Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-09

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.

[edit]

A copy of a book contents. After the first upload was deleted, I loaded up a new version without the cover image. The only information about a book content without another text should not be copyrighted. --Kürschner (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unfortunately book contents are copyrighted - see COM:DW. As an interesting side note, the notion of copyright was initially conceived to protect the written text, and was later extended to include pictures, art, sculptures, etc. -FASTILY 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borosil mansingh survismeter .pdf [edit]

Someone called Fastily deleted the file named "Borosil mansingh survismeter .pdf". Please re-load the files as it contains valuable information. Only the image files are there while the text files are missing. The only information about who deleted the file is Fastily (talk/contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC7)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sf2013 fluc 060413.jpg [edit]

Bild wurde zuerst ohne Rücksprache mit dem Ersteller und deren Copyrights hochgeladen und deshalb gelöscht.
Rücksprache ist nun erfolgt und das Bild ist in Flickr unter CC zum Teilen erlaubt, wie man hier sehen kann: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/soundframe/8630250537/in/set-72157633190487311
Das Bild gehört zu https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundframe. Würde mich freuen, wenn ich es dort nun hinzufügen könnte. LG, --Sonnji (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License review requested -FASTILY 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Johan Tyrberg webb av Martin Lindeborg.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I requested a picture from Johan Tyrberg, he redirected me to his press secretary and we agreed that we should wait for the official pictures. I got this on e-mail from press secretary Camilla Lindskog <camilla.lindskog@svenskakyrkan.se> . So this is an offical picture of the new Bishop, that is supposed to be spread. of Epkwilk (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the request was done via email. if so, can you forward the email(s) to OTRS? Once it's made clear that we do have proper permission to host the image, it'll be undeleted at that point. Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Tabercil said. Please email COM:OTRS to get the files restored -FASTILY 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Richard Haberkern Image.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014081610000045). --Mdann52talk to me! 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ozaki logo.png[edit]

hello ! i have got the permission to the File:Ozaki logo.png please restore it , thanks a lots !! --Baker0169 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)baker0169 link page : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07_izQfN8mNTkNMYl9kX3o1bjA/edit?usp=sharing[reply]

 Not done: A specific and acceptable license is needed. The one you link to has a time limit and a cancellation clause, and makes no mention of commercial use and derivitaves, which makes it unacceptable for Commons. A sufficient license, (see COM:L for acceptable licenses), needs to be confirmed through the OTRS process before the image can be restored. INeverCry 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khaled Salmeen - Investment Forum.jpg[edit]

I am working for Khaled Salmeen at Kizad/Abu Dhabi Ports Company.

I took the photo that was deleted. I work as a PR manager for his company, therefore I took the picture, and distributed it to the media.

It's our picture. Why are our images just being deleted randomly like this?

Our logos have also been removed from our company articles as well as recent images we took of our ports - critical pieces of Abu Dhabi infrastructure.

We have also uploaded translated versions of articles in Arabic but these are not being approved - yet they are perfectly fully cited and referenced according to Wikipedia guidelines.

These unilateral deletions of legitimate content by Wiki admins are seriously undermining our efforts to contribute to your website.

Thanks,

Tristan --Tristanmulhall (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristanmulhall: please follow the instructions at COM:CONSENT. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Mdann52. INeverCry 01:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ozaki company.jpg[edit]

hello !the second one i uploaded is my own picture , please restore it !! they are not the same picture !

--Baker0169 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)baker0169[reply]

 Not done: Taken from http://www.104.com.tw/jobbank/custjob/index.php?r=cust&j=5e3a436d5e6c3f6840323c1d1d1d1d5f2443a363189j01, which has an All Rights Reserved copyright notice at bottom. COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. INeverCry 02:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:James cama.jpg[edit]

Hi friends,

I wish to request undeletion for this photograph of the late sifu James Cama. It was handed over to me by him before he died to be used freely. I used it in my book, Research of Martial Arts (www.researchofmartialarts.com), and have now uploaded it to Wikipedia in order to commemorate sifu Cama's memory on his page. This is supported by his family members, who thanked me for it.

 Not done: Confirmation of permission from the copyright holder via COM:OTRS is needed. INeverCry 02:03, 3 September 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]

Created the logo myself, wiki mods should not be so ignorant. 'Clear copyright violation', seriously how dumb do you get to decide this. Could this mod be deleted, person is incapable of doing his/her job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.123.19 (talk • contribs)

Could you try it again listing the file in question, and without the gratuitous abuse? Try assuming good faith. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No file to restore. Please log in to your account and try again without the rudeness. INeverCry 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MC poster 27 x 40.jpg [edit]

Hi,

I am in the team of Mulberry Child, a documentary film, and I am trying to create the name to Wikipedia. Thus I really need the picture I uploaded recently to be shown on the right side of the page as a poster. If you need the approval of the creators of this poster, please feel free to contact them.

