Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-06

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:Epping Boys' High School Logo.gif [edit]

I am from the school itself and have permission to use the logo. When I uploaded this it was to replace an outdated logo.--Lawrence Feng (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send your permission to COM:OTRS. Microchip08 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teremtek.jpg [edit]

This is a Libre work from Hungarian wikipedia: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teremtek.jpg

No valid reason given to delete anything -FASTILY 23:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haitham_hakki.jpg [edit]

The picture is taken by me and i have the right to publish it — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyBlade (talk • contribs)

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

File:Emcee_N.I.C.E._–_Life_of_The_Party.jpg[edit]

I am the sole creator of this work and own the rights 100%

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacek Wilk.png [edit]

As the author of the photography which was deleted, I am requesting undelation of the photography.

--Konrey (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Konrey, 12:04, 1st June 2014[reply]

The image in question was found elsewhere on the web; please consider sending proof of your ownership to COM:OTRS. Microchip08 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Drukpa Kung Fu Nuns.jpg [edit]

I have contacted the copyright owner at info@drukpa.com and they have agreed. They have just sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to confirm the photos are released for common publications and offer the rights for GNU. I cannot find the link to this photo any more.

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once the process the email that was sent -FASTILY 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aaliyah Dana Haughton.jpg[edit]

Source: http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/2014/01/16/portfolio/23963/eric-johnson-aaliyah-by-miss-rosen

Original publication: Promotional Image for Aaliyah at Eric Johnson Studios

--Kenke (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That image states Aaliyah © Eric Johnson in the caption, so is unfree by default; we would need permission through WP:OTRS to have this image on Commons. Microchip08 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC) (non-admin)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pierre-Simon Laplace Tomb.jpg[edit]

File Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joneau/4853948814/in/set-72157624513389111 Author:John Pearson (joneau)

I selected

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (legal code)

File is marked "some rights reserved" Circle with person & Circle with $ struck through.

Original title was "Tomb of Pierre_Simon Laplace" I changed to shorter "Pierre-Simon Laplace Tomb"

Kllwiki (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that dollar-sign-with-a-slash means it's under a non-commercial license, which is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Commons:Licensing/Justifications has a good writeup as to why media that restricts to only non-commercial uses is unacceptable on Commons. Microchip08 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clubes-Las-Flores-Buenos-Aires.png[edit]

Hola, solicito la eliminación del borrado de esta imagen, ya que es un trabajo visual propio, y tengo todo el derecho de compartirlo en Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by River87LosPiojos (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: image is not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escudo-clubatleticolasflores.jpg[edit]

Hola, solicito la eliminación del borrado de esta imagen, ya que es un trabajo visual propio, y tengo todo el derecho de compartirlo en Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by River87LosPiojos (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: image is not deleted. Эlcobbola talk 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:مجيد كوهي.jpg [edit]

به اشتباه توسط ربات حذف شده --Koohi majid (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Image appeared here, here, etc. before upload to the Commons. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance. Submit permission using the procedure there and a volunteer will restore the image if all is in order. Эlcobbola talk 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quenelle Dieudonné Graffiti.JPG [edit]

Could this file be recreated ? It was a graffiti (illegal and not copyrighted) and should normally not be subject to copyright and FOP. See the content of Category:Graffiti in Brussels  : this was the same kind of image. JJ Georges (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GuoJian.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission revieved Ticket:2014022710014539 --Mdann52talk to me! 07:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ✓ Done - or I could just have a look at the ticket myself instead of asking ;). Please don;t forget to clean up the file with cats, proper licensing tagg etc. Natuur12 (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Finger cut.jpg[edit]

This got caught up in the (otherwise fine) Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Didym/Mobile upload/2014 March 13-16, closed as "All out of scope and unclear copyrightstatus". However, I see no reason why this image should be out of scope: it's a good quality, documentary photo of a small cut in a finger. I also see no reason why the copyright status should be unclear: the file has the same dimensions as the other uploads of this user (ProjectManhattan (talk · contributions · Statistics)), and the EXIF data is also consistent with the other uploads of that user, so the claim of "own work" appears entirely credible and the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is also OK. As for it having been unused: it would make a fine addition of an every-day wound in the small gallery at en:Wound.

For the above reasons, I think this should be undeleted. BTW, this user uploads a lot of very useful photos! Lupo 11:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Okey. I guess that this is the problem with mass deletion requests. Restored it. Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TERSIVEL---For-One-Pagan-Brotherhood.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Image was deleted due to lack of permission; that permission has been sent to OTRS (ticket:2014060310013658). Microchip08 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lieutenant General Ibrahim El-Orabi.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this file deleted by mistake, I'm the uploader of this picture not the another user, this picture produced in 1973 and it is public domain by Egyptian laws PD-Egypt and I add the source and all required details. Ibrahim.ID (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, «user:Amro.elsamra» is not the uploader of this picture, I'm the uploader ,this picture is belong to Ibrahim El-Orabi Egyptian military commander and the 13th Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces (1950-1987) ,the Picture is taken and Published in 1973 by Egyptian Armed Forces, source: [1] , The Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippur War: An Analysis, Dani Asher ,2009, ISBN:978-0786442539 and also: [2], [3]--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something but the earliest confirmed publication is 2009? I am wondering how is this image PD in the US ? LGA talkedits 00:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Earliest confirmed publication = 2009 -> copyrighted -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by User:Zhengan[edit]

Please see the deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Zhengan.

It was deleted on the basis that there is no Freedom of Panorama in China. However, here is the template that shows there is Freedom of Panorama in China: Template:FoP-China. Thanks, Zhengan (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a clear case of deletion based on a faulty assumption. Undeleting and adding {{FoP-China}}. --Jarekt (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. License states: „(...)allows reproduction of works in a public place if the author and the name of the original work is attributed.“ Both name and author aren't given, only the own work tag is set. That still needs to be addressed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Since there are multiple copyrights involved, it seems extremely unlikely that we will be able to get artists' names and titles for the second and third images. While it is more likely in the first case, even there I think these should have remained deleted until we had the necessary information to comply with the law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It appears to me that what is reported as a FOP like provision of Chinese law, is more a kin to a -BY licence to re-use. These images therefore need the Attribution or they should be re-deleted. LGA talkedits 00:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes you are right about the attribution requirement of {{FoP-China}}. It definitely affects the first image and I will re delete it if Zhengan can not provide information about the author. In the other two, individual artworks seem to be such a small part of the image as to fall under Commons:De minimis rule. --Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Missing attribution -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:لوگوی نت شهر.png [edit]

سلام این لوگو متعلق به وب گاه گاه ما می باشد و حق کپی رایت آن نیز برای خودمان است

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kim-Kardashian-venezia-compleanno-alexis-it-2.jpg[edit]

Speedy deletion appealed. Photo from Flickr has proper license, and appears to be the original work of the photographer. Photo has since been shared freely, under this license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Lihtning (talk • contribs) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You refere to the flickr file https://www.flickr.com/photos/87306045@N05/8112205648. I see no reason for contesting the deletion without providing any new information. The flickr account obviously is fraud. I gave a source http://www.justjared.com/2012/10/21/kanye-west-kim-kardashian-birthday-dinner-in-venice/, the publication there predates the flickr upload by one day. At the source I gave author information is visible, see the EXIF of the high res version at the source I gave, it reads: Photo by Matteo Tagliapietra, Copyright MT-MS/CIAO PIX. Please critically evaluate flickr licenses, see Template:Flickrvionote. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: The flickr account https://www.flickr.com/people/87306045@N05 is on the blacklist and at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users for a reason. --Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin. Flickr washing -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kuenstlerbund1.jpg[edit]

Ich habe das Foto selbst am 16. Februar 2013 in Stuttgart gemacht. Was muss ich tun, damit es nicht entlöscht wird? Wahrscheinlich habe ich einen Fehler bei einer Lizensvorlage gemacht. Der Barbar (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the file, but please include a valid license tag -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Hello,

The Frick Collection / Frick Art Reference Library owns the copyright to this negative and all prints made from it, including ditigal. The photographer, Ira W. Martin, was an employee of The Frick Collection (specifically, its Photoarchive Department) and all negatives produced by him were funded by the institution. Again, we hold the copyright to this negative; the present owner, while he/she may control access to the actual object and own the copyright to other photographic reproductions of the object, does not own the copyright to this negative.

For additional information regarding this issue, please contact The Frick Collection's consul, A. Lonshein.

Thank you,

Ellen Prokop Associate Photoarchivist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frick.Photoarchive (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

And how did you exactly become the copyrightholder instead of Bernard Boutet de Monvel? Natuur12 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The question is not the copyright on the photo. As a reproductive photo, it would not be a copyrightable work anyway per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. The problem is the copyright of the painting (or drawing; you didn't specify in the work description). The painting or drawing photographed was painted by Bernard Boutet de Monvel, a French painter who died in 1949. His works are in copyright in France until 70 years after his death; i.e., the painting would be out of copyright in France only on January 1, 2020. As your photo is either a derivative work or a copy (depending on which school of thought you follow) of the painting, you would need to have the consent of the rights owner on the painting in order to publish your photo under a free license. It may well be that the Frick Collection does own or did own that painting, but does it also own the copyrights? Physical possession of a copyrighted item does not imply possession of the copyrights on the item. If you want that image to be restored, please clear up the following points via COM:OTRS:
  • When and where was this painting first published? (Important for determining the source country. Note that the Commons requires images to be free in the U.S. and in the source country.) I ask because according to the article Bernard Boutet de Monvel, he worked for Harper's Bazaar under an exclusivity agreement from 1926 to 1933 (yet the article states that he did other work during that time). So if this is one of his works for Harper's Bazaar, it might have been published originally in the U.S., and then it might qualify as a U.S. work, not a French work.
  • If a U.S. work, what's the copyright status? When was it published? In what form? With or without © notice? Is it in the public domain in the U.S.? If so, why? If not, do you/does the Frick Collection own the rights, or do you have the rights owner's permission to publish the photo under a free license?
  • If a French work: it's copyrighted alright (until and including December 31, 2019). So, do you/does the Frick Collection own these copyrights? If not, do you have the rights owner's permission to publish the photo under a free license?
Lupo 14:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, if you have the rights to publish the file under a Commons-compatible license, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo---MdM-(1981).png[edit]

I would like to know for what reason did you decide to suggest the deletion of the logo I uploaded ? Thanks--P chu (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo---MdM-(1981).png has never existed here. I'm guessing you mean File:Logo-MdM-(1981).png.
As it says at the top of this page under "Finding out why a file was deleted": "First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted." If you click the red link for the (correct) filename above, you will see the deletion log for the file in question. And again: "please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons." Since you haven't given any reasons as to why the file should be undeleted, it probably won't be. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tudeley church window4.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Stained glass is covered by FOP in the United Kingdom. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Angel_window_-_geograph.org.uk_-_880160.jpg and COM:FOP#United_Kingdom Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Lewis Hulbert is correct. Stained glass is a "work of artistic craftsmanship", not a graphic work, and is therefore covered by UK FOP. Note that the 2D/3D distinction used in the DR is not useful in the UK as many works of artistic craftsmanship are 2D. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Per Lewis and Jim. Natuur12 (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many Files deleted 2014-05-31[edit]

Please undelete

They all deleted by User:Fastily -> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg, i think by a mistake.

