confusion about Korea being under Japanese colonial rule at that time. Now raising for an independent undeletion review as there is no copyright basis for these deletions, regardless of a statement from Peters' estate that they have a claim of copyright which does not seem based on any copyright law.

Photographs include this image linked and all associated images linked (under other_versions) that are pre-1946. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The only significant question here is whether these images were published in Korea before 1946. If so, then {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} applies. However, nothing has been said about the issue in the file description or the DR. This appears, therefore, to be a case of a family photo album which has seen its first publication recently. The Japanese tag is not applicable merely because the images were taken in Korea if they were not published there, and the US rule of 70 pma applies, with copyright expiring in 2072.
I also note that DR was initiated by the following on the file's talk page:" This is copyrighted material. I am the grandson of the subject and our family retains all the rights to these images." I am disturbed by Fae's dismissing this comment from a putative copyright holder. While the quoted sentence does not fulfill the exact statutory requirements for a DMCA takedown notice, it comes very close, and it is firm WMF policy that we comply with such notices unless it can be clearly shown that they are wrong or abusive.
In the absence of clarity about both of these issues, I see no way to restore any of these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The law is fully specified for photographs taken before 1946 under Japanese colonial rule, there is nothing here that needs further clarification. I carefully reviewed the original release and the copyright law of Japan/Korea before uploading these images. I did not "dismiss" any claim of copyright without due consideration. The photographs in question have been public domain for more than half a century as the date should be calculated from creation, not the date of death of the photographer, nor a date of being placed or published on a database in the USA. There is no valid claim of copyright for these photographs taken under Japanese colonial rule. If we allow "claw back" of material that non-US governments have judged to be public domain because anyone can release the same photographs at any time on a US hosted database, then there is no point in Commons even attempting to recognize non-US copyright law.
Using precisely the same flawed argument that we much treat all photographs as if they were created in the USA, one could justify deletion of all pre-1917 Imperial Russia photography for which there may be doubt as to whether 70 years have passed since the death of the photographer. In fact, by this logic, the act of uploading non-US scanned photographs to Commons might "create" a US based copyright for otherwise public domain photographs. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Country of origin is the country of first publication. If these were personal photographs and never published until now in California, then the country of origin would be the U.S. And if they were unpublished until recently, their U.S. copyright would be 70pma regardless of what the country of origin is (so, PD in 2083, as the author apparently died in 2012 at age 109). Secondly, the fact that Korea was under Japanese rule at the time would not necessarily mean that Japan would be the country of origin today -- if published at the time in Korean territory, it would probably be North Korea or South Korea. Colonies, while often using laws passed by the controlling country, typically have a separate legal history and the modern countries would be the legal successors, so it could depend on later developments in those copyright laws. If their law retroactively restored copyright, that could also be an issue. But unless there was evidence of publication at the time (in Korea or somewhere else), the U.S. copyright is almost certainly still valid as unpublished works through 1989 and will be under copyright for a long time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid your generic assumption is not true for pre-1946 photographs under Japanese colonial rule. The Japanese government clearly made all these public domain calculated from the date of creation alone; purported later dates of publication are not part of the law. Please refer to the template above; if the consensus of admins is that the template is now meaningless and Commons does not respect Japanese IP law, then it should be put up for deletion. This deletion, if supported, sets a useful precedent for re-interpreting many historic photographs hosted on Commons which would now have to be deleted if we are consistent.
I count over 14,000 photographs that would be in this situation—being declared PD under JP colonial rule but if we believe they should be treated as if they were created in the USA, they would have to be deleted. That is an awful lot of Deletion requests to create. :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Commons policy is that works must be publication in both the U.S. and the country of origin (with the country of origin being determined by Berne Convention rules). The copyright in both cases can be related (due to the URAA), but they are independent determinations and must be tracked separately. For the U.S... all unpublished works kept their copyright no matter what until 1978, at which point they were given at least 25 years of protection, and if still unpublished after that, revert to the post 1978 rule of 70pma. For works unpublished through 2003, the URAA does not matter for the U.S. copyright term, so any foreign copyright laws would not enter into it. The date of publication is paramount to determining the U.S. copyright term; for any chance at all of being PD in the US, they must have been published before 1989. If not, then a DMCA request would result in deletion 100% of the time -- they are under copyright pure and simple and the Foundation would have to take them down. For the county of origin, Berne says that is the country of first publication. If these were private photos and only published after the author returned to the U.S., then the U.S. would be that country anyways. If they were first published in modern-day Japan, then yes, PD-Japan-oldphoto might enter into it. If they were first published in modern-day Korea, then while the law at the time was undoubtedly based on the year of creation, you have to look at subsequent Korean copyright laws. Some laws have a nasty habit of retroactively restoring copyright; in those cases the old terms are rendered mostly irrelevant. Japan's changes to lengthier terms were not retroactive, thus that old law can still have effect when we can show that copyright under the old terms ended before Japan's newer laws took effect, and that they remain PD there today. For a counterexample, the UK also based terms on year of creation for photos taken before June 1957, so photos became PD regularly. However, the UK retroactively restored all of them on January 1, 1996 to 70pma, so that old law is basically meaningless. I am not sure of Korea's subsequent law changes... the old law might still be relevant for copyright status in modern-day South Korea, but I'm not sure. The legal history for each country needs to be tracked and that is often harder. The details of publication are paramount in determining both the U.S. copyright term, and also determining which is the country of origin. For Japanese photographs, PD-Japan-oldphoto is absolutely relevant, although if a Japanese photograph remained unpublished through 1989, then its U.S. copyright would be 70pma (or 120 years from creation if the author is anonymous, or a corporate work) regardless of what the term is in Japan. PD-Japan-oldphoto would be valid for the country of origin side, but we would also need a U.S. rationale as well for any work hosted here. But coming back to these works... we would need evidence of first publication in Japan for Japan to be the country of origin. We would need evidence of first publication in Korea to use South Korea (or North Korea) as the country of origin, where those old Japanese terms may or may not still have relevance. And independent of the country of origin copyright... we need to show how the U.S. copyright expired to keep them anyways. Publication without copyright notice is a very common avenue for lots of foreign works (provided they also avoided the URAA), but for any work remaining unpublished through 1989, the U.S. copyright was never lost and therefore did not need restoration, and with a known human author, the term is 70pma. We have to follow U.S. law; we have to prove previous publication before we can even hope for a PD determination. A DMCA request would result in deletion with virtual certainty. Also, the albums contain a lot of text.... that seems to have been written in the 2000s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Carl, you appear to have written a long statement without understanding the history of Korea under Japanese colonial rule. I suggest you take time to reflect on it as your statements with regard to later Korean law are misleading. Japanese IP law states these examples of pre-1946 photographs (admittedly we may need to crop them to avoid including any later text) are fully public domain based on creation. If Commons is going to ignore that, then we must now review more than 14,000 existing photographs that rely on {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and delete the majority of them as either we do not know when they were scanned/first published or we do not know the death date of the photographers. Basically we should remove PD-Japan-oldphoto as an option for photographs. --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
They might be PD in Korea today -- I'm not sure. You would have to look at the transitional clauses of subsequent Korean laws to determine if the older Japanese terms are still relevant there (they might be). However, you are ignoring the mechanics of U.S. copyright, which is often independent of foreign copyright law -- it's entirely possible (and very likely in this case) for works to be PD elsewhere, but still under copyright in the U.S.. You have also not shown why you think South Korea or Japan qualifies as the country of origin under the terms of the Berne Convention (Article 5(4)). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes they are PD in Korea, they did not retrospectively introduce copyright to Japanese works. As for the Berne convention, Japan is a signatory, their law is compliant with it, in particular when respecting foreign works, which these are not (as they are PD under Japanese law).
Again either we apply {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} or we should delete it. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Undeleted: {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} applies here. Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jaime Gajardo Orellana.jpg