Here are some information and links may be useful to you:

www.mulberrychildmovie.com www.mulberrychild.com

Or if there are any other ways to show the poster, please let me know.

Thank you.

Shuaixi

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. INeverCry 02:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Syncplify.me Server Icon.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I can confirm as an OTRS Team Member under the OTRS ticket 2014081810018925 the Copyright Holder aggrees to license under the CC-BY SA-4.0 International License. Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 06:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DPART Roundel Final Version.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright Holder released image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license see OTRS ticket 2014081310014536. Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fußballimpression (02).jpg[edit]

Es ist nicht einzusehen, weshalb das Bild von Administrator Krd gelöscht wurde. Zwar gab es bereits eine Diskussion auf Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brazil and Croatia match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-12 (02) ball.jpg, doch ist die vorgetragene Begründung „design on the ball has an inependent copyright under United States law“ an den Haaren herbeigezogen und nicht tragbar. Mit dieser Begründung müssten alle Bilder, die diesen Ball beinhalten gelöscht werden. Es kann wohl nicht ernst gemeint sein, dass nur Fußballbilder hochgeladen werden dürfen, die diesen oder einen anderen Ball nicht beinhalten oder der Ball wegretuschiert werden muss, da auch die Bälle anderer Hersteller dem Markenrecht unterliegen. Die Bildszenen im Fußballsport leben gerade davon, dass der Ball im Bild sichtbar ist, oder gerade wenn ein Treffer gezeigt wird. Das Bild zeigt einen Abstoß/Goal kick des Torwarts/Goalkeepers und ist somit eine substanzieller Bestandteil des Fußballspiels.
Im übrigen finde ich es als Uploader des Bildes bemerkenswert, von der Löschung nicht einmal informiert zu werden. --Steindy (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Wenn die Löschbegründung stichhaltig ist, warum wird dann nicht auch Category:Adidas Brazuca oder gleich Category:FIFA World Cup balls samt allen Unterkategorien gelöscht? --Steindy (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This is an image of a copyrighted ball. Essentially nothing else but the ball is in the photograph. That is very different from an image of a football player or football game that happens to include a ball. De minimis cannot possibly be applied here. As for other images, Commons has more than 20,000,000 images and receives more than 10,000 new images every day. My guess is that more than 1% of those -- 200,000 -- are copyvios or have other problems, so telling us that other problems exist proves nothing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Disco Fries.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket Recieved and confrimed via copyright holder that they release it under the licensing of CCC-BY-SA-3.0. OTRS Members see ticket 2014082710021823. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martin Blankemeyer.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Recived ticket, 2014080410006437 to release the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 Germany License, Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Momia Cerro El Plomo 1954 articulo.jpg[edit]

Solicito que se restaure la imagen, poseo los derechos.

Desde ya muchas gracias

Jisa39 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)jisa39[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfonso Elías Serrano.jpg[edit]

Solicito me dejen usar esta foto ya que yo la tomé.

I request to use this photo because I took it.

--WikiChrlz (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vittaleshwara shatakam.jpg [edit]

నేను ఈ చిత్రాన్ని గ్రంధకర్త సలహా మేరకు ఎక్కించడం జరిగింది. ఈ చిత్రంపై నాకు సర్వ హక్కులు కలవు — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhananjaya.karre (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soundsuplogo2.png[edit]

Reason: This file belongs to me and I allow to use in on wikipedia Vakhlov (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blue Horizon - vol. 1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author of the image (Iago Carlos) provides permission to post the picture. Aoki Sorata (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Iago Carlos needs to confirm permission via COM:OTRS. INeverCry 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hon_Rick_Mazza_MLC.jpg [edit]

Hello,

This photograph is owned by the only individual in the image and gives explicit consent to its free use by all, including wikicommons. Please undelete asap.

--SFPMAZZA (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avro Anson K8758.jpg[edit]

This file was closed without anyone bothering to tell me. Given the low level of my activity here, can someone please inform me of updates on the en.wiki? It's not like I'm hard to find.