The pictures are in not in Hamburg (that is more than 100 miles away). Thanks --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  07:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More files that have been deleted for the same reason

Not yet fully must eat first --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose These were deleted after long discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg. The issue is that the license template used requires attribution "Visible near the picture". That is in conflict with the the CC license and with the practice in the many print uses which put all attributions on one page. It is also in conflict with the standard practice in video and film, which put credits at the end. Finally, it is in conflict with all WMF projects, for which credits can be seen only by clicking on the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per my arguments at AN. It is not our job to determine whether what is written in file pages is conflicting with the license granted. The only case were a given license become invalid (if the user is eligible to grant such a license) is if he edit the contents of the license and call it a CC license. In all other cases, the extra terms can be considered as invalid, if conflicting with the terms written inside the license. It is a bad practice to determine a license is invalid; it will make all the existing reusers into trouble. Jee 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote more fully at the cited discussion, that is not the way the law works, at least in the USA. If you add conflicting terms to a printed contract, the additions control. Jee, given your later comments at the cited discussion, do you want to change this comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in a private discussion with that user and hope he will accept my proposal. So please keep this open for a few days. Otherwise, (if he do not willing to change the wording), you can keep them deleted. As far as I know he changed the initial wording "below the image" to "near the image". My proposal is to "near the image or refer the CC best practices for a suitable option" (as I did in my templates).
  • On the other point, see this. Jee 02:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have read here and at COM:AN and agree with Jim that with the additional restrictions applied to the licence there is a significant doubt whether "near the image" would be enforced by a court and until such time as they are released with a COM:L compliant licence they should remain deleted. LGA talkedits 21:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The problem is the custom license tag, created by the uploader. Since he is the only one who can change the license and he either doesn't or doesn't want to understand the problem, the only way out is the deletion of all media tagged with this specific custom license template. The uploader blames Commons, our policies, CC-licenses, and everybody else but doesn't recognize that he created an unsolvable problem. What a shame. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hedwig, this is the 1000th time I'm requesting our admins and senior volunteers to handle our contributors in a gentle way. (Hope Fæ will agree with me.) I read most of those discussions (many in German; so difficult to follow), and the initial DR is started with an invalid reason "custom template". Later people find the word "below the image" and he changed it to "near". I didn't see anybody suggested a better word there. And it seems he is now under block; so can't comment here. Let him some time, and try to handle it without hurting his dignity in a peanut court. Jee 02:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree I restored the custom license and added 2 Versions. Here are the permalinks: Version 1, If technically possible... and Just please... Maybe that will work for Heinz-Josef Lücking. I asked the blocking admin if he'd oppose an unblock. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I made a request on his talk page. Jee 03:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Our own copies of the CC licenses and upload tools are so fucked up admins have no business splitting hairs like this 'until their own house is in order. --Elvey (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to undelete anything as is. Of course, if the uploader agrees to revert his non-compatible changes in licensing back to standard CC, we can undelete these -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red Funnel, Red Jet 5, IMO8954415.jpg [edit]

This is my file which I uploaded to wikimedia commons for all to use and someone obviously decided that they didn't like it and deleted it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkymasterUK (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted because there was no licensing information, not because people didn't like it. All files on Commons need to be suitably licensed. Microchip08 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) It appears that the file description page, including the license was lost due to a software bug, and the image was subsequently deleted because no license was ever specified.
However, I notice that the same image exists at Flickr, where it was uploaded 12 days before you uploaded it here and where it is marked as "© All Rights Reserved". If you are the owner of the Flickr account Peter Olding, please change the license of the photo at Flickr to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
Lupo 14:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Skank Issue 1.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir,

I am the copyright holder on that image, and would like it reinstated (as I am the editor and designer of that piece). I will quite happily take off any copyright notices on it so it can be used with regards the article on Skank Magazine and the policies of wikipedia.

Hello,

I'm slightly confused. Has my picture been undeleted? Or are you still considering? Or do I need to upload it again.

Kind regards.

--Marymampy (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymampy (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pope John Paul II House.jpg[edit]

HI! PLEASE UNDELETE THAT PICTURE SO THE PEOPLE ARE LIKE TO KNOW

--SANTABABES (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)SANTABABES[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Print screen katadata.png[edit]

Dear admin

This is my own website. I am the owner of the website. You can see my profile on http://katadata.co.id/profil/ade-wahyudi

there is no way this will violated copyright.

Regards

Ade--Ade Wahyudi (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We often get fans or others claiming to be Web site owners, so in these circumstances we require that you confirm that User:Ade Wahyudi is actually the Ade Wahyudi who owns the site using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation Logo.jpg[edit]

Image is from Buna, Papua, on 25 December 1942, and is clearly tagged as public domain – see the Australian War Memorial image 014028: "Image copyright: Copyright expired - public domain, This image is in the Public Domain" and carries the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark. If you click through the hyperlink to the Australian War Memorial Copyright expired - public domain page it says:

Copyright expired - public domain

This term describes material held in the National Collection that is clearly out of the period of copyright protection. Material that has passed out of the period of copyright protection is known as being in the "public domain" and is free of known copyright restrictions.

You do not need permission from the copyright owner to copy this image from the Memorial's web site, or to reproduce it elsewhere.

That seems fairly explicit. The image is also here at commons at File:Buna.jpg. The addition of text in the logo is non copyrightable lettering. Mojoworker (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem was that it remained unclear if the file is public domain in the United States. I understand that the image is PD in Autralia but com:licensing requires files to be free in the US and the country of origen. We need to know when the file is published for the first time to know if the file is PD in the States or not. Btw, the file was not tagged correctly. Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojoworker: As the Kokoda Track Foundation is an Australian based organisation just adding the text to form a logo could well mean the image is copyright, Australia has almost no threshold of originality for copyright protection. I can't see the file so can't comment if this would be the case for this logo. LGA talkedits 22:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LGA: It is the logo bottom left at this page. Natuur12 (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a close call, not enough to over turn the DR IMO, best if it is uploaded to enwp as either fair use or as PD for the image and PD-Textlogo for the text and tagged {{Do not move to Commons}}. LGA talkedits 00:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Natuur12: The photographer, George Silk, was a combat photographer for the Australian government when the photo was taken. This would seem to be covered by condition 'E' of {{PD-Australia}}, "Commonwealth or State government owned photographs and engravings". According to that template, (the Australian) "Copyright has expired if...taken or published more than 50 years ago and prior to 1 May 1969". Since the photo was taken 25 December 1942, the Australian copyright expired 25 December 1992. It (and File:Buna.jpg) should probably be tagged with {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. According to w:Template:PD-AustraliaGov (the template's different there on Wikipedia than here on commons), it is in the public domain in the US since "it entered the public domain in Australia prior to 1996". @LGA: The editor that uploaded the image, w:User:Bluhdorn works for the KTF and the text of the Kokoda Track Foundation website is Creative Commons licensed CC-BY-SA. See The Kokoda Track Foundation's copyright notice: "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). width=44px" I'm not sure why the difference in {{PD-AustraliaGov}} templates, or if it's a {{PD-font}} or fair use issue, but if it makes sense to move the image to Wikipedia, then please restore it temporarily and I'll move it there. Mojoworker (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojoworker: I also noticed the CC-BY-SA notice on the website, but it clearly only covers the text. No one here is trying to be difficult but just do the right thing by anyone who has rights in the logo; have you thought of asking the Kokoda Track Foundation to provide COM:OTRS with the required consent then it can be hosted ?LGA talkedits 01:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and moved it to enwp: w:File:Logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation.png tagged as fair use and "do not move" but also noting it's likely PD (and tagged as such) as it fails to meet the threshold of originality since it's a reproduction of a public domain work. So, I think we're done here. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as resolved, per above. -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo amba mejorado imprenta sin fecha abajo.jpg[edit]

This file, is property of AMBA Institution, www.ambadeargentina.com.ar and had permisson to upload to wikipedia to make an accesory for wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.69.250 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send your permission to COM:OTRS. Microchip08 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

"File:Arushi logo.jpg" - Please Undelete[edit]

Please undelete as its not a copyright violation. It's for Arushi foundation and the same can be found at www.arushi-india.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeet.mehta (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Green Mahjong ingame screenshot june 2014.png [edit]

The game "green Mahjong" is under the GPLv3 and the artwork is under a CC license. Thus, there should be no copyright infringement. Additionally, since the maker of the screenshot (me) is the author of the game (again me), I can release that screenshot under a creative common license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckdaniel (talk • contribs) 11:45, 6 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin observation) The artwork seems to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial, which is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Microchip08 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beckdaniel: Please send permission to our OTRS team to get the file restored. Regards. ~ Nahid Talk 13:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dayton Superior Logo.pdf[edit]

File:Dayton Superior Logo.pdf should not be deleted as I am an employee of the company whose logo this is of, and the logo was retrieved from our internal database for distribution across the web. This image is to be used for the company's Wikipedia page that I am creating.

Daytonsuperior (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daytonsuperior: you should send permission to COM:OTRS. Microchip08 (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FrederikWillemVanVloten.png [edit]

The previous undeletion request was denied. However I was made aware of the following image which is also a WWII image from an unknown photographer which wasn't removed and was uploaded by a Steward: Huwelijk_Meinoud_en_Florrie_Rost_van_Tonningen.jpg. So I would like to have this image reinstated with the same license as the above-mentioned image, as it is also an image that falls under the same EU law about works by anonymous photographers as 70 years have passed since it was publicized. Targaryen 19:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Accordint to article 38 of the Dutch coppyrightlaw
  • 1. The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.
  • 2. The same shall apply to works of which a public institution, association, foundation or company is deemed the author, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as the author on or in copies of the work which have been communicated to the public.
  • 3. If the author discloses his identity prior to the end of the term referred to in paragraph 1, the duration of the copyright in the work concerned shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of article 37.
Well, I believe that it meets criteria 1 and it was published in 1943 without mentioning an author so this file should be okey. It might very well meet criteria two since the file is made by a photographer of the NSB so I  Support undeletion of this file. Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done File restored, author and permission are updated. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It is missing details of first publication, the only details given are that it was published on page 109 of Oorlog en Verzet in de Prinsenstad by Joop W. de Blij in 2005, if that was the first publication it won't be PD in the US and quite possibly the source country as well. LGA talkedits 02:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I have doubt that it wasn't published before. Seems to me like a propaganda photo, so its highly likely that it has been published shortly after creation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your confidence in level of likelihood of publication, do we know what that book gives for the photo credit or source ? (gbooks does not have access to it). LGA talkedits 03:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked on Google Books as well. I guess we need to ask on NL-wiki then. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shortcut: @Jcb: and @Trijnstel: Could one of you please help out here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, undeleted by Hedwig. If there are any other pending questions about copyright, a new DR should be started -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for some help and updated the file discription. I think that it meets article 38 paragraph (lid in Dutch) two but I will ask someone who actually went to lawschool in the Netherlands. :). Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after some reachers, the file appears not to be okey after all so I nominated it for deletion :(. Natuur12 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acid test.jpg round 2[edit]

apparently, the idea that posters are only published in books in unsupported.
Berkley Law "Public Domain Handbook" p. 16 [4]: "A work is considered “generally published” if the author authorized at least one copy of the work to be made available to the general public without regard to who would receive a copy and without restriction on further uses of the work. Works such as posters, buttons, newsletters, fundraising letters, and brochures that were widely distributed will likely be considered generally published....A work can be considered generally published even if it is not offered in sufficient numbers to satisfy public demand; the distribution of a single copy may be enough to be classified as a general publication"
"The original(?) owner of this poster was Bob Thomas";
"This poster was given to Reggie Williams"
posters published between December 11, 1965 and January 8, 1966; no notice = public domain. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-05#File:Acid test.jpg --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Same as before -FASTILY 09:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bruce Pasternack 1974.jpg[edit]

this image is an old press photo here is the front of photo and back of photo this image was published in 1974 and has no copyright on it so it falls into the public domain (PD-US-no notice) because

  • The photo has no copyright markings on it as can be seen in the links above.
  • United States Copyright Office page 2 "Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies.
1 The symbol © (letter C in a circle); the word “Copyright”; or the abbreviation “Copr.”
2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.
3 The name of the copyright owner, an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner.1 Example © 2007 Jane Doe." Dman41689 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As was made clear at the DR more information is needed in relation to the publication of this image, if it appeared in the newspaper with a copyright notice and a few were say given to the subject as gifts then 17 U.S.C. § 405 sub-part 1 would apply. LGA talkedits 06:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but its a press photo if it was published in a newspaper with a copyright then that same copyright would be on the press photo otherwise how they would know what copyright they would have to put. Dman41689 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You at least need to demonstrate that when it appeared in the newspaper it did so without a copyright notice and preferably on more than one occasion. I also recommend that you read 17 U.S.C. § 405 to better understand the exceptions to the notice on single copies, for example sub-section 3 is also often overlooked, if this was distributed with a requirement to have the notice and this copy was produced contra to that requirement it would also be covered. LGA talkedits 07:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As LGA says, if it was published in 1974, then we need to know where it was published. The fact there exists a copy of the photograph without a (c) proves nothing. Newspaper file copies will not have a (c) on them, but the notice in the newspaper would cover their use. If the image has not, in fact, been published, then it has a copyright until 2094 or 70 years after the death of the photographer, whichever comes first. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LGA & Jim --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acandescent Light Bulb.tif[edit]

An OTRS ticket (ticket:2014060610016275) has been received concerning this file; please restore it. Microchip08 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Афиша концерта Рамзана Паскаева.jpg[edit]