Foto sacada bajo autorización de Jaime Gajardo desde su fanpage. Tomada por su equipo para la campaña pasada.

--Vargasr (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Entrenos poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Upload realizado pela agência Social Tailors, que trabalha junto com a Paris Filmes, uma das distribuidoras oficiais do filme Entre Nós no Brasil. 177.148.225.54 12:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Startup Grind 2014 Official.jpg

I am new to Wikipedia and apologize for not being able to get to this file fast enough to update the license information. It is my fault for not including that information when the file was first uploaded, but I am new to wikipedia editing and just thought I'd be able to circle back and add it once I figured out which one was appropriate. I realize now I should just figure that part out first before the upload, I was merely trying to flesh out the page I was constructing. In fact I have license info for every image that's been called into question or deleted.

Now I would like to add license info but cannot do so as the file has been removed and there is nothing for me to attach the appropriate info to. Please restore these images and upon notice I will correct them with the proper licensing.

--Habitualentrepreneur (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Nova-Bulgaria-2014-Logo.png

I've been authorized by the creator of the picture to publish it here

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Blitzkarte 28.07.2013.gif

Die Erlaubnis das Bild zu veröffentlichen liegt per email vor. Hier der Auszug:

Hallo Erik,

kein Problem, die Lizenz der Bilder auf blitzortung.org und lightningmaps.org entspricht CC-BY-NC.

Hier findest Du die nötigen Bilder: http://www.lightningmaps.org/blitzortung/europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_hour_range=15&bo_oldmap=de_rad&bo_oldani=1&bo_map=de_rad&bo_year=2013&bo_month=7&bo_day=28&bo_hour_from=13&bo_animation

Viele Grüße Tobias


Am 14.03.2014 21:38, schrieb Erik Christmann: > Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, > > > > ich schreibe einen Wiki-artikel zur Unwetterlage vom 28.07.2013. > > Hierfür möchte ich eine GIF Animation an Radarbildern zum besagten Tag > > in den Wikipedia-artikel ein pflegen. Dürfte ich hierzu auf die > > Blitzbilder zurück greifen ? Interessant wäre das > > Zeitfenster von 15 – 19 Uhr MEZ. Selbstverständlich wird auf einen > > Quellenhinweis geachtet. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > > > Erik Christmann > > >

-- Regards and much fun, Tobias

Blitzortung.org - A real-time, community based lightning detection and lightning location network with live lightning maps.

Already a participant? Additional support in our internal forum after login on www.Blitzortung.org -> Services.

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tracy Beasley.jpg

This picture was given to me by the owner of the picture himself and is free to public use. It can be found on his website, on Google, any several other places. I have solid confirmation from the owner that I'm allowed to use the photo.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:You Don't Know Me.pdf

Hi,

i request a restore of the image linked above. I have the rights to use and upload that picture. Link: http://www.ydk.me/ The User who created that picture is called Tobias "panikK" Götz and I have the permission to use that picture in the article about our clan. for more licence information see: http://www.ydk.me/index/contact/imprint


Greetings Felix Borst aka. Rumbler777

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jermaine Dupri Startup Grind Tee 2013.jpg

This image falls under the Creative Commons License {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} and therefore should be attributed this license and undeleted please

--Habitualentrepreneur (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dcdavanagere.jpg

I really feel offended for getting deleted the image not once, but twice even after strongly positioning myself towards the authenticity of the image and it's originality. But, again the image has been deleted for no valid logical reason. If anyone feels as such the image was sourced from somewhere, i would like to request them to prove the same. Also, i would like to contest the deletion by submitting any other required information and am even ready to upload similar images of the construction shot at the same time with my device. Hoping for the good. Thank you. --Irrigator (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Bwisok

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014013010015408). --Mdann52talk to me! 11:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, except File:CathyLuchetti.jpg. Are you sure that this ticket covers this one? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: No, it appears the permission email does not cover it, although the sender alluded to it. Please delete File:CathyLuchetti.jpg only. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done except one. Yann (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:SAGA Official Light.jpg

I am official person to support this group SAGA and getting permission to use this picture please unblock.