So let me make this argument again: the image in question is absolutely identified both to the source and the fact that is blindingly obviously covered by Crown Copyright. Not one person has even attempted an explanation as to why this still falls under their TLA rejection. Do you suspect it was not taken by a member of the RAF or Air Ministry? Do you suggest I am imagining that it is in the book and fully identified? Please, be specific so I can address your arguments - I can't address arguments that are off topic (what does US-Gov have to do with this image?!) or not even stated.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons gets more than 10,000 new images and deletes more than 1,500 images every day. Fewer than 25 Admins do almost all of that work. DR notices come out of a script which places the notice on your Commons talk page, so the person nominating your file for deletion does not ever see your talk page. We have nowhere near the human resources to give people individual notices. I suggest that you enable being notified of talk page messages by e-mail, see Preferences > Notifications > Notify me about these events > Talk page messages > Email.
As for the image, it has been fully discussed here, see the archive. The problem is that for it to be Crown Copyright, it must have been taken by a government employee in the course of that employee's duties, which remains unproven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly was not "fully discussed here", as you can see in the archive. The archive contains some off-topic banter by people who aren't familiar with the topic and are apparently discussing points of law unrelated to the image or the points that support it's claim of CC.
And as I explained, repeatedly, the image in question could only have been taken by members of the RAF or the civilian staff from the AM. The aircraft was top secret, and was only ever seen, let alone flown in, by members of assigned crew of five RAF pilots or the half dozen operators from AMES. All of these people are government employee carrying out the very duty that the image is about. Please, describe for me any scenario where there is even the slightest common-man argument against this being CC. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer being a government employee is not enough for an image to have a Crown Copyright -- the photo must have been taken as part of his official duties. I myself am on the fence on this one, but our standard of "significant doubt" certainly covers the possibility that someone just snapped off a photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion is archived at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-08#File:Avro_Anson_K8758.jpg. In that day and time, Crown Copyright was given to anything produced under the direction or control of the government (regardless if the person was a government employee or not). However, that still leaves the possibility that someone just took a personal photo while flying... that would not be Crown Copyright. If the author of the book had this photo and used it in the book, that is probably a personal copyright. If someone asked him to take photos during the flight and the photos were handed over, and the book got the photo from some sort of RAF or other government archive, then it would be Crown Copyright. I'm not sure there's enough information to really show one way or another right now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It seems to me that "significant doubt" must be the rule here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored There is no reasonble doubt that a picture of a secret aircraft could have been taken by others than RAF personal. Yann (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

(once more)[edit]

A copy of a book contents. After the first upload was deleted, I loaded up a new version without the cover image. The only information about a book content without another text should not be copyrighted. --Kürschner (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately book contents are copyrighted - see COM:DW. As an interesting side note, the notion of copyright was initially conceived to protect the written text, and was later extended to include pictures, art, sculptures, etc. -FASTILY 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find anything about contents registers? And I cannot believe, that there is any interest of the author or the publisher for this, everybody should be glad for publishing. But more important, the German license text say in this sence: This image of text has no original authorship and is therefore in the public domain, because it only represents information that is common property without sufficiently creative authorship. -- Kürschner (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bleeding_Hearts_Syndicate.jpg[edit]

Hello,

This is a picture of my own band make on our rehearsal room by a friend who give us the full right on the picture.

Why have you deleted it? Which criteria?

Please, restore and don't delete anymore.

Regards,

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carte-bepo-complete.png[edit]

Hi, On a fr.wikipédia page, I encountered a red link leading to this deleted file. The reason for the undeletion request is explained on this page. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ok -FASTILY 08:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gray405.png, File:Gray406.png, File:Gray590.png[edit]

Hello, these files were deleted by INeverCry at the request from user David Condrey. The reasons alleged by David Condrey are : " redundant, disgusting, pornographic, not-education, potentially self-promotional, disgusting, images of penis." Well, the last time I checked these images come from a prestigious anatomy book, so I see no reason to deserve these epithets. These images have an educational purpose. I hope we don't start to also delete images related to evolution nor religious icons because injured sensitivities. Big hug.J3D3 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by Courcelles. Yann (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KTB-FemDom.svg[edit]

First off, I would tend to doubt whether any deletion nomination notice was placed on this file's description page, so that there might not have been any real chance to know about or contest the deletion of this file (I certainly did not receive any notice on my user talk page as the primary uploader of this file, or as secondary uploader on File:Kalis Teeth Illustration.JPG for that matter). Even more importantly, this image File:KTB-FemDom.svg does not visually show or depict a penis in any way, and therefore the deletion rationales offered at Commons:Deletion_requests/penis (such as they are) simply do not apply to this image! Scanning down the list of filenames there, I see a number of other deletions which look rather dubious (unless the visual content of such images was radically discrepant from their names)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by Russavia. Yann (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pablo Kleinman.png [edit]

This picture belongs to Pablo Kleinman, a Spanish-language media personality and former candidate for political office. It was downloaded from his official campaign website (http://www.voteforpablo.com/about) where it clearly states about the picture: "This picture is (c) Copyright 2014 Pablo Kleinman for Congress. It may be freely copied and utilized under CC-BY-SA 3.0." The picture was incorrectly tagged for deletion by Wikimedia Commons User:Juggler2005 who only has a basic knowledge of English and apparently did not understand the explanation. There was no copyright violation and the file should be restored. Thank you. Yorapa (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: License is OK. Yann (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Penis cross section mk.svg [edit]

I believe the image (a scheme) was deleted by mistake. It was used on the Macedonian Wikipedia. Thanks.--Никола Стоіаноски 09:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored Alan (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple images showing male genitalia[edit]

Hi, in this deletion request a lot of pictures showing penises were nominated for deletion. The reason was "redundant, disgusting, pornographic, not-education, potentially self-promotional