I didn't find any rule I broke by uploading the file. If there is such rule explain me, pls. Simba16 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Derivative works. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RamonaPucheta.jpg [edit]

Soy el propietario de la imagen subida. Soy asesor de prensa de la persona de la imagen. Y cuento con el permiso para que toda imagen de la persona sea distribuída libremente, sin ningún tipo de Copyright. Gracias

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Espírito Eugênia-Aspásia.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I had already sent permission to the OTRS Luidje (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Magog -FASTILY 06:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sil Brook[edit]

--Jabigpine (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC) I have permission to use this copyright material. Sil Brook sent you an email from the web site giving Wikimedia copyright of such material. So please undelete Sil Brook. If it needs some changes you have our permission to make any changes necessary. 6/9/14 Joyce Ann & Sil Brook--Jabigpine (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for arranging that. Once COM:OTRS processes the email that was sent, the file will be restored -FASTILY 06:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bächleenten.JPG [edit]

Ich protestiere gegen die Löschung des Bildes, das als einziges von allen zur Diskussion stehenden Bildern (siehe [5]) gelöscht wurde. Hier wird mit zweierlei Maß gemessen. --Andreas Schwarzkopf (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This deletion was correct -- the subject is a copyrighted toy. The DR cited above was for 39 different images of different toys. It was closed as a "keep" only because it was difficult to deal with as a mass delete -- some of them should be kept, others not. This is not a double standard, as User:Andreas Schwarzkopf claims, but simply procedure. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hier wird mit zweierlei Maß gemessen! --Andreas Schwarzkopf (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative work of copyrighted duck design. FOP dos not applies as this seems not to be permanently located. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smriti Irani walks for Manish Malhotra & Shaina NC's show for CPAA 13.jpg [edit]

Undelete the image as it falls under Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. Was the template not used in the image? I doubt that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: No reason for deletion. License and permission OK. Yann (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AskNet-Screenshot.jpg [edit]

AskNet.ru - this is my site. I am the author and owner of this site. I give permission to all to use screenshots Asknet.ru. --Ogarok (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Centre National du Cuir et de la Chaussure.jpg[edit]

Hello; Following the removal of logo National Center for Leather and Shoes; from wikimedia commons, I inform you that this photo is not registered on any license ; I checked his information with the National Center for Leather and Shoes,the logo is the owner of National center of leather and shoe, it agree that it is download commons.wikimedia --Touzrimounir (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mom dad jp.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission obtained for {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}; ticket:2014060910016439. Microchip08 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simone-129.jpg [edit]

File is taken for public use EditorialExpert (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)EditorialExpertEditorialExpert (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which needs to be forwarded to COM:OTRS in order for to get the files restored -FASTILY 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by LukeKPI[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete those files. I was making page for my teacher Belanskiy and got this works from him. He said to add his works to this page (his wiki page). Please give me answer if I need to do something. LukeKPI (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copyright violation. No permission from Белянський Олександр Миколайович received by WMF OTRS system. Ankry (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the graphic artist who created this file: BEARMANOR-RADIO-AD-BANNER-800wide.jpg[edit]

Please return this file. I am the graphic artist who created this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BEARMANOR-RADIO-AD-BANNER-800wide.jpg

--Lorie B. Kellogg (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Looks like it is way out of project scope. We don't keep advertisements for the sake of having them here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JOE-MONTY-01.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of this photo. Please add it back to the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JOE-MONTY-01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

--Lorie B. Kellogg (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a montage of two photos and I would doubt that the photo on the left side of the montage - an extract of the photo published for example at history.com and credited to Corbis where you find it at http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U01146ACME/portrait-of-bernard-montgomery - is realy your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crematorium (14246988242).jpg[edit]

This deletion was neither based on the DR nomination, or any issues arising from the DR discussion. Based on their personal opinion of quality and objection to the file name, the deleting admin made the decision based on their own values and for reasons they did not discuss in advance of taking action.

The photograph was a casual one taken in preparation for the LGBT related production of the stage play "Crematorium". I do not understand the deleting admin's objection to the filename (on their talk page), had this been part of the DR it would have been discussed. In terms of value, were anyone wanting to research Kargaltsev's stage production of this work related to the murder of LGBT people during the Holocaust, then rehearsal photographs would be educational, showing the actors off-stage and illustrating their process. Kargaltsev often takes instagram style photographs, these are not intended to be studio shots, they are casual photographs showing the creative process and the evolution of his work as an LGBT artist in New York.

With regard to the Flickr Review, it was made clear this was not the reason for deletion. I have separately addressed this point in advance of the file being deleted. --Fæ (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Flickr Review process gave no result as the file seems to be nonexistent of Flickr. In effect, file is suspicious for copyvio. Is there any evidence it is available under a free license? Ankry (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Exactly. It is said to be an upload from Flickr, but Flickr review was not completed and therefore we have no way of verifying what it's license on Flickr was. This is not at all about content, but about process. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe (I cannot check the image page) that an explanation of the automated verification process using the Flickr API was added before the page was deleted. If not it can be added. Jameslwoodward please check over the DR for details and see User:Fæ/Flickr_API and User:Fæ/Flickr_API_detail.
Another bot review as a rationale for deletion is pointless bureaucracy, particularly as this is not possible for restricted files as occurs on Kargaltsev's Flickr stream. Note that *all* files on Kargalsev's stream are always released as CC-BY, even his profile indicates this as part of his philosophy for his works.
For those unaware, I am a license reviewer, active on OTRS and probably the most active independent volunteer uploader for Commons. I have uploaded most of Kargalsev's Flickrstream to Commons and carefully verify the uploads. This file is certainly not "suspicious for copyvio" given my manual verification, Kargalsev's consistent free releases of all his works and the additional custom Flickr API checks that I run for these uploads. Lastly, copyright was not the rationale for deletion. If anyone wishes to set a precedent that makes it virtually pointless for me to use the Flickr API, then please raise a second DR. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an effect of failed Flickr Reviev process the "No permission" has been set on June 6th. As it is up to uploader to prove that the file is free, so you should either:
  • provide a working URL to the file with evidence of its free license
  • provide a valid OTRS ticket for it
  • prove that it is your own work
  • prove that file is PD.
In this case, the first failed. No matter the reason it was deleted, we need a proof it is free to undelete it.
If it helps you, I remind from the file contents:
|author=kargaltsev
|source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/kargaltsev/14246988242/
Maybe kargaltsev decided the file is not really free and uploaded accidentally, maybe you make a typo; we need to verify the file license first. If you can provide evidence the file is free, we can continue on other reasons the file was deleted/should be undeleted. Otherwise, it is no-op. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of maybes, keep in mind that copyright was not the rationale for deletion and URLs change or expire all the time, we do not automatically delete files for that reason. If you want to raise a DR for copyright, then do so. The fact is that the license was both automatically validated and checked by hand by a license reviewer, me. If you want me to add the license review template to the file, then there are sufficient grounds for me to do so. You raise several irrelevant points such as "prove that file is PD", please don't take the thread on a tangent like this when you can see the details of the case and the source Flickrstream. As for Kargalsev's statement, a copy of it is published, publicly on Commons, at Category:Files from Sasha Kargaltsev Flickr stream, in this scenario an OTRS ticket would be pointless, as it would be the same information that anyone can verify by looking on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But lack of proper copyright as a valid reason to refuse undeletion, regardless what the deletion rationale was. If you want to continue discussion on this basis, do it somewhere else.
If links fail before we can verify them via Flickr Reviev or via Wayback machine, the files are lost for commons. We do not hunt for meteores; each uploader can ask his image to be deleted for a week after their upload. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again, the Flickr review bot failed because the image was not on Flickr when the bot tried to review it. Given that there is no way to independently verify what license it had on Flickr, it qualifies as a {{Speedy}}. The fact that it had a DR with a different reason for deletion is irrelevant -- without an independent Flickr review, or other proof that it is PD, we can't keep it.

Our rules require an independent review -- you can't review your own uploads -- for the simple reason that if the image's license is ever challenged, it is essential that there be an independent set of eyes that has verified its source status. The uploader can't do that because he has an inherent conflict of interest..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes it look like my mistake was building an automatic API check and using it rather than making it appear to be under another account. Obviously, if I ran *the same software using my same machine* under a bot account called something like Faebot-Flickr-checker or similar, everyone would take that as evidence, even though the procedure would be identical and no real extra validation would be added. I'll think about creating another bot account for this bureaucratic purpose which I can kick off any time I do more uploads like this. This discussion should be sufficient evidence to justify a bot flag for the account as the current bots cannot do what my script does. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per Jim. 1) Fae uploaded the image with a Flickr source; 2) A bot tagged it as being in need of a review; 3) A separate bot failed the review; 4) A user added a no source tag; 5) Fae removed the no source tag, and opened the DR; 6) Fae added a note purporting that his propriety script (i.e., not a community-approved bot) had confirmed permission (a self-review explicitly disallowed by COM:LR). This is very simple: Fae uploaded an image with no support for a purported CC license. Now, instead of providing support--either through a functioning source link or OTRS permission from the Flickr user--he is content with irrelevant nonsense about scope/name issues; that the DR (which he started) was off point; and that the license review process is "pointless bureaucracy" (whilst simultaneously boasting about being a license review and OTRS member). COM:EVID, COM:L and COM:PRP are all violated here. Эlcobbola talk 13:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fæ, creating a bot would be fine, but a bot under your control cannot independently verify images you have uploaded. The key here is "independent" -- a second set of eyes, which can include bot "eyes", has to provide the verification that the license was actually as it says. This is not because your Commons colleagues do not trust you, but because the verification is done to convince a judge in a potential future lawsuit that the image actually had the license that we claim. Without the independent verification it would be your word against that of the Flickr user. With the verification, a trusted Commons user with no reason to lie would back up your word. Your bot can't provide that verification for your uploads..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds paranoid, particularly if the code is openly published (and so can be produced in court) or could have multiple operators. By the same logic, Magnus would be unable to use his own automated bots for any verification of his upload projects. Anyway this is a matter for the bot approval process, now this thread has reached a negative outcome. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The endangered gray wolf canis lupus.jpg[edit]

The file was brought up for discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The endangered gray wolf canis lupus.jpg as being a duplicate. Within a short number of hours, User:Denniss had closed the discussion and redirected the file. I was asked by Fae to look at the DR in question, and I undeleted the file with this rationale. Instead of discussing the action, Denniss has chosen to wheel war, and has now deleted the photo entirely still claiming that it is up-scaled. In my browser, the image does not appear to be up-scaled at all -- it simply appears that the public-domain-image website has managed to get a copy of the image in higher resolution. The two images are not exact duplicates, and the file should be undeleted. russavia (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Imelda Marcos in 1954.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imelda Marcos in 1954.jpg.This file was deleted by the reason of URAA and returned by undeletion requests.And a deletion request was submitted again this time, and it was deleted by user:Fastily. The deletion reasons are as follows. "Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons." I feel doubts about that decision. And I asked him, but he did not answer my questions.
Quotation"

Dear Sir. I have some questions for your measures.

1)Why do the last time and the same human being handle it this time?

2)At Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.It is clear that Diaz does not have the copyright for this photograph. Where did you find significant doubt?

3)At Commons:Copyright rules.It contradicts a mention of Dealing with uncertainty that you wrote. I want your explanation in regards to that.

4)You do not touch it at all about Probatio diabolica and rough proof. Do you not know these two?

5)It is possible for nobody to prove the first publication. "This is not the first publication." If somebody says so, We cannot upload the photograph in Commons. Is it that this is right?