2014.03.25 sagafan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagafan (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:PekkaTuuri.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Pekka Tuuri owns the rights for this picture. He has requested that this picture would be used on his wikipedia page. Emily3s (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Affiche Merz-Inn 25-mrt-1988.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was removed for supposed copyright violations, but the without mentioning on what ground that assumption was made. The picture involved is a picture of an original poster I made myself (with some friends) for a theatrical performance way back in 1988. I even have the original photographic reproduction in my possession (the original collage consisting of small shreds of a public local newspaper has been lost in time unfortunately). Since I am the creator I have full right by both Dutch and international laws to put this picture in public domain. If not, i would be grateful to hear a solid reason. Eyebidem (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Niko_Pelinka.jpg deletion request was delete, and then restored

Subject of photograph requested the deletion Ticket:2014022610007791

  • I am no politician and i don't have any function in the socialdemocratic party.
  • My visit of the event "Maiaufmarsch 2013" was strictly private.
  • I did not give any permission to use pictures of me attending this event.

It was deleted, and then restored due to uploader's statement Special:PermanentLink/118670189

  • Derivative file
  • Flickr source no longer being present is not a valid reason for deletion

Subject of photo was told of deletion, though not informed of restoration. The original complainant has again requested the deletion of the image.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment

It would seem that the DR discussion and restoration did not focus on the aspects of personality rights (as per the ticket) and instead focused on that another image was not requested. That another image was not requested should not be the issue, and the deletion discussion should have dealt with the evidence of the request itself. That we have cropped an individual, and specifically identified them when they say that there were undertaking a private activity, and have that photo under our licence conditions when the original image has been removed presumably indicates that this should be deleted. To note that in responding to the ticket, I have pointed the complainant to the associated category for their comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What file do you want undeleted? It appears to me you're advocating for the deletion of an image, not the undeletion of an image. As you've actually opened a DR for this image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niko Pelinka.jpg, wouldn't the right process be for this undelete request to be closed and you add this commentary to the DR you opened? —RP88 02:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I admit that I did not fucus on personaity rights when restoring, however I don't think here is appropriate place to talk about this. — Revicomplaint? 03:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I argued on the DR. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close -- the image is not deleted. Any discussion must take place at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niko Pelinka.jpg.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ramón Escobar Santiago.jpeg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello. I would like to know why they are blocking and constantly denouncing a personal photograph that I have all of the rights and of which I am fully aware. You are claiming that the image is on the internet. Obviously it is, since it is a public person but the right of that particular image belongs to me. Please, I beg you in any case clearly establishes that commit fraud or I can demonstrate ownership of such personal image. Redgael (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Sorry, but I do not believe that you own the copyright to this image. You may own a copy of the photograph, but that gives you no rights to freely license the image. It appears in many places on the Web in much larger sizes. In order to restore the image to Commons we will need a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said. OTRS permission is required from the photographer to host this file on Commons -FASTILY 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Apollo-Optik Logo 1024px.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As the Online Marketing Manager of Apollo-Optik I am fully authorized to upload the Logo of the company. Thank you. Seo411 (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Seo411: A permission only for the use on Wikimedia Commons or in Wikipedia is not sufficient. You must release the logo under a free license if you want to have it here on Commons (see Commons:Licensing). If you want to do this, please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org for German emails) as described in COM:OTRS. As long as there is no permission for a free license:  keep deleted. --ireas (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Neon Sarcastic.jpg

Hello,

I have recently emailed you with confirmation from the photographer himself that I have full permission to use this photo. It DOES NOT breach any copyright law (that you have stated) as I followed ALL of your instructions to maintain that it does NOT break any of them.

I sent an email with both confirmation from the photographer as well as a screen shot of the email along with his email address to confirm like you have instructed me to do as well as following all other ways in which you have told me to get this image to become available. I am now out of all ideas in which I can use this photo for the band page 'Neon Sarcastic'

It is starting to become very frustrating.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Per the notice(s) you have received, "When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted." Your email has been received and is ticket 2014031810019219. The permission, however, is not adequate. Please work through OTRS; the image will be restored if and when adequate permission is received. Эlcobbola talk 16:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Michele Balducci2.jpg

Hello,

I request undeletion of this pic that has been blocked because I AM the person in the picture itself. I am the actor Michele Balducci and therefore this picture exists only because I approved the picture to be taken in the first place, as I was acting on stage, so I share the copyright of this picture. Please Undelete immediately.

Thank you, Michele Balducci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iosochisono (talk • contribs) 2014-03-26 14:11 (UTC)

Michele,
I am afraid this is not how copyright works. You do not share the photographer's copyright, the photographer, unless we have proof otherwise, retains all copyright. Just because you are in a photo does not give you the right to release the photo under a free licence. If you are in fact the copyright holder, the simplest way to get it allowable for upload here would be to have the website operator state the licence explicitly next to the photo. Failing that, communication with our OTRS team.
Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that we know who's talking!
-mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What Mattbuck said. Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Hishammuddin_Hussein(March_26).jpg

The file is copied from the following link, but I don't know what's the license:

Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-malaysia-plane-search-122-objects-20140326,0,6943137.story

Thanks, Kitiiy (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - That would make it all rights reserved, so not allowable for upload here. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:黃獎.jpg

It is a Hong Kong writer Anthony Wong Jon's photo. The photo is taken by me in 2011. {{NoRightsReserved}}

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File: LogoUPT.png

Solicito la restrauración del archivo LogoUPT.png, ya que formo es la Imagen de la Universidad Politécnica de Tulancingo --Uptulancingo1 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)José Manuel Hernández Reyes EXT(1155) Soporte Técnico de la Universidad. www.upt.edu.mx, Calle Ingenierías # 100. Col. Huapalcalco, C.P. 43629, Tulancingo, Hidalgo, México. Teléfono: 01(775) 75 5 82 02, EXT(1155), Fax: 01(775) 75 5 83 2

Envien a COM:OTRS un correo desde un email oficial de la institución explicando la situación, Atte --Ezarateesteban 21:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Satellite_images_by_Airbus.png

The file is copied from the following link, but I don't know what's the license:

The BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26748146

Thanks, Kitiiy (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This file - also the file that you request above, File:Hishammuddin_Hussein(March_26).jpg - is simply non-free content and not ok to upload here without the copyright holders permission. The copyright tag that you selected, {{Copyrighted free use}}, does not mean that a file is non-free but we use it under the exemption of fair use. We have no fair use on this project, only free content. You can only use that template if the copyright holder agreed to the conditions mentioned in that template, in general you can only upload a file here if the copyright holder published the file under free content conditions, read our project scope. Finding a file published on the internet does not mean that you can copy the file and redistribute it, see Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. INeverCry 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jaya Pathirana.jpg

Please consider keeping the image on the wikipedia page as Honorable Jaya Pathirane was my late grandfather and the photograph embedded was one provided for the media site mentioned in the source was one provided by the family for the article. As i was confused with the copyright conditions when i was uploading i just selected "found on the internet and I'm not sure" If you still want i can uploaded a scanned copy of a different photo as we have many at home. but since the quality of this was much better i decided to use this. Hope you understand the situation at hand.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:IEWPhHEgJZY.jpg

Please Undelete my file because im like this picture

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:British Railways 308152 & 315844 (2321743813).jpg

The file was uploaded using the trusted user "File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)" The licence was checked and found to be OK at the time of upload, since the terms of the Licence are irrevocable a latter change in the source information should not lead to deletion here Oxyman (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the file on flickr, file id 2321743813, has been overwritten by its uploader in January this year. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingythewingy/2322562606/meta. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed but that latter change doesn't mean that the file was not OK at time of uploading, or change the fact that the license is irrevocable Oxyman (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. However the call made at [11] seems appropriate to me; the weird file naming could be gaming of the system. (OT question: Why don't we require a link to any deletion requests when an undeletion request is filed??)--Elvey (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say that decision is appropriate? The reason given is "missing source information" but this should not matter as file was OK at time of uploading, or change the fact that the license is irrevocable Oxyman (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say that decision is appropriate? The reason given is "missing source information" but this should not matter as file was OK at time of uploading, or change the fact that the license is irrevocable Oxyman (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 Support This is a very good quality B&W image of two railcars put into service in the early 1980s. When I first looked at it, I thought it was Flickrwashing. However the Flickr user, Ingy the Wingy, appears to be a railfan and has a variety of high quality B&W images from that era, with "(c) David A.Ingham" (hence "Ingy", I assume). All of these that I examined are marked ARR. He also has images of other things, including scantily clad women, but all of those are marked "The original photographer is unknown". I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the rail photos are his. Given that all of the current rail images are ARR, perhaps the CC license was a mistake, but we do have bot confirmation of it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Restored Per Jim. We have a solid bot review to prove that this file was okey on the date that it was uploaded and there is no evidence of flickrwashing or anything like that so that would not be a problem. Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nodosa

Las fotos subidas por nodosa han sido realizadas por distintos profesionales y por el propio personal del astillero en los últimos 10 años. Este es el motivo por el cual se pueden encontrar diversos equipos fotográficos como los responsables de la ejecución de las fotografías. Todas, absolutamente todas las imagenes que han sido subidas, son propiedad del astillero.

Por favor, restauren los archivos eliminados. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodosa (talk • contribs) 08:31, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

  • That may be the case, but policy requires that in the case of images whose copyright is owned by corporations, that an authorized officer of the corporation give us a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at nodosa.com. Once the e-mial license arrives and is processed, the images will be restored..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 23:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:UNC-Womens-Lacrosse-Uniforms.jpg

I have received permission to use this photo directly from the site and was told that the purpose of this picture was to promote and they were originally circulated with the intent of them being freely used.

Mward93 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Megan Ward 3/27/14

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bacondo.jpg

Ok the picture was taken by me with my own camera shooting to my brothers bacondo, what's the problem? why you delete it saying i'm not owner of the rights?

J-1aggro (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Juan Oliva

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ismael Londt.jpg

The photo comes from the 'Ismael Londt' Facebook which is his ('Ismael Londts) personal page. He own the rights to display his own photos and as I'm acting in behalf of Ismael this photo is legit to publish on Wiki and therefore it should be placed back.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:GEORGINA MOFFAT FILM.jpg

Hi there,

I would like to request to undelete the following file File:GEORGINA MOFFAT FILM.jpg

The reason for this request, is that I do indeed own the copyright to this file. I would be more than happy to provide the certificate for the registration of this work. I have it registered at copyright house (www.copyrighthouse.co.uk). The registration ID is 160072.

Please let me know whether you can fulfil the undelete request ?

Kind Regards,

--Gigimomoblog (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


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

George Demetriades.jpg

Hi, my name is George Dimitriadis,

I upload a picture of my to upload it on my wikipedia page, but you delete it due to possible violation copyrights.

I would like to inform you that i am the copyright holder of my own picture.

So please undelete it and place it properly on the page Georgios Dimitriadis.

Gdeme (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)George DimitriadisGdeme (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Please read and follow the instructions here: OTRS. If everything checks out ok the OTRS Team will restore the file.

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 02:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:OCFS Logo.png

Hello,

This file which is the logo for the Orange County Fair Speedway in Middletown, NY was deleted, I think because I may have uploaded it incorrectly. I would like the opportunity if I may to upload it with the correct information. I work for the speedway and have the owners permission to reuse the logo. Also, our website has specific verbiage next to the logo that states anyone can use this logo for their website.

The link to that statement is here: http://www.orangecountyfairspeedway.net/links.html

I would like to use this file for my article "Orange County Fair Speedway" if I can.

Is there a way I can re-upload the image with the specific requirements that shows I can use this logo on my Wikipedia article?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Jcl6543 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Please read and follow the instructions here: OTRS. If everything checks out ok the OTRS Team will restore the file. The problem with the statement above is that it doesn't state a license and only mentions free for use on your website. Please see Com:L as well. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Okay, thank you for the info. I contacted the owner of the logo and he said he's try to contact the OTRS. I appreciate the info.

Jcl6543 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:За рубежом июнь 2013.jpg

Dear Sirs/Mesdames, The ZRnews account was created by ZAO "Eurasian Media Group", a publisher of the "Za Rubezhom" magazine (журнал "За рубежом"). ZAO "Eurasian Media Group" is the owner of any content (e.g., images of the magazine's covers, pages, etc.) uploaded via this account, so there can not be any copyright infringement whatsoever. --ZRnews (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:GermanyMustPerish2.jpg

This map was a fold out attached to a book published in 1941 that did not have a copyright renewal

Are maps attached to books that are pd (in this case because of lack of copyright renewal) governed by different copyright rules?----Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Support The DR was based on 70 pma, but since the author was American and the book was published in America in 1941, that does not apply. Maps made for the book have the same copyright status as the book. Maps from other sources, used with or without permission, may have a different copyright status. Since this map is marked "(c) Theodore N. Kaufman", I think we can safely assume that it was made for the book, and therefore is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, per Jim -FASTILY 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Stéphane BARTHE.jpg

I'm wondering why this picture has been deleted for "no source" reason, because the source was "own work", and it seems to be true because the EXIF data shows the picture has been taken with a Iphone. A "not so rare" camera I think. So I'm asking if it is possible to undelete this file. Thank you for your help. Jeriby (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored: That was probably an error. Additional, as the image is here since 23 August 2010, it should not have been deleted without a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Embrace logo.png

We own this file.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:AShvartsmanSnapShot.jpg

The author Alex Shvartsman is a friend of mine. The snapshot image is his personal property, which he gave to me, with the request that I upload it to his Wikipedia page. It is not a copyright violation. Please consider undeleting the image. --Davidwaltonfiction (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

undeletion of File:Sapphire Radeon HD 5870-front oblique PNr°0310.jpg

I took Sapphire Radeon HD 5870-front oblique PNr°0310.jpg some time ago (in late 2010) and uploaded the image some time later (early 2012). The image got deleted a few month later (see here for deletion request), because of having a too large part of another image which was not done by me: "We can keep an image that has a small copyrighted portion that might be a problem if everything else is cropped out, otherwise it would be hard to take high resolution images of many streets. In this case, however, the image of the woman is not at all de minimis even at this size, so this image infringes. ."
I do not think that way for some different reaseons:

  1. From the deletion request: " "A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out." Well, yes. It's about the graphics card and not the of the woman or the logo as such."
  2. From the deletion request " "If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner [...]" more attractive: No; more usable: No; causing an economic damage to the copyright owner: No[...]"
  3. I did a rough calculation of the woman on the graphics card (GC) and the copyrighted image makes less than lousy 5% of the whole image
  4. I talked to Sapphire Germany a week ago and they wrote back:
    Deutsch: "Bilder und Texte unserer Produkte dürfen zur Bewerbung unserer Produkte gern verwendet werden. Auch ein Wikipedia Eintrag führt unter anderem dazu, unserer Produkte bekannter zu machen. Sie dürfen die Bilder also verwenden."
    English: Translation: Our product images and text can be fain used to advertise our products. An entry in the Wikipedia also make our products better known. Your are allowed to use the Images.

So: The image got deleted for not beeing de mini (even the copyrighted size is less than five percent) even the copyrighted part does not make the image as such any more usefull or more attractive and does not do any economic demage to the company (nobody would reuse the image from the GC from this image, since you can get better images off the internet eg. the manufacturer's homepage, or would have to pay to just see the image). I guess you buy the GC because of it's specs and not because of the image on top of it. Moreover the GC was released in 2009 which are decades in the IT business. --D-Kuru (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: A link to view this image for all non-admins: http://imageshack.com/a/img13/6678/jb8y57jztj9myork4epjf0c.jpg --D-Kuru (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I closed this DR as delete. I did so because the photograph of the woman is central to the image and to the look of the card. Without it, it would be just another card, but with the image, it is interesting for its graphics. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The actual center of the image is the fan which is not the standard AMD style fan but a custom one by Sapphire Tech. "[...]but with the image, it is interesting for its graphics" I don't quite get want you want to say. Do you want to say that the GC is more interesting or desirable because of the woman's image on the GC?
From Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines:
  • "As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:
  1. the file is in use to illustrate X
  2. the file is categorised in relation to X
  3. X is referenced in the filename
  4. X is referenced in the description
  5. X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  6. from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file."
1) No, not in any way, 2) No, 3) No, 4) No, 5) Yes, absolutely (would not make much sense going through removing it though), 6) Look at my Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 series: Sapphire Radeon HD 5870-back PNr°0309.jpg and no name, Sapphire Radeon HD 5870-back PNr°0313.jpg and no name, Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 – 2 CrossFire connections PNr°0311.jpg and no name, Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 – CrossFire connection PNr°0312.jpg and no name and Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 – PCIe x16 connection PNr°0314.jpg and no name. The woman on the front to create all the other images or just the GC as such? What do you think...
  • "Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable." - I could avoid showing the image by peeling the foil off, but that would be the same as you would use a large black garbage bag to cover up the movie poster in GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg. I want to show the card as is. "small part"...? Less than 5% is a small part
  • "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)" - As I wrote before: This part is not essential at all. This image would not become less or more attractive, usable or whatever by removing the woman from the image.
So please tell me why the image should stay deleted if the woman is not the main subject, is not the center, does not make the file more usable, is everything other than a large part of the image, does not make the graphics card more interesting and does not infringe the owners copyright since Sapphire Tech. gave me the allowance to use the image.
--D-Kuru (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The de minimis rule (§ 57 UrhG) has to be interpreted very restrictively, just like every legal copyright exception. Not everything that is not the main topic of a picture is de minimis. Quite the contrary:

Daher ist unwesentliches Beiwerk nur, was in Bezug zum Hauptgegenstand so nebensächlich ist, dass es […] letztlich ausgetauscht werden könnte, ohne die Gesamtwirkung zu beeinträchtigen, und ohne dass der nicht eigens darauf achtende Betrachter […] dies bemerkte.