Please answer about the above.--Y.haruo (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're discussing a DR with another participant, it's only fair that I also invite User:LGA to comment. -User talk:Fastily 10:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unquote

However it is admitted that assume in consideration of the subject by here( Commons:Copyright rules#Dealing with uncertainty). Obviously his decision contradicts this content. The original copyright holder of this photograph is unknown, but I show that "rough proof" is stamped to this photograph circa 1954. This is a seal of the publication. Therefore, it is assumed that this photograph was published circa 1954. By the above, I express my disapproval of this decision and submit undeletion requests of this file.--Y.haruo (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published in 1954, then it became PD in the Philippines on January 1, 2005. Since the copyright had not expired in the Philippines in 1996, the URAA date, the U.S. copyright would have been restored and will expire in 2050. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose COM:L details how it is essential to know the exact date and location of publication in order to determine if a image is PD in the US and without that information establishing how this image became and remains PD in the US we just can't host this image on commons. LGA talkedits 20:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is a studio proof of an image said to be from around 1954. While it may have been taken in the Philippines, it is notable that the photographer's stamp on the proof is in English, so the actual site of the photograph is uncertain. No evidence has been offered of its being published anywhere before its appearance in a 2003 film. Note that a studio photographer sending the subject a rough proof does not constitute publication. Publication requires that the work be seen by the public.
During the period when this photo was taken, just before her marriage, she was working as a model and beauty queen. While it is entirely possible that this image was published then, it is equally possible that it is only one of many taken at that time that was never used.
Here's where it gets complicated. If it was published in the Philippines in 1954, then it became PD there in 2004 (The rule for photographs is 50 years after publication or 50 years after creation, which comes second). However, if it was not published in the Philippines until its use in the 2003 movie (at a time when it was still under copyright), then its first publication in the Philippines was in 2003 and it is under copyright until 2053.
So, unless someone can prove that it was actually published in the Philippines in 1954, we cannot restore it until it becomes PD in the Philippines in 2053.
I have ignored URAA, which, if we respect it, would keep this image under copyright in the US for many years. It's irrelevant, though, unless someone can show that the image is PD in the Philippines..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. No consensus to undelete -FASTILY 06:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dominique Perrault.jpg [edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behave of Domus China, I am quite confused about the deletion of the photo I uploaded,Dominique Perrault.jpg. The copyright of this photo belongs to Domus China, and we agree to uploaded it and use by other people including Dominique Perrault himself.

Therefore, we wish you could please undelete this picture asap.

Thanks a lot for your kindly assistance~

All the best Domus China --DomusChina06 (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed for the file to be restored -FASTILY 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palais-Montcalm.jpg [edit]

This is a self-portrait I took on my camera at a sound check at the Palais Montcalm Theatre in Quebec City years ago. I am the sole owner of copyright to this photograph. It has not been used as an album cover, as is stated in its reason for being deleted. It has been made available for publicity purposes, and thus is appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

--Barrio Santa Cruz (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Image appeared here more than 2 years before upload to the Commons. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance. (As an aside: this is an image of Jesse Cook. If this is a "self-portrait," why are you "Barrio Santa Cruz" not "Jesse Cook"?) Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:anaikulam 1.jpg [edit]

request for undeletion please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimsoftwares (talk • contribs)

Procedural close - no reason given for undeletion -FASTILY 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[[: File:to undelete.jpg

  Dear Sir/madame.

Please DO NOT DELETE . This will be useful for certain individual. I believe that use sholg have all the right on his life. --Sakthi3 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Other rights DO NOT mean a thing Sincerely Sakthi Vadivel Email sakthi94611@yahoo.com June12th. 2014[reply]

Procedural close - No file linked, and no reason given to delete anything -FASTILY 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taxi-Arieltax-Milenio-12.60.png[edit]

The file clearly does not violates copyright, the page specify it is under Creative-Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0:

Imagen original de Relojería Leo, bajo licencia CC-BY-SA 3.0

— Relojería Leo, in: https://www.facebook.com/relojeriaLeo.com.ar/photos/pb.380188892019289.-2207520000.1402602413./737727999598708/
Well, I don't see it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to click on "See more".--Eloy (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release verified, file undeleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/2013/05 - Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:John Ericsson National Memorial [edit]

i note user:Fastily has deleted page Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:John Ericsson National Memorial as Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup. i should like to know what is uncontroversial about deleting history? where is the policy or consensus for this action? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DR which was deleted had been moved to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Earle Fraser. DR logs, on the other hand, are routinely deleted when they become empty because all of their constituent DRs have been moved to the archive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:CSD Improperly filled or routinely emptied deletion request or log. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MotherForker[edit]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding in the second closure.

There are two distinct notions. One is the license on the works. The other is the price of the fixed copy. One does not affect the other.

From the notice reproduced in the first DR, the Argentinian TV states clearly that it is the owner of the copyright on the works and that it released the works under CC-by-sa. There does not seem to be any reason to doubt any of it.

Since the works are under CC-by-sa, it does not matter if the copy fixed on this DVD set from edition A was given without payment to persons of group A and another DVD set from edition B may have been distributed differently to persons of group B.

Apparently, non-profit organizations benefited from the possibility of obtaining a DVD set without payment. Good for them. That is the price, or absence of price, of the distribution. It has nothing to do with the license of the contents. The license of the contents in this edition is CC-by-sa. The contents can be reused under CC-by-sa.

There may have been another edition of DVD sets, which may have contained the same works or different works, which may have differed by the price, and which may or may not have the same licence on some or all of its contents, but none of that matters for the Commons files.

The only thing that matters for the Commons files is that the notice on the DVD set that was actually reproduced in the Commons files states clearly that its contents are under CC-by-sa.

The fact that the files uploaded to Commons were recopied from one of the DVD sets from the batch that were given without payment does not affect in any way the validity of the license on the contents.

That is assuming that the Commons files did actually come from a DVD edition bearing this CC-by-sa notice, which is implicit from the fact that the files were tagged with the CC-by-sa tag, and I don't see why it should be doubted.

-- Asclepias (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose It is the extra bit "intended for non-profit organizations" that is the issue, if you would like to get Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E to confirm via COM:OTRS that commons can host them then they can be restored. LGA talkedits 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the explanation above. Your extra bit refers to the price, or in this case the absence or price, charged for the distribution of the DVD sets to a category of people. It has no incidence on the licence. No supplemental confirmation is needed. The license is printed clearly in all letters. It is obvious that RTA know what they are doing, they place those works under CC-by-sa, and that's exactly what they want to do. There's no reason to argue with them about it. They explain that they encourage the reuse. We may not be used yet to see a lot of organizations offering free licenses but that's not a reason to refuse those that are open enough to actually put their stuff under free licenses. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up what Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E meant when they said "intended for non-profit organizations", ask them to contact the OTRS team and confirm it, if everything checks out the files can then be restored. LGA talkedits 05:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Companies/organizations mis-license, or impose non-compatible terms on their content all the time. In this situation, as LGA says, COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms. -FASTILY 06:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tim Minchin-Pop Art.jpg[edit]

Not at all sure why this image was deleted. It was a piece of digital artwork that I myself created. While it was based originally on an image of Tim Minchin, it most certainly is not taken from any other site and is completely my own work. AndyRatchick (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - per COM:DW. Sven Manguard Wha?

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

File:Liumingfu.jpg[edit]

hello. this picture was originally from baike.com. this is a kind of wikimedia of the chinese internet. the people's republic of china is a people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist state does not recognize the validity of western petit-bourgeois concepts like copyright law. in particular, the well known site chinavitae.com gets all its images from baike.com. pictures of top chinese officials are standard issue, no copyright. it's basically similar to how voa images are free. this is my understanding of the copyright situation. would there be some formal way of establishing this?Happymonsoonday1 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Chinese law makes the usual exception for laws, administrative rulings, and judicial decisions, but other works of the government have copyrights. This is in contrast to the USA (and, therefore, VoA) which does not have copyright for any government works. So, while the de facto situation may be as you describe it, Chinese law puts a copyright on such works and Commons must follow the law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Chinese copyright law does exist, and this isn't exempt from it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sandyrust.jpg File:Sandydayoff.jpg[edit]

Deletion of these files for copyright reasons is mistaken: I am the photographer and owner of the files. Please can you undelete.

You will find the originals of these file in my album at http://www.dollalbum.com/dollgallery/thumbnails.php?album=6343

Dollist (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the permission of the maker of the doll: DollSweet - www.dsdoll.com

Sorry but this objection is pedantic: do I need to provide permission from the makers of the clothes? Or VW cars? These photographs have been circulated throughout the internet following their use on the ebay advert for the car http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VW-GOLF-1-8-MK2-Classic-/291161351681 . This listing received 40000 visits during the 8 day period of the auction

See http://dollforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=143&t=54281

Achieving such notoriety, these photographs are seminal to the history of sex dolls, having reached an extremely wide audience. You will find "Sandy" appearing again in my photographs on http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201072318538 and http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201078376820 which are in the nature of an artform.

Dollist (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic only if one is ignorant of basic copyright concepts. See COM:DW (especially COM:UA) and COM:PRP #5. Эlcobbola talk 23:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the issue of copyright with respect to the maker of the clothes or the car.

The issue is irrelevant in any event as I have permission both implied and specific from the maker of the dolls. Please write to Steven at sales@dsdoll.com if you refuse to accept this.

Dollist (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am familiar with the concept. I have the permission from the maker of the doll Doll Sweet. Please email Steven at sales@dsdoll.com if you are unable to accept my word in relation to this. Dollist (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose at this time, if you do have the permission from the maker then get them to e-mail us. If they follow the procedure outlined in COM:OTRS and everything checks out then the images can be restored then. LGA talkedits 06:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Silent Contest deleted from Youku on October 31.png[edit]

Hello,

i emailed the creator of this screenshot and gained their permission to use it under one of the cc licenses. cc3a i think we concluded. let me know and i can forward the email chain.Happymonsoonday1 (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1926 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done URAA is not a valid reason for deletion. Per § 134 Satz 2 UrhG PD in Germany. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1927 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1928 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1930 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, Thank you Yann for finding this Stamps! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1931 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1932 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1934 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1935 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1936 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1937 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1938 stamps of Germany[edit]

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:1939 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, undeleted all. Trijnsteltalk 17:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1940 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1941 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion.

✓ Done, undeleted all. Trijnsteltalk 18:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1942 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1933 stamps of Germany[edit]

All these files are in the public domain in Germany. May be affected by URAA in USA, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aftabeemrouzasr.jpg [edit]

I tooke the picture myself. the object was a newspaper and i took the picture of that.

 Not done Pleas send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Qingdao Metro Logo.svg not understand why it would be deleted, It's in public domain[edit]

This file is in use of the logo of Qingdao Metro, which is a public transportation project. The reason to delete this file is hardly understood. Without this file we cannot let the wiki page of Qingdao Metro show the project's logo. --GordonQD (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qingdao Metro Logo.svg. I can't see what the image was, but if it was the logo then the simple way would to be to uploaded it to enwp and make a claim of fair use over there. Commons can't host images that are not free from copyright. LGA talkedits 06:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lettering is OK, but the green symbol may be copyrighted. If it is in public domain (released by author, not eligible for copyright, etc.), you have to provide a proof for that. Permission for free use is not satisfactory for commons. Ankry (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot upload the file due to the system pop up that the original one was deleted, therefore the wikicommon refuse to upload the same file as it has been deleted. The copyright problem is, the logo was selected from a wide range of artworks by local citizens who sent their proposed metro logo to the council and then published on the council's newspaper, obviously neither the metro corporation nor the city council did pay the artist any in exchange for the exclusive copyright. From my understanding, this kind of logo should be considered as 'Public Domain' because it was created by a citizen, 'donated' (no consideration received) to the metro project. The only argumentation could be the logo of Qingdao Metro Corporation, however is is not the registered trademark. It is not like MTR in Hongkong, which is franchised the railway operation from the government, Qingdao Metro Corporation is a wholly owned entity by the city council. Additionally the file uploaded to wikicommon seems to be a hand drawn version done by Li Chao. --GordonQD (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works created by private citizens are not PD. I do not know the terms of the transfer, but that doesn't inherently make them PD, either. Unless someone explicitly put it in the public domain, it has copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permission from the copyright holder must be emailed to COM:OTRS in order for the file to be restored -FASTILY 06:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nude male in art.jpg[edit]

Same reason as that in the responses: File:Nude male in art.jpg taken in photostudio has much higher resolution and clearer background than other photos of nude male. In addition, this photograph shows underarm and pubic hair, the common secondary sex characteristics for both male and female. Comparing with previous selfies (e.g. some photos in Category:Nude males), this is actually a better and more suitable version for education at schools or for any other purpose. --Unsigned by ???

 Not done Copyright violation --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Malappuram city collage.png[edit]

own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truebrother (talk • contribs)

@Truebrother: You need to provide the source for each of the files used in the montage. The best is to upload them here under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the file, but please specify a source for *each* image in the collage -FASTILY 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sandyrust.jpg - File:Sandydayoff.jpg[edit]

Please forgive me - I don't see the history of these files here. The owner of the copyright of the figure, the manufacturer has written as required: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby affirm that I the creator of the exclusive copyright of silicone sex doll (in relation to files Sandyrust.jpg and Sandydayoff.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Sandyrust.jpg_File:Sandydayoff.jpg) the originals of which are on http://www.dollalbum.com/dollgallery/thumbnails.php?album=6343

I agree to publish that work under the free license. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


Steven DollSweet www.dsdoll.us 06.15.14

- - - - - - - - - -

I trust now that there should be no issue?

Dollist (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done by NahidSultan via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Botev-balkan 006.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: own work 77.78.11.200 01:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mumme.JPG[edit]

(a) What was the reason for the deletion?

Originally flagged for speedy deletion as non-free/fair-use. FastilyClone (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC) (DR)

(b) What's the difference to similar images of Category:Braunschweiger Mumme.

Maybe we should treat similiar images in the same way. So my suggestion is to undelete this image.

--Mattes (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I don't mind if someone wants to reopen a DR. Yann (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adolescent male genitals.jpg[edit]

Same reason as that in the responses: File:Adolescent male genitals.jpg taken in photostudio has much higher resolution and clearer background than other photos of male genitals. Comparing with previous selfies (e.g. some photos in Category:Male genitalia), this is actually a better and more suitable version for education at schools or for any other purpose.

Given the high quality of this file I am inclined to grant the request. However, the other image you uploaded (File:Nude male in art.jpg) was restored and deleted shortly after for being a copyright violation. Maybe you or @Steinsplitter: can shed some light on this issue and see whether it also affects this image? Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Pleas send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NAPHA.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is a permission in OTRS, Ticket#2014040910006524. (Norwegian queue btw) Jeblad (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple files from Naturvernforbundet[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permissions in OTRS, Ticket#2014042810004188.

Multiple files from Naturvernforbundet

Jeblad (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Jeblad: Natuur12 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eli Lieb.JPG[edit]

I manage the artist Eli Lieb. This photo we posted on a newly created Wikipedia page about him was taken and owned by myself and Eli Lieb. It is NOT a violation of copywright. Please undelete this and permit me to have it posted to his page. I'm very annoyed that you did this before contacting me.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graphene sunrise.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is produced and owned by the author, it is not downloaded from "http://www.condmat.physics.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/...." as deletion says. It is in fact uploaded to that link also by the same author. The image is not copyrighted and free for sharing. Zp2010 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arenadabaixada2.jpg [edit]

I am the author of this file, which was uploaded by Tiago Volanick with my permission. I gave him the original .rw2 by e-mail, under his request. The file has no copyright and can be used by anyone. My e-mail: <...> 17/June, 2014 (22:04)

 Not done Not deleted (yet), so nothing to do now. Yann (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

PD in India, but deleted after URAA[edit]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Teriya magar.jpg[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjit.khulal (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeNo reason is given for undeletion. The file information reads:

"description=
English: nepali dancer on did india tv chenail
date=2014-06-18 12:31:29
source=twitter
author=dancer
permission="

Although the description suggests this is a screenshot, it does not look like one. However, it is clear that there is no permission from whoever made this image. In order to keep images on Commons, we need permission from the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for undeletion -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graphene sunrise.jpg [edit]

The file is produced and owned by the author. The Wikipedia license form was filled as following: Origin of the work: Own work. Author names: NNN and NNN. License: "own work, all rights released (Public domain)" It is not clear why the file is again deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zp2010 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The file was deleted because it appears at http://www.condmat.physics.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/condensedmatterphysicsgroup/imagelibrary/GrapheneQuantumCapacitance.jpg without any indication of being free. This was specifically noted in the first deletion. You then uploaded it a second time, out of process and in violation of Commons rules. It was deleted the second time because of your out of process upload.

Because the file has previously appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the copyright holder must submit a license for the file, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All files at http://www.condmat.physics.manchester.ac.uk/media/eps/condensedmatterphysicsgroup/imagelibrary/ are free.

In the re-submission the license was filled as License: "own work, all rights released (Public domain)". Or, is not the submission of license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zp2010 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I spent about ten minutes paging through the subject site and could not find a license statement of any kind. I then went to the home page of the University of Manchester and found an explicit copyright notice:
"(c) 2014 The University of Manchester all rights reserved.
Material published by The University of Manchester on these web pages is copyright The University of Manchester and may not be reproduced without permission. Copyright exists in all other original material published on the internet by staff or students of The University of Manchester and may belong to the author or to The University of Manchester depending on the circumstances of publication."
While we Assume Good Faith as a general rule, and generally accept an uploader's statement of "own work", when a file has appeared previously on the Web apparently without a free license, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If you can link to a statement on the Web site that grants a free license, that will also suffice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permission from the copyright holder needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS in order for the file to be restored -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Copyheart[edit]

I do not see any issues with Template:Copyheart, it is just another form of {{PD-self}}, which is trying to be cute. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyheart lists the reason for deletion that the license does not explicitly mention that it can not be revoked, but it also does not mention that it can - it just does not say anything on the subject. Many of our licenses which were not written using legalese do not explicitly mention if it can or can not be revoked, see for example {{Attribution}}, {{PD-self}}, {{Beerware}}, {{Expat}} and many other. In the mean time we have bunch of images without license, since license was deleted without deletion of the files using it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowking4: , @Jameslwoodward: , @Hedwig in Washington: , @Léna: Inviting original discussion group. --Jarekt (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why is this category deletion not linked to the history? Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyheart. deleting a template as if it were a file, hilarious. note the foreign language versions of this template are not deleted. i've seen a lot of out of process deletions lately. why?
what is the standard of licenses that you will accept? is this license "equivalent" to GDFL? if not why not? why do we have high handed drive-bys with no discussion? you need to set a higher standard of collaboration of curating images, improving licenses, and deleting or restoring images that were wrongfully deleted. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 16:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I nominated it for deletion for three reasons, only one of which is named above. The most important of the three is that, as pointed out at its web site, www.copyheart.org, it is probably not legally binding. We certainly do not need to have files here that have a "license" that is not binding on the licensor. Also, as was mentioned above, it makes no claim to be irrevocable, as required by Commons rules. While we may have other templates that are not explicitly irrevocable, that is a different problem. "Other stuff exists" is never an acceptable reason for keeping something anywhere on WMF projects.

I did not mention at the DR, but add here, that its use will discourage use of files bearing it. When an outside organization comes to Commons to find a file for a specific purpose, they don't need ambiguity in licensing. They know exactly how to deal with a CC license. If they see the copyheart "license", they will simply move on to a different file. Please remember that we aim to be a perpetual repository of images. We have files that are marked for undeletion in 2130, long after all of us will be dead. We don't need ambiguous licenses that are not much different from CC, except for the cute name and the ambiguity. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discourage use as opposed to GDFL? really? doesn't simplicity encourage re-use as opposed to complicated legal tl;dr? what is ambiguous? "Copyheart means we WANT you to copy and share. No restrictions." the quote "Probably not, although you could test it" means since it is yet to be tested in court, you cannot be certain about the copyright status. which by the way is a critique about the prevailing false certainty about what a court would say about URAA items or PD-art. will you now nominate all "public domain" licenses because they are ambiguous? because these items were donated before CC and just as idiosyncratic. i see you are opposed to cuteness, what policy standard is that? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Beerware and Expat (MIT-License) is used for software and it's documentation. As Jim states: We certainly do not need to have files here that have a "license" that is not binding on the licensor. I would like to change that statement to We can't have.... It doesn't make any sense to confuse our customers just for the heck of having a cute license. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose We really don’t think laws and “imaginary property” have any place in peoples’ love or cultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law – a.k.a. state force – intruding where it doesn’t belong. That ♡copyheart isn’t a legally binding license is not a bug – it’s a feature! ([6]) While that may be a nice notion I don't think it is suitable as a license template on a project that actually does care a lot about licenses. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment OK so what should we do with files which were uploaded under such license? Just deleting them seems rude since they were uploaded under assumption that it is a valid license. Maybe we should contact all the uploaders and request a change of license, if they are still around. --Jarekt (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment We can't just delete everything. Quick glance: there are about 60 files with this template, most are from one uploader and are CC licensed as well. Some are not, so I'd ask the uploader to change the license to PD. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete - the 'license' is not binding, and is therefore not a good indicator of copyright status. -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escudo Condado de Gelves.svg[edit]

El Escudo no viola ningún derecho de autor, ya que el trabajo ha sido realizado por mi persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casalarr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you waited an entire eighteen minutes before you decided to ignore procedure, not wait for an answer and just recreate it yourself? Why even bother to ask? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BuddhaWatKhaoPhraBat.jpg This photo is my own photo, its not copyrighted,[edit]

I don't know if you noticed my IP but I am in Thailand and I took that photo myself and does not appear elsewhere

I don't know why your system insists on making it impossibly difficult for me to make a contribution to the encyclopedia considering your Pattaya article has the wrong photo of the Buddhist statue in Pattaya. While I being generous enough to offer my own photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardUK2014 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does appear elsewhere, namely at www.thingstodoinpattaya.net. If this is your image, are you sure you never published it elsewhere? --rimshottalk 06:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was first published on a site with a clear copyright notice, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, I am the owner of www.ThingsToDoInPattaya.net , how do I prove I own this website so you will allow my photograph on the Wikipedia page also? As you can see I am passionate about Pattaya and I want the Wikipedia page to show the correct BuddhaRichardUK2014 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, from my domain email address, which should prove conclusively that I am owner of the site, hopefully then you won't give me anymore problemsRichardUK2014 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, as this is now being resolved via COM:OTRS, which will have the image restored once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Error-1.PNG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 這是我自己拍攝的照片，並沒有侵犯著作權。 A1167 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PerfilFR.jpeg [edit]

Hi, This picture is copyleft. I work with the author, Sérgio Lima, and he authorized the free use of this picture. Thank you, Bruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno L Gonçalves (talk • contribs)

Please send permission to our OTRS team ~ Nahid Talk 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Drapermusic_2014-06-19_17-26.jpg to undelete[edit]

The image is owned by myself outright. It was taken by a friend of mine who personally gave me the photo for unlimited commercial use. I own this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3jamied (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Surrealist Bulletin No.2.jpg [edit]

I would like to request undeletion because the file and original artwork is my own work. I am new to editing and I am sorry if I did not make this clear. Silvano Levy editor of Surrealist Bulletin

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BuddhaWatKhaoPhraBat.jpg[edit]

This image belongs to me as does the website ThingsToDoInPattaya.net , I have emailed the permissions address from richard (at) thingstodoinpattaya.net giving permission to use the photo, please respond to this it is very difficult to get any conclusions without searching through dozens of talk pages and I emailed this morning and had no reply...I'm trying to make the Encyclopedia more accurate and you're making it hard!

Please be patient; there may be a delay before your email is read by the OTRS team. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, as this is now being resolved via COM:OTRS, which will have the image restored once they process the email that was sent

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

File:Southern Bancorp Logo 2.png[edit]

I was confused by all of the different copyright stuff when I was first uploading the image. I'm an employee of the company that has been tasked with making a page for the company so I have permission to use the image for the Wikipedia page. If I must refile the image under a different copyright code, I'm willing to do so, I just don't know which one correctly applies. Thanks for your help and time.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Обложка романа "Знаменитость".jpg[edit]

This image is my own artwork, i'm the publisher.