— Thomas Dreier, in: Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, § 57 Rn. 2
Loosely translated, this means that de minimis only applies if the depicted work is so irrelevant to the picture itself that it could be changed without an ordinary viewer noticing it. In my opinion, this is not true for this picture.
So the only way to use this picture here on Commons would be a permission by Sapphire to publish the picture of the women under a free license. A permission only for use in Wikipedia or on Commons is not sufficient, see Commons:Licensing.
Regards, --ireas (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Ireas. It is important to remember that in some countries the rule is that as long as the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the image, then the image is OK. In others, including Germany, the rule is, as stated above, that an ordinary viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed. These are very different -- there can be only one main subject, or perhaps two of equal importance, but there can be many things that would be instantly noticed if removed. Certainly an ordinary viewer would notice the difference between this image with and without the woman. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
IMO may be apply COM:DM. The main object is the card, not the girl. --Alan (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose The girl is the attentiongrabber not the card. Natuur12 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, under German law "main object" is not meaningful. In order for de minimis to apply under German law, the part in question must be so inconsequential that an ordinafy viewer would not notice its removal. Obviously that is not the case here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
What would be meaningful then? I guess you are refering to "Fotoschwerpunkt". The word is made up of Foto (Photo/Picture/Image) and Schwerpunkt (core area, focal point, key aspect, main focus). In my opinion 'main object' is OK, as well as Images focus or the pictures topic. Translated back to german "Main subject" would be Hauptgegenstand or Hauptthema which can be used as other words for Fotoschwerpunkt.
Quick question: When did Commons become bound to the german law? French law does not allow images of buildings because they have no FOP. They can not use certain images - however we do not delete the images fr.wikipedians can't use. If Commons is part of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and the "Wikimedia Foundation is a foundation under the law of the US federal state of Florida" Commons:General disclaimer why is the german the neck braking part of this discussion? If the german law does not allow these images, they have the same problem as french people but with another subject. --D-Kuru (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Ein unwesentliches Beiwerk liegt vor, wenn das mit abgebildete Werk keine inhaltliche Beziehung zum „Fotoschwerpunkt“ aufweist, nicht einmal eine unbedeutende. Das Beiwerk ist also gekennzeichnet durch Zufälligkeit und Beliebigkeit. Es muss sich ohne Beeinträchtigung der Gesamtwirkung des Hauptgegenstandes austauschen lassen, ohne dass ein solcher Austausch überhaupt auffallen würde. Maßgeblich ist ein objektiver Maßstab aus Sicht des Betrachters. Unwesentliches Beiwerk liegt vor, wenn es keine noch so unbedeutende inhaltliche Beziehung zum Hauptgegenstand aufweist und durch seine Zufälligkeit und Beliebigkeit für ihn ohne jede Bedeutung ist. Der eigentliche Gegenstand muss derart beherrschend sein, dass das neben ihm erscheinende Beiwerk ohne Beeinträchtigung der Gesamtwirkung des Hauptgegenstandes und unmerklich ausgetauscht werden könnte. Können die Personen auf einem Foto hinweg gedacht werden, ohne dass sich sein Charakter ändert, handelt es sich um erlaubtes Beiwerk." [12]
- An insignificant accessory-image is, when the displayed image has no substantive relationship to the image's main focus, not even a insignificant. The accessory-image is marked with coincidence and arbitrariness. It has to be replaceable without touching the overall effect of the main work and without anybody notice the exchange. Decisive is an impartial measure from the perspective of the viewer. An insignificant accessory-image is, when it has no content, yet so insignificant, related connection to the main work and due to it's coincidence and arbitrariness hasn't any importance for it. The actual item has to be such dominant that the displayed insignificant accessory-image could be replaced imperceptibly, without affecting the overall effect of the main work. If people could be excluded from the image in your mind without changing the image's character it's an insignificant accessory-image.
I copied the whole Text and transalted the whole part since I try to avoid cherry picking parts of such a long text if possible.
Reltead to the text:
  • Is the woman related to the graphics card or could she be printed on any other product like a plastic bottle or a car? Well, she could be anywhere and she would tell you nothing about the product.
  • "coincidence and arbitrariness" yes and no, it is bound to happen that she is on the image, but if she would be on the bottom side of the card she wouldn't be on the image. You can compare it to a car: The license plates are bound to show up on the image if you take an image from the front or the back. But if someone had stolen them, or they would be fixed on the side it wouldn't matter at all.
  • The image of the woman can be replaced without touching the main focus of the image: The graphics card (don't tell me that the woman is the main focus or the image's anker or whatever - I took the image and I know what the topic of my shot was - the Radeon HD 5870). Could it be replaced without anybody notice it? No, at least if you saw the image before the rework. The general question is what an objective viewer would recognise. If this part would be asked for all de minimis on Commons a huge number of them would have to be deleted, because the image looks different as soon as you edit even a tiny part of it. And somebody will notice the change. If you can compare the images side by side there is nothing you could change without any visable change.
  • 'and due to it's coincidence and arbitrariness hasn't any importance for it' well that pretty much wraps it up. The graphics card does not change when you peel off the image.
  • The card streches fromt the pretty much left to the pretty much right side and from the top to the bottom. You would change a small part of the image which would not effect the card as such. How much more dominant could it get? Again replacing the image with anybody to notice: Impossible for every image - especially if you do a side by side comparison.
  • 'If people could be excluded from the image in your mind without changing the image's character it's an insignificant accessory-image.' The only question in that is what the images character is. The whole character is made up of all components but how important are they really?
    • "I did so because the photograph of the woman is central to the image and to the look of the card. Without it, it would be just another card,[...]": definitely not. A VW is a car and a BMW is a car but that does not mean that both are the same. A VW Golf with 90HP is not the same as another with 150HP even they may look the same. I don't know what your personal interests are, but it seems to me that you did not invest much time to see what other cards look like. They are not just solid (coloured) bricks that you jam in your computer system. Sometimes they have similar casings and if you don't have a sticker on them that tells you this is card A or B with specs a, b, c,... from further away you could only tell the series for sure. A DDR1 is not DDR2 is not DDR3 and not DDR4 even they look very much the same and only people who know the difference can tell you what you have to look at. To give you an example what I'm talking about: The Sapphire Radeon HD 5450, Radeon HD 55**, Radeon HD 56**, Radeon HD 57**, Radeon HD 58** and Radeon HD 59**. What I want to show is that even in the same end market category (high end, consumer, budget, low end,...) most of the cards look very diffenerent. The only card that somebody, who has no clue about these coloured bricks, could be mistaken is the Radeon HD 5770. When you compare them side by side HD5770 HD 5870 you can tell just by the outer shape of the cards that these are different - you don't need any additional picture for that on the card.