--Igor Beliy (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coins of the Netherlands[edit]

Those files where deleted because of the URAA, however the URAA is never a sole reason for deletion. Those coins are PD in the Netherlands according to Commons:Currency#The_Netherlands. Natuur12 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me, for a moment, to assume the coins are PD worldwide and ignore the PD status of the coins themselves (and given the recent closure here that ruled that Commons has no community agreement to host files affected by the URAA, I don't want to step into this can of worms). Even if we assume the coins are PD worldwide, the discussion at the DR says that these photos were not taken by the uploader. Absent evidence that the original photographer freely licensed his picture of these coins, we can't use these photos, since {{PD-Art}} can't be applied to photos of 3D articles (see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet). —RP88 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the original photographer did license these photos with a Commons compatible license, then we have to wade into the worms of the URAA ;-) —RP88 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well. I took a look at the files and I see no reason to assume thay those files are not own work. Two are taken from a flickr stream, the files where freely licened. Some photographs have been uplaoded and apperantly be taken by a trusted contributor name Ivanh1. Two or three of the files have been uploaded by a new contributor but I see no reason to assume a copyrightviolation :)Natuur12 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see these files, so I can only go by the discussion at the DR. Absent the ability to examine them myself, I am, however, happy to accept your conclusion that the photographers of these coins released their photos under the terms of Commons compatible licenses. So i guess it's into the URAA we go... —RP88 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per Natuur12. 07:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Some files in German Reich stamps 1938-1942 are missed in the undeletion process above[edit]

Hi, you did a great job in undeletion so many pictures of German Reich stamps above, many thanks. But I miss some pictures which are not undeleted until now, these files are not in the list above. If there are no reasons to keep them deleted, please undelete them as well. Thanks again to all of your hard work. One more question, I dont know why these files now are free or not but when the list has to be with 70 jears after publication then 1943 has to be free as well? There are some I will show you below also. NobbiP 19:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC) p.s. the older undeletion of German Reichh stamps from 1926 until 1942 process is archived here --NobbiP 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: only stamps not signed. Yann (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FORTE PRINCIPE DA BEIRA - COSTA MARQUES - RONDONIA.JPG[edit]

Please undelete. {{OTRS|2014052910009189}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 16:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Temptation 1976.tif [edit]

6/21/2014

To the Administrator:

I would like to request a motion to undelete the following files that I have uploaded for Lito Mayo's page which were all the found items in "Gallery of Work" section of the artist's stub:

Please restore these items. The images are essential to the academic integrity of the wikipedia page for Manolito Mayo. I am giving permission to use these images publicly in Wikipedia. I am the owner of the copyrights of these works by my father, Manolito Mayo. When he passed away, I have been granted all the legal rights to share, publish, or use all or any portions of his works. I inherited the sum of all his works when he died in May 4, 1983 in the Philippines.

Furthermore, I will be adding new images by the Lito Mayo in the future to broaden the scope of his influential works.

Regards,

Michael Mayo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioboss (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I note that these are TIF files, see Commons:File types#TIFF. TIF is not a format the Commons or WP supports well, and TIF files should not, as a general rule, be kept, so, in any event, these should be uploaded again as JPGs. There is also the question of Conflict of Interest. The WP article which you cite is largely written by you. As a rule, WP:EN discourages people who are closely related to the subject of an article to work on it. It is not at all clear whether the article falls within the scope of WP:EN or Commons.

In any event, as noted at the deletions, because these are not your own work, keeping them on Commons will require a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lossless files (e.g. TIFFs) should never be deleted just because a lossy format versions (e.g. JPEGs) are available. Indeed, no file of an allowed type (COM:PS/FT, which includes TIFF) should be deleted just because it is also available in another format. I make no comment about the copyright status of these files. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Electroo2 First album.png[edit]

Hi, File name: "File:Electroo2 First album.png". I own copyright for this imagine file and it wasn't downloaded from the internet. could you help me restore this file? thank you

--SiaoLongBao (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Siaolongbao 2014.06.22[reply]

  •  Oppose It is not clear what this file is. If it is your own creation, then it is probably out of scope, since we do not keep personal art. If it is actually an album cover for a notable group, then you must tell us that and the actual copyright owner must send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. However the group "Electro O2" does not appear to be notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see Jim's comment --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo de la République française.svg [edit]

There was a deletion request for this logo: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_de_la_République_française.svg which was in the end deleted from Commons. Why wasn't it transfered to WP:fr? As you can see for fr:Fichier:Logo_du_Sénat_Republique_française.svg, their is a special licence for this kind of logos. Kyle the hacker (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the file: [7], [8]. Please upload it to fr wiki asap -FASTILY 03:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Superlambananas, Runcorn railway station (geograph 4020288).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Misinterpretation of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 62 (1) (b) "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."

The reason for deletion was that the sculpture was, according to FOP, not permanently installed, i.e. "permanently situated". The misinterpretation of the law is in the assumption that the sculptures have to be "permanently situated". The sculptures can either be "permanently situated in a public place" or merely be "in premises open to the public". The sculptures were in the latter category. No breach of copyright occurred. According to interpretation of the point of law, permanent installation isn't compulsory. 93.96.83.249 00:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're saying is that rather than being construed as
permanently situated AND (in a public place OR in premises open to the public),
You are instead suggesting it be interpreted as
(permanently situated AND in a public place) OR in premises open to the public
Your interpretation would mean that anything situated in open premises (museums, railway stations, shops, etc etc etc) was ineligible for copyright. That seems dubious at best and is certainly not how we have interpreted it here. To give an example, your example would mean that a small garden statue, as one might buy in a shop, would be eligible for copyright while sitting on the pavement outside (not permanently situated), but would not be as soon as it was brought inside the shop. That seems a bit ridiculous. Unless you can provide legal documentation that the act should be interpreted as you state, we should apply COM:PRP and continue the way we have been. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous but true. Your understanding of my interpretation is correct. The law in question doesn't explicitly say that it has to be "permanently situated in premises open to the public", it can be implied, however. Nonetheless, there is a missing comma, after "permanently situated". So, your intended interpretation wouldn't necessarily apply. EP111 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. That directive is also an example of why many would wish to leave such an organisation. EP111 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose "In a public place" and "in premises open to the public" clearly both refer back to "permanently situated". If you try to detach the latter from "permanently situated", you are left with a non-parallel construction. The rules of construction won't permit that. The whole history of FOP and the EU directive only add to the assurance that the usual Commons reading is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Subject is not a permanently placed/situated/located/etc. item and is therefore not eligible for FOP. -FASTILY 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

با سلام

عکس بارگذاری شده به عنوان Farkhondeh Hajizadeh متعلق به اینجانب و به آدرس لینک وبسایت شخصی ام است : http://www.romissamofidi.com/index.php/gallery/literature لطفن آن را احیا فرمایید.

با سپاس و احترام --Romissa Mofidi (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC) رومیسا مفیدی ۲۴ /ژوئن/ ۲۰۱۴[reply]

Greetings: Photo uploaded as Farkhondeh Hajizadeh belongs to me and to my personal web site URL is: http://www.romissamofidi.com/index.php/gallery/literature please refer to revive it. Thanks and Regards -
translator: Google
Relevant file is File:Farkhondeh Hajizadeh - فرخنده حاجی زاده.jpg and not File:Example.jpg. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As you note, the image has appeared on a web site with an explicit copyright notice. We have no way of knowing that User:Romissa Mofidi is actually the owner of that site -- it frequently happens that people will take a username from a site that they do not own. As a result, our rules require that you provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When you have done that, the image will be restored automatically. Note that OTRS has a backlog and this may not happen quickly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple files images of single subject.[edit]

All of the following items were deleted for copyright violations.

Proper permissions were given from their original publisher. According to their website, which was used as a reference, here's what it said;

"That includes all of our original content; comics, games, music, novels, video, and web (that the following social media channels; HSGmi Instagram)"
"educational purposes (that includes any reference works; like encyclopedias, educational journals, a thesis, or an essay.)"
"This work by Heaven Sent Gaming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://heavensentgaming.com/about/copyright-content-usage/."

Should I mention that on further images from this source on the Commons? Sorry for the confusion!

By the by! I requested a move on one of the mentioned images, File:7009ca98bcc811e2979f22000a1f8ae3 7.jpg. DunDunDunt (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DunDunDunt: The link clearly says that the content is copyrighted and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License if they are linked and relinked, redistributed, reblogged, retweeted, and reposted. So we can't host the files because Commons files are hosted to be redistributed even Commercially. See COM:L for details. Thanks! ~ Nahid Talk 22:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And also, If a file is released under both "CC-BY-SA" and "CC-BY-NC-SA" then No license is permissible. The collage is necessarily a copyright violation, since it can't satisfy both licenses at once. ~ Nahid Talk 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, see Nahid's comment ("if they are linked and relinked, redistributed, reblogged, retweeted, and reposted.). --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NahidSultan: "files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use." according to Commons:Licensing.

I'm sorry, I'm being a bothersome newb, thank you for spending time on helping me through this. They are clearly stating that licensed usage is circumstantial. Their website clearly states that under certain circumstances it is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". Perhaps I need to clarify with a custom template of some sort? DunDunDunt (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The limitation of when cc-by-sa-3.0 can be applied is in contradiction with the license. So, such a permission is invalid, IMO. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry, you are right and @DunDunDunt: See my second comment above. Click here for details. ~ Nahid Talk 22:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: & @NahidSultan: It is not a "contradiction with the license", I've done work at the Creative Commons nonprofit org. "Permissions beyond the scope of this license" are usually amended to CC licenses. Unlike most, they are not restrictive on their license, simply being honest with it's usage. There are several organizations that working under the "CC BY" lisense, however due to the non-legally binding information on their "Permissions" may as well be NC as well. I have messaged them to ask if the commons are within the scope of their permissions. Once I get a reply I'll post here. There is no cause for the hostility towards their usage of the license, especially calling it invalid. Legally speaking anyone "releasing" something into the Commons is doing so irrevocably; But, even so, original copyright holders take legal precedence. DunDunDunt (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CC license with extra limitations ammended is no longer the CC license. It is another license, and such a modified license is not accpted in commons. Ankry (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that, although CC strongly discourages the practice, CC cannot prevent licensors from attempting to impose restrictions through separate agreements on uses the license otherwise would allow. In that case, licensees may be contractually restricted from using the high-resolution copy, for example, even if the licensor has placed a CC license on the low-resolution copy." Link Like I said, I've done work the organization. Also, Wikimedia commons does allow it, as long as the intentions of the publisher are followed through, in a way that benefits Wikimedia in general.DunDunDunt (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: & @NahidSultan: They finally responded,

"Yes, that would be acceptable. You can upload as many images of our original characters, screenshots of an original video, photos of the staff from around our site or our Instagram, you can even use a comic or video or two.

As long as your not uploading a collection of comics or videos. But, again, you could upload a few for descriptive purposes. We don't want people hosting huge useless mirrors, unless it's for posterity, like The Internet Archive or something.

Thanks for asking. I'll make it more clear on the Content and Copyright Usage page. Peace!

- Mario"

It's good to see some clarification. It's within the scope of their license. link DunDunDunt (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, if you believe that "such a modified license is not accpted in commons" . Then I would like to point you to prominent examples ESA-Hubble, and the United States Secret Service on money illustrations. When I worked at the commons the primary objective was to free content creators from oppression, as well as freeing others from that same oppression. You can also check the 257 other licensing examples at Category:Custom CC license tags. I will create such a license for future uploads from the Heaven Sent Gaming source. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The website clearly states that the CC license only applies for educational purposes. While this would be sufficient to host them for our own use Wikimedia Commons has a licensing policy that requires all material hosted here to be usable by anyone for any purpose. Noncommercial restrictions for retweeting or the like are not compatible with this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisiPK: by that logic, we shouldn't allow ESA-Hubble images. link DunDunDunt (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the ESA-Hubble copyright information which is inconsistent with our rules. The site's pointing out the several non-copyright restrictions that are true of any commercial use of images does not change the fact that ESA-Hubble usess CC-BY as its license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although the message from Mario is a small step in the right direction, it fails to solve the problem.

  • The web site has an NC license, which is unacceptable. Mario's "permission" says "you may upload" -- it does not speak to the question of what our users may do. Is the "NC" removed for all users of images and videos uploaded to Commons? Or just for WMF? Or just for Commons itself?
  • It does not say how many or which images are permissible. If we keep more than "quite a few", what happens -- does the whole permission go away, or just the last images uploaded.
  • Who is Mario? Since he gives us no corporate title, we can not know that he has any authority to license the images.
  • And, finally, we require that such messages come directly from the source, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, to allow an OTRS volunteer to independently verify the validity of the message.