    • "The girl is the attentiongrabber not the card." - So if you take an image of a car on a motorshow and there happen to be two girls on the car (because they are payed to do that), all the sudden the car becomes the minor part of the image and the girls are the main focus - or central to the image if you will. Hmmm... I don't think so. If you are interested in IT like me would you be more like "interesting graphics card" or "interesting girl"? If you are interested in the latest cars would you be like "wow, the latest and greatest car the manufacturer has to offer" or would you be like "Nice girls, I don't give a rats ass on the car any more"
Back to de minimis:
  • "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." - No, neither removing the woman would be radically different nor is she the reason for talking the image
  • "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." - Again and again and again: The woman is not the center of the image nor is she the reason for talking the image nor would it make any difference if she does exist or not. It does not make the image better or worse.
I did a quick work with gimp and uploaded the result to http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img27/7674/k7ut.jpg
Yes, the card does looks different in a way GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg would look different if you would replace the dark knight poster with a Commons logo. Does it do any harm the the main image (the graphics card): No; Does the image became useless by removing the girl: No; Does it say anything else than before: No; Did the image lost the main focus: No; Did the GC become a random product all the sudden: No. And if you imagine that I would have spend more than 5 minutes in gimp I could have added compression artefacts, the correct lightning, image blurring and graining. After like and hour, nobody who has not seen the original image before, would ever have the idea that anything is missing in this image (the 'without anybody notice the exchange' part). And that makes it a de minimis.
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Three short answers:
German law
Commons applies (1) US law and (2) the law of the country of origin. A picture must be free in both countries to use it on Commons.
main topic as intended by the photographer
Discussing § 57 UrhG, the view or intention of the photographer is not relevant: Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, § 59 Rn. 3: „Ob ein geschütztes Werk im konkreten Einzelfall unwesentliches Beiwerk ist, entscheidet sich nach objektivem Maßstab aus der Sicht des Betrachters […].“
character of the image
The main question is whether the character of the picture changes. And I still think that it does. If you compare the original and retouched version, there is a big difference regarding the character of the image, die Bildaussage. Das Bild hinterlässt einen anderen Eindruck beim Betrachter. Das ist aus meiner Sicht das Wesentliche.
Regards, --ireas (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The picture could be taken anywhere so any law could be used for the country of orgin. And for the records: The image was not taken in germany.
"If you compare the original and retouched version, there is a big difference regarding the character of the image" - Since I do not think that way you may can get into detail what think the images character is and in what way it changes.
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to undelete anything. -FASTILY 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclosing:
As fast as possible: The absence of a point of view that is shared by all does not mean that a file should stay deleted.
Short strory long: I don't want to lie: There are some different opinions on this topic. Just because there are some people who don't share one point of view does not mean that it can't be right. To keep things as they are: 3 users (Jameslwoodward - the admin who closed the original DR; Ireas; Natuur12) are against undeletion - 2 users D-Kuru - myself; Alan) are fine with undeleting the image. There were some points that I tried to reply to and point out as good as I could, but most of the time no one cared to consider a deep thought and an answer somewhat worthwhile. The larger part of the discussion was about that the image is against the german law - nobody did explain to me why the german law does matter here. It can't be that the law of the country of origin applies here, because this image was not taken in germany. If Commons would really care about all different laws in the world then there would be a bunch of images and the rest would be deleted because an image that is allowed in one country is not allowed in the other (FOP is a good example I guess: There is no FOP in France so you can't upload and licence images of objects under a free licence which were taken in france - that does not mean that no image - which was taken in eg. poland which does fully support FOP - couldn't be uploaded and licenced under a free licence. The next question nobody did answer is why anything else than the US law should apply here. This image could be taken anywhere. If I tell you it was taken in poland you have no other chance than belive me. You can't prove that the image was taken in the USA, Island, Russia, China, Japan or France - neither can I that I didn't take it in one of these countries. If I took this image on a ship on the high seas there is no local law at all.
Main subject of the image: The second big topic - why this image must stay deleted - is that the real object on this image is the woman, not the card. I showed a few people the image and asked them (without showing the image name) what they think the main subject in the image is. About 98% of them said the graphics card and none of them said that removing the woman would do any harm to the image (seen towards the graphics card). I talked to two people who have studied law in my country and both of them are withn the 98% which say that the card is the main subject and that wiping the woman away does not do any harm to the images character. Moreover they say that it's a case for de minimis since the image of the woman is an (unwanted) part of the image that could be removed or replaced easily.
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Fastily's closure was correct. There is no consensus to restore. There is not reason to reopen. Alan (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In answer to the question, "Why Germany"", I have to say that my understanding is that this is a German version of the card -- somewhere above there is mention of contacting ATI Germany. However, if it is not a German version, then US law applies, since ATI is a subisidiary of AMD, a US company. US law, like German law, is not interested in the main subject of the image, but in the whole thing, and de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users. Please remember that the "main subject" concept applies in only a few countries, and generally only in connection with FOP, not general issues of DWs.
I agree that Fastily's closure is correct -- not just because he closed it on my side, but because in order to restore an image there must be a clear consensus for it. COM:PRP is very clear -- it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that the image is OK. This was 3 to 2 in favor of not restoring -- even 3 to 2 the other way would not have passed that test..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Democratic Burma (Myanmar) proposal.svg

I'm re-opening this unDR. The consensus has for the long-standing time been to reject Antemister's reasoning for deletion and require an additional harm to be attached. See the following DRs as examples.

This is not en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, this has been the consensus of no less than 6 different admins over several years. No harm has been attached to these files other than the fact they are fictional and clearly marked as such. There is no valid reason to delete them or keep them deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What I can do is to list similar DRs not found by Fry1989 that ended with deletion of the file... But I use the example of File:Flag of Lithuania STATE (Fictional).png. That file was kept because it is (still) in use in the Thai WP. That means that Thai readers still can see that flag and might believe that it is in fact an official (or at least a semi-official one). How can we justify keeping that image? Which educational purpose does it have?--Antemister (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to have any, and that's what several users have been trying to tell you and you just refuse to understand. Your stupid crusade against anything fictional is both a waste of time and a harm to the project because you are denying us content just because you don't think it's "famous enough". Fry1989 eh? 18:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Are theThai Wikipedians informed that in the article Flag of Lithuania they use an image describing it as "Flag of Lithuania" which isn't a Flag of Lithuania? And that in th:รายชื่อธงในประเทศลิทัวเนีย they qualify this as the official flag of Lithunia from 1908 untill 1940 and in 1989 (google translation, my calculation of the dates)? The file is not in use in any project, the only use is factually wrong. Not a POV issue, a mistake combined with wrong guidance and careless use of templates on Commons. The file page claims that this is an official State symbol and that it is exempted from copyright by law for that reason. Not correct, Template:PD-retouched-user is a better choice here. Also removing it from the category tree "Symbols of .." would be a good idea because that category tree not applies to this file. The only remaining purpose why we have this on Commons is to sattisfy the uploaders needs to upload something. Commons obligation to cover such needs is described by Fry1989 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the First Canadian Republic 2012.svg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
As I have also been saying, these flags need an additional harm attached to them, their mere fictional status alone is not enough. The Lithuanian fictional state flag is clearly marked as such, if the Thai users are ignoring that it is not our fault, we can't have the file name say "fictional" in every language or it would be a mile long. What I define as an additional harm is when the file is not clearly labeled as "fictional" with the intent to confuse or mislead. Flag of the First Canadian Republic 2012.svg was not clearly labeled and was designed to mislead. I've been very consistent about this. Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You already opposed this once before and your reasoning was invalid. You are misusing policies to justify your POV. The consensus has been otherwise. Fry1989 eh? 17:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Martin gives very clear examples of why we do not permit personal art to be here -- it leads to serious mistakes on WPs. Why should we keep flags that have no authority except someone's imagination, particularly when it can be shown that they cause harm? The fact that other stuff exists is irrelevant. As Commons grows up, we can learn from mistakes of the past. Keeping fictional alternative national flags is one of those mistakes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"We don't permit personal art here..." Well not only is that patently false, you didn't seem to agree when you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al-Quds Flag.JPG which was nominated by Antemister under the exact same reasoning as these files. You've hardly been consistent. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I learn and change. That closure was almost four years ago, five weeks after I had become an Admin. If you want to be consistent, why don't you also provide links to the many that I have closed the other way since then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see here is a more general decision wanted, I support Antemister here. If they not met COM:EDUSE → Out of scope is OOS. To much/specific cases fantasy is very bad for Commons (especially in the habit to give no references) especially for emblems and flags. @Dissemination: Commons has in most cases the first Google ranking, regardless of whether a reference or not. Just my 2c. -- Perhelion (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
At Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Flag of China (R41 proposal).svg the closing admin asked for a general discussion, rather than the nomination of individual flag images for deletion. The same ought to apply to undeletion requests. Rybec (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No clear consensus to restore. If anything, per above, perhaps these ought to be examined individually -FASTILY 21:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Власна робота Ejensyd (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Власна робота stands for own work in Ukrainian. I can confirm that given Ejensyd's age, he could indeed take these pictures in late 1950s and 1960s — NickK (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I would prefer a better reason for deletion than simply "dubious licenses". Do the images appear elsewhere on the internet, or look to be scanned from books? If not... we should assume good faith. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment It looks to me like what happened here was someone's hunch that these were not legit, and the uploader didn't reply within a week, so the hunch was upheld. Now the uploader is speaking up, and what he says seems entirely reasonable. Unless there is more here than a hunch, I believe we should restore. - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored, except one, duplicate, as per comments above. Yann (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:INS Makar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image was wrongly deleted. The license and permission to use the image was clearly mentioned on the image page, and is recorded at OTRS. See the license at Template:Indian navy. Anir1uph (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored by Magog -FASTILY 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Martin kusch.jpg

I contacted Martin Kusch on His academia.edu website, and he told me himself that this photo is not copyrighted his daughter has taken it,

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Gaygerov-Nikolay-Nikolaevich.jpg

Просьба восстановить данную фотографию. Авторские права принадлежат фотографу Ольге Дроновой, ее сайт http://www.olgadronova.com/index2.php Фотограф не имеет ничего против размещения этой фотографии на страницах Википедии.

 Not done All images copyrighted 2010. The author should send an email to COM:OTRS. --Alan (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Guru-lootosel-vishvavadzrag.jpg

Per reference on Estonian Wikipedia the uploader (VanemTao) has explicitly stated on description page of this file that the it is by himself. So what's the actual reason for deleting this file? It's true that VanemTao has uploaded copyright violations, the same on Estonian Wikipedia. But he has also uploaded drawings by himself where he explicitly states that these are drawn by himself and where there is no reasonable doubt that they are not. Also, per the same reference VanemTao also added his real name on description page of this file so it allows to add proper source information to some other files where he didn't state that the files are by the uploader but added his real name as author name. You may want to check some other files listed here as well to see if the source information (own work/uploader's real name as author name) actually is missing. 90.190.114.172 12:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There's a ton of Google Image hits for this image. Reeks of copyvio. -FASTILY 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:GATC Biotech Logo.tiff

The reason for the undeletion request is, that the file is the company logo of GATC Biotech and would be embedded in a Wiki page about the company. We are the owner of the copyrights of this file.

Please unban the image.

--HelgeUK (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Please read and understand Com:L. The owner has to release the logo into public domain or under another Commons-compatible license. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Vito Paulekas, Leslie Michel, and Carl Franzoni.jpg

This is my own photo. I have the negative. The tribe page it is found on is my own!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-03&oldid=303778041"