And, by the way, I disagree with Chris that Commons is an NC site -- because we solicit contributions, we ourselves are not NC. Except for personal web sites that do not advertise their owners' skills and do not carry advertising, there are actually almost no NC uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 9:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, @Jameslwoodward: , these are great points you bring up. Thanks for being helpful. There are three people in their group, only one "Mario" and he is "American designer; cofounder of Heaven Sent Gaming", according to Wikidata. I will ask these questions as well, they are great points. And, to @ChrisiPK: , I don't think they are restricting the use of tweeting for commercial use, don't be silly. I will ask this of them, but I'm heading to bed maybe we'll get a response by morning. Thanks to all of you for your time, this has been edifying. DunDunDunt (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from reading the linked copyright statement it looks like they are only okay with a certain subset of commercial uses/users. This is insufficient for hosting the images on Commons. The page clearly states that the images are under an NC license unless you're using them for some sort of good purpose (see complete list there). This is not an acceptable licensing scheme for Commons. It would be easiest if they would simply get rid of the NC license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be easiest if they would simply get rid of the NC license." They are allowed to license their creations under any circumstances they wish. This is completely within the licensing scheme on Wikimedia Commons. We cannot tell ANYONE to change their license. DunDunDunt (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, it's-a-me Mario. I am the cofounder of Heaven Sent Gaming, I am the Lead Designer of the team, and we are within compliance of Commons:Multi-licensing "CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA (or both) is permissible". I have had a lawyer aid me in correcting the language of our Content and Copyright usage, I have also edited a custom CC license Template:Heaven_Sent_Gaming (created by User:DunDunDunt) here on the commons for correct usage of our content with the lawyers help as well. This has been quite a silly mess, now I'm gonna get back to sipping my sweet tea. Mystic Sonic (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose According to Com:L an uploader can use multiple licenses, only one has to be free. I am not sure if this particular license is covered by Commons policy since it is nothing else but a NC license even so some peeps may be able to use the cc-by-sa-3.0 license. IMHO this is against the intentions of the project and just a loophole to get some files uploaded to Commons. Can't find the scope of the pictures anyway, but that's another question. And: Nice link to Hubble. BUT: Hubble doesn't restrict the usage (except for the logo) and the license allows commercial use. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Hedwig in Washington, it is not my intention to get this content onto the Wikimedia Commons. I didn't even upload these images. Another person, User:DunDunDunt, contacted me about whether or not this was an acceptable use and I responded. I have no intentions in changing my content license to fit in with any group/person that I find no vested interest in; in other words I have no reason to find "a loophole to get some files uploaded to Commons".

I don't know what "the scope of the pictures" is either, but by their name(s) they are of my business partner, Isabel Ruiz. Both of us have IMDB's and I think we have MusicBrainz IDs. So I think we're low-end subjects, nothing worthy of a Wikipedia entry or anything like that. Heaven Sent Gaming has been requested to be put on the english Wikipedia, but I couldn't even see that having anything more than a stub-article. I wouldn't be interested in building anything about my stuffs on Wikimedia's projects, especially since that would be completely against the concept of Wikipedia in general. I do my Heaven Sent Gaming stuff in my spare time, when Isabel and I aren't working our two jobs.

About the ESA link, Hubble restricts ANY usage if you claim that they endorse you in any way. The point of using the link was to provide a reputable example of slight alterations to Creative Commons licensing to fit within line of a project's goal.

I will no longer be posting here about these deleted images, whoever DunDunDunt is will have to manage without me; I don't care enough about inconsequential bureaucratic talk.

However, I am interested in learning how to manage and clean the Template:Heaven_Sent_Gaming. That's a consequential bureaucratic issue that I'm willing to get a comprehension of. If you could lend me some advice, it would be appreciated. I appreciate Wikimedia's projects, and I have every intention to help further it's awesomeness. I've been around Wikimedia stuff long enough, to finally get a bit deeper into it. Mystic Sonic (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that Hubble images are plain CC licensed, allowing commercial use and derivative works. For scope you can have a peek here. Entry into the IMDB makes both of you relevant and therefore photos of you guys are in scope of the project. For the cleanup I'll ping a coder for you. @Rillke: Schaust Du mal auf die Vorlage Template:Heaven_Sent_Gaming falls wir die Doppellizenz akzeptieren? Danke! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hedwig in Washington: You want me to fix the broken layout? -- Rillke(q?) 07:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I oppose this restoration request. The proposed license template is not a free license as required for Commons use -- it places NC restrictions on some uses and goes beyond what is allowed on all uses. Mario's lawyer has crafted something that may meet his HSG's needs, but it does not meet ours, which is that all images on Commons must be free for any use in any quantity and in any combination, with only attribution, and, optionally, SA, allowed as restrictions.

And, also again, the Hubble example is a red herring. Hubble correctly warns you that you cannot use their images to endorse anything you do, but that is a non-copyright restriction. The license itself is pure CC-BY.

This on-going byplay is simply a waste of our time. Mario should either license a limited number of his images CC-BY-SA, without any special template, or go away..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of custom licenses that place a restriction on some uses, which is why we have the Template:Multi-license. The Hubble link isn't a red-herring, and you shouldn't assume ilk like that from well-meaning contributors; the Hubble information is near identical to the "YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE RULES" section on his content-usage page. Mario Lucero has already stated that he "will no longer be posting here about these deleted images". And, from what I can see about his contribution history, he has no quarrel with releasing things into Public Domain, yet alone CC-BY-SA. It is not your call that he "go away.." considering he owns the copyright and therefore licensing rights. I uploaded the images, not him, and Template:Heaven Sent Gaming is perfectly within line of the project. The Wikimedia Commons Category:Custom_license_tags, is a great resource; Template:JPL_Image_Copyright and User:Chamaeleon/Copyright_2 use it well. I will be contacting a colleague of mine to see how to best shorten the text, Template:Heaven Sent Gaming, in line with the "human-readable" CC licenses. DunDunDunt (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again.
""If you intend to publish a vast collection* of Heaven Sent Gaming's content. (more than 3 items of a particular series*, or 7 per person*/character*/subject* per publication year)", then "this file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA)"."
is unacceptable. There can be no limits on how many images a particular users decides to pick.
The restrictions on the use of images other than the three named are statements of law in some countries, but not all. By requiring separate permissions (using "should" rather than "may need to be") is a restriction that Commons does not accept. It amounts to turning a non-copyright restriction into a license restriction.
Also, with respect to the same restrictions -- either a fictional character is freely licensed or it is not. Any image on Commons may be printed on a tee shirt and sold -- a commercial use. The template requires separate permission for that. Not acceptable.
The final sentence
"You are free to release derivative works under either CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC-SA."
is unacceptable. Users may not put NC on Commons images that are CC-BY-SA.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me that Snoopy, Marvin the Martian, Mickey Mouse, Super Mario, and Harry Potter are "freely licensed" since there are images of them on Wikimedia Commons...

Nevertheless their license clearly allows for an image of there's, or a fan-drawn image, to be used and sold as a t-shirt or whatever. They state that you just can't mislead people into thinking that it was made, or endorsed, by them.

If a CC license is released under two separate CC licenses, others have that same right, thus why it says "You are free to release derivative works under EITHER CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC-SA." It doesn't require that BOTH be placed, it clearly says "either". Your the one making red-herrings out of everything; making mountains out of molehills.

I'd like to also state that any item released with a Commons license has "copyright restriction", unless it's actually released into the public domain. The argument your trying to make would require every image of a celebrity, private property, musician, logo, and/or any other "copyrighted" entity to be removed from the Commons. Copyright isn't an enemy of the Commons, it's why CC even exists; to give creators and users freedoms.

Though I do understand what you mean, I corrected the language to more accurately portray the copyright/content usages lines from Heaven Sent Gaming. "should" rather than "may need to be" is absolutely correct. Also, I corrected the information about their particular fictional characters. DunDunDunt (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Significant doubt about the freedom of this files (per COM:PCP). We need a written permission from the copyright holder. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ilia Lezhava 02.jpg[edit]

Ticket:2014051510015921 was obtained on 15 May 2014 (UTC). Dogad75 asked to remove the deletion and close the topic [9] Toskana (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12 could you, please, comment whether you have found any valid reason to ignore the ticket? I find no objection to restore. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Well, that would be google transltate screwing up ;). Sorry. I agree that this file should be restored. I understood that Dogadad requested deletion because the ticket was invalid and my understanding seems to be wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and ✓ Done. File restored.
Thank you very much! Toskana (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:bbkinglive.jpg [edit]

Please undelete my photos. I know it's on other sites but I own it. Please undelete.

 Not done Image of that name did not exist. And follow COM:OTRS rules for previously published photos. Ankry (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swiss pharmacy logo (old).svg[edit]

Image was deleted without process as a copyright violation. The image consists of a simple cross, scales and Rod of Asclepius, all very old symbols. There is no evidence this is copyrighted nor any reason to assume so. Fry1989 eh? 17:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old symbols combined in new ways can easily pass the ToO. The Olympic logo, five circles, is even simpler, but has a copyright around the world. I  Oppose undeletion unless it can be shown that this Swiss logo is PD-old, which it may well be..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the combination is complicated in any way, or that it is original. The file did not meet the conditions for unilateral speedy deletion without any sort of review. As for your example of the olympic rings, they are not considered copyrightable in the United States due to their simplicity (therefore covering the PD in US requirement) and were created in 1912 by Pierre de Coubertin who died in 1937 and so therefore are also PD in both France and Greece depending on which country you believe is the "origin" of the revived modern games. Your example is both incorrect and indirect. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to undelete... -FASTILY 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SPQ3.jpg [edit]

This is my file File:SPQ3.jpg, from the publication of my teachers that I have stored. For articles ru:Диакоптика#Теория метода Диакоптика need this illustration. Also, this picture is on the site, which was made at my request http://plotnikovna.narod.ru/ (I'm the owner of the contents of this site). Removal request made ​​by my former colleague Alex Spade of the former work in Russia. I am currently working in the EU. Perhaps, Alex Spade make it, because have selfish reasons, possibly, related to his personal work. 

 (book
 |author=  Плотников Н.А. 
 |title= Система физических величин. 
 |publisher= ВОИР и Вологодский Областной Совет ВОИР. 
 |url= http://plotnikovna.narod.ru/
 |place= Вологда. 
 |year= 1978., 
 |Russian interlibrary code = (ББК 22.3 с, УДК 53.081)
 )

RR Ignat99 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two problems with this image, either of which would require that it not be restored. First, it is not useful for an educational purpose. As noted at the DR, articles including it have been removed from two different Wikipedias. Second, it is a probable copyright violation. There is no evidence that the uploader has permission to license this work, which by his own admission above, is not his own work as claimed in the file description, but "from the publication of my teachers that I have stored". This second problem can be cured only by getting a license from the actual copyright holder, but, even then, it would be out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These problems do not exist. Original image [1. http://plotnikovna.narod.ru/img/t2_1.jpg] [2. http://plotnikovna.narod.ru/img/31.jpg]. The book is not written by me, I created the image. I personally scanned and I personally posted on the Internet and later to wiki. The author died in 2001. Article about it has been removed by request Alex Spade. Archive bequeathed friends. I am one of them. I can refer to the publisher, "ВОИР и Вологодский Областной Совет ВОИР (All-Russian Society of Naturalists and Innovators)" Acknowledgment request paper. The article was removed from the English Wikipedia after renaming in Russian and deleted by request Alex Spade. Explain your point of view about the educational value of the image? For my knowledge, this is one of the best teaching methods in physics. I teach at the university since 2004. Ignat99 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the fact that two different WPs have chosen to delete this material says that it is not educationally useful. You accuse Alex Spade of doing this for some reason, but neither deletion was the work of one person.
You also admit that while you may have drawn the image, it has appeared in a copyrighted book. You do not own that copyright.
Therefore, as I have said above, there are two different unrelated reasons why this image should not be on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quinteros,Miguel 1984 Saloniki.png[edit]

In der Beschreibungsseite zu obiger Datei gab ich an, dass meine Tochter Isabel Hund mir die Erlaubnis gab, das Bild nach Commons hochzuladen! Weshalb reicht das nicht aus? MfG Gerhard Hund --GFHund (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC) --GFHund (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aplicación Decorapolis.jpg[edit]

Es una imagen propia de nuestra empresa y tenemos todos los derechos para publicarla en wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decorapolis (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which should be submitted via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NeilThomasProto.jpg[edit]

June 26, 2014

I have e-mailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org the e-mail below. This photo is NOT a copyright violation. You are free to contact Neil Thomas Proto himself for confirmation. Please let me know what else I must do to prove that this image may be used freely on Wikipedia.

Thank you,


Balbenus (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Rachel G. Ledbetter[reply]

I hereby affirm that Neil Thomas Proto is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached photograph and which is available here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neil_Thomas_Proto.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Neil Thomas Proto

June 12, 2014

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Small crab 2 at St Marks NWR.JPG[edit]

Deleted because out of scope? There was a small crab in the photo. Someone commented that the they couldn't see anything in the photo. I added a note around the crab. So, why was it deleted as out of scope? Please, undelete as I see no reason why it was deleted at all. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a blurry image of a crab which could be hardly seen and who could never been identified. Even with the note you have to look carefully to see the crab. And you can't even be sure that it is a crab. Could be a lobster as well purely looking at the image. This file is not educational usefull imo. Natuur12 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could have said that on the deletion request\talk page instead of just "out of scope". Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a low quality image contentwise, hence out of scope... -FASTILY 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RGA1.jpg [edit]

i have already forwarded details to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating that owner has given me complete authority to use the image. this is why i want the image to get restored asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUttam (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

A statement from you is not really that helpful; what we need is a statement from the copyright holder. And the statement that we need is not that you have the right to use the image, but that anyone has the right to use, modify and distribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Commons:OTRS has an example of what the statement needs to look like. If you send in a proper permission as described there, there is no need to request undeletion here; it will be taken care of once the e-mail is processed (which may take some time). By the way, what is your connection to User:SuriForever, who is also uploading photos of the same chap? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose at the time, @PUttam: like LX said above, we need the permission of the copyright holder that anyone can use the image. I am sure that the COM:OTRS team will be in contact with you as soon as possible for the correct clarification, please be patient while this happens. LGA talkedits 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which must be submitted via COM:OTRS in order for the file to be restored -FASTILY 23:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mississippi Democrats.png[edit]

To whom it may concern,

My file was deleted due to lack of permission. However, I am the creator of the image, and I absolutely give permission for this image to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons.--Ouidalia (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)ouidalia 6/27/14[reply]

  •  Oppose at the time, @Ouidalia: please follow the guidelines at COM:OTRS for providing the required permissions, if the OTRS team is satisfied they will then undelete the file for you. Please be aware there is a delay on OTRS and it may take a few days for the information to be processed. LGA talkedits 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seoul-Ubiquitous Dream 11.jpg [edit]

No clear rationale for deletion has been provided, i.e. it's been claimed that South Korean law would place a clearly utilitarian and simple design like this under copyright, but no citation has been given to support this claim. This is a minimalist design very much in line with a lot of other content in Category:Domestic robots. I see no good reason for the deletion consistent with policy or law. --Eloquence (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The burden of proof is on you to show that South Korean law would not allow copyright of this sculpted design. It is not deleter's responsibility to cite law to the contrary. We don't know how the South Korean copyright office would treat this, but it clearly would have a copyright in the USA and most European countries. The sculpted form goes far beyond the needs of utility, which would probably be better served by a simple rectangular solid. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support At the very least, this seems a very borderline case - one that warrants a fuller DR discussion than minimal comments between the original nominator and the uploader. This was explicitly a COM:PRP deletion, which has the threshold of significant doubt. Indeed, there is doubt as to whether this would be a utilitarian design, but without references to Korean law supporting the purported strictness, I'm not convinced the doubt is at that threshold. I'm certainly not convinced that this would have a copyright in the US. For example, "if design elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of a work cannot be said to be conceptually separable from the utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences, conceptual separability exists." (Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Prods., Inc., 372 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004)). Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per Eloquence and Эlcobbola. Yann (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified people[edit]

I am appealing the decision to indiscriminately delete all of numerous images listed for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified people.

All of the deleted files are properly licenced images, many of which were not liable for deletion pursuant to Commons:Project scope which is an official policy on Wikimedia Commons.

Deleted images that were in use, and therefore not liable for deletion, included:

Project scope states that: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."

Over 40 of the images deleted in this indiscriminate culling of files were in use on other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, and therefore, pursuant to the official policy of Project Scope, are automatically in scope and not liable for deletion. Please restore all of the files listed within this massive deletion request. There may be individual image files within this request which should properly be deleted, but the action to indiscriminately delete all of the files, even those which are by policy are not liable for deletion, puts into question the decision to delete all of the files. There probably are images included within this massive deletion request which should properly be deleted as out of scope, but such images should be individually identified and nominated for deletion so each image may be judged on its own merits to determine if it is, or is not, useful for educational purposes. Dolovis (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Strong oppose Dolovis does not tell the whole story. Although I have not looked at every case, all of those I did examine were added by Delvois to WP articles after the beginning of the DR. Some of them have subsequently been removed from the WP articles and, I suspect, all of them will be eventually, as the use there was mostly inappropriate.
In at least one case, Fleece jacket, he created at a new article which duplicates an existing article just to contain the image. Ironically, that image was subsequently changed for a better one, and was not in use when deleted, so the claim above is inaccurate. I would be surprised if that were the only case where the list above is wrong.
An image that is out of scope does not become in-scope when its uploader adds it to an article. Dolovis's actions may not violate the letter of our rules, but they certainly violate their spirit. We do not block people punitively, but if this happens again, a block will certainly follow. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Dolovis did not get the answer they liked from Fastily on his talk page, so came here and then got the same answer from Jameslwoodward. They're not in scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

I am not forum shopping because I did not get the answer I wanted from the deleting admin (as Sven Manguard) and and threatening to block an editor acting within the rules, and in good faith, is very disconcerting. I tooled this undeletion request after following the instructions given at Commons:Undeletion requests#Appealing a deletion which informed me that the process to follow was to first contact the deleting administrator, and if he denies undeletion, to then request undeletion on this page.

Without the photos available to me I am going by memory when I suggest you take a closer look at all of the deleted files, including these listed below:

  • File:2tone SG Dallas Shoot.jpg is a good photo showing someone smoking a doobie and was in educational use at w:Cannabis smoking;
  • File:Aarons-CustomerCore-1000StoreCelebration-7394 (10929264225).jpg is a good image of a hand gesture which was in welcomed use at w:List of gestures
  • File:Aarons-CustomerCore-1000StoreCelebration-7633 (10927564596).jpg shows the use of light guns and was in educational use at w:Light gun shooter
  • File:Capo (Rapper).jpg is a properly licenced image of an entertainer and was in use at de:Capo (Rapper)
  • File:Burmistrz.jpg showed the use of headphones with a mobile device and was in educational use at w:Headphones

If these images were nominated separately, they would not have been deleted, but grouped together within a nomination for a massive culling they deleted without a close look at what educational value they expressed.

Mass nominations such as this one must be discouraged because they do not allow individual images to be debated on their own merits. Dolovis (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Melanie Tipton.JPG[edit]

This is a self-requested deletion review of this discussion per this query. I deleted this image as an author requested, unused, obsolete (superseded by this), and out of scope image. The original image for reference: [10], [11]. -FASTILY 23:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Tuvalkin arguing in DR. I should be restored, IMO. Ankry (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I have changed my mind. Oou of scope, unless used somewhere. You can link to previous image versions, if you want to use it outside Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This image is the same as another, except that this one needs heavy color correction to be usable. The other has a frame which could easily be removed. In deciding which of two copies of the same image we should keep, I am in favor of the one that needs less fixing, which, in this case, is the other one. This one should remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose. The deletion was proper, and the comments for retention at the DR and Fastily's page border on nonsense. Per COM:SCOPE, we make an exception to the educational requirement due to the "custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page" (emphasis added). When the uploader, the person who would use the image on a personal user page, requests deletion (as is the case here), the prospect of "for use" dissolves. Further, courtesy deletions are explicitly allowed per COM:D. The preceding assumes, of course, a lack of notability (i.e., educational purpose) independent of personal use. Indeed, the DR did not identify any notability (and in fact noted the lack of an article on this person). The notion that "maybe we have here a future Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin, and we’d like to have an image of her earlier years" is ridiculous; would it not imply that we should keep images of every currently non-notable person just in case they become notable in the future? That Tuválkin considers her an "airhead" [12] (an unacceptable personal attack on Melanie tipton (talk · contribs), by the way) might be seen to undermine his protestations that she is important. More important than the potential scope issue: this is an image of Melanie Tipton purported to be authored by Melanie Tipton. The photographer, not the the mere subject, would hold the copyright; these images generally require OTRS permission to confirm that rights were conveyed to the subject. Regardless of scope issues, this needs OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear what the consensus is here. Thanks for your input everyone -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portada Dentro de la Ley.jpg [edit]

I see that https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Portada_Dentro_de_la_Ley.jpg picture has been removed by not indicating the proper permissions, but I sent them an email (OTRS) with a Written by the author of the file that gives me full rights to their free play, as you can see in my other uploads release.

The author of the file is Rafael Yus, the son of the person who wrote the book (Concha Ramos) which has recently died. As heir has all rights to images I'm uploading to wikimedia commons and are being used for article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concha_Ramos

Please, I thank you not erase anything on article "Concha Ramos" as part of an investigation of his life and work and I have full rights to its use.

Please, could you undelete https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Portada_Dentro_de_la_Ley.jpg?

Thank you very much.

Alexwp (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. Once OTRS processes the email that you sent, they will restore the image -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Musical Sancho Panza - Jose Luis Narom.jpg[edit]

Has been removed a photograph licensed with Creative Commons. I see that File:Musical_Sancho_Panza_-_Jose_Luis_Narom.jpg has been removed. The picture has a license: under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional License. Enter: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es_ES - Enter: http://www.arteocio.com/Sancho%20Panza%20el%20musical.htm

The author of the file is José Luis Morán (José Luis Narom). Posters from Sancho Panza Musical by José Luis Morán (José Luis Narom). Assembled by the author himself.

Please, could you undelete File:Musical_Sancho_Panza_-_Jose_Luis_Narom.jpg?

Thank you. --Narom (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Православний фашизм.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: при распространении, публичных показах и использовании в качестве образовательного ресурса обязательно ссылаться на автора. http://orthodoxlaw.info/ Иг22 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:КПУ-КПРФ.png[edit]

(a) {{PD-UA}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Иг22 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No valid reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Російські ПЗРК на Донбасі.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-UA}}, daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information; Иг22 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Допомога ДНР від КПУ.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-UA}}, daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information; Иг22 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Намет КПУ в Севастополі.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-UA}}, daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information; Иг22 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images uploaded by user:Jaam0121[edit]

Archivo:MODELO alta costura.jpg Why removed the photo? I do not understand, I've repeatedly made ​​clear that the rights of that picture are me, do not take internet or anything like that. The model in the picture is my friend and is called Andrea Hernandez, you can even find his Twitter account here -> [13] seems very unfair to do this, considering that there is the first time since that image have eliminated several times despite the clarifications I do. This is a violation to the rights of the photo you are me and I am contributing to Wikipedia for free use. I demand an answer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaam0121 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Demands will get you nowhere. Polite requests are much better.
As clearly set forth in the deletion summary, the image appeared previously at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0ff4ff9KTGM/UuWOzL9uTJI/AAAAAAAAUfY/sfciNB17M6Q/s1600/modelo+con+gran+estatura.jpg. In cases where images have previously appeared without a free license, Commons rules require that the actual copyright holder submit a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Since OTRS, like all of WMF, is staffed by volunteers, there is a backlog and it may be several weeks after receipt of an acceptable license by e-mail before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Tegeler Fließtal[edit]

Was created for Wiki Loves Earth and in the near future I want to upload some pictures here.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, upload pictures first. Ankry (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Ankry. This was deleted as an empty category (i.e., relevant images need to exist before the category), so restoration without the presence of images is pointless. Simply upload images and then recreate the category. Эlcobbola talk 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sri-Chinmoy-Zurich.jpg [edit]

On 28.6.14 this file are deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sri-Chinmoy-Zurich.jpg The Site was temporaliy are moved so that the Links where unavailable. The picture are in the folder "Sport Activities" from the Member Kedar Misani how are: CC BY-SA 3.0

--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I think the license at http://www.srichinmoycentre.org/gallery-commons is clear and gallery.srichinmoycentre.org points to www.srichinmoycentre.org so they seem to be operated by the same organization and I see no reason in asking them for a separate confirmation of the license. If nobody objects, I would restore the file and point this licensing information in the "permission" field. Ankry (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per above. Эlcobbola talk 16:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ilona Kurdy self-portrait.png [edit]

I as her only descendant release this picture - which I personally uploaded for free use into the enciclopedy -, because the article requires an illustration. Deleted by (Natuur12). Just sent notice also to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the template.

(W-v-tegetthoff (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Oppose Merely being a relative (descendant) does not necessarily mean intellectual property rights (distinct from mere physical property rights) were transferred. Evidence that intellectual rights were conveyed from the estate to "W-v-tegetthoff" would need to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sent, as also stated a paragraph upwards (was an edit before opposition submitted). W-v-tegetthoff

Procedural close per above [14]. The OTRS volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image if permission is in order. Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-06&oldid=418717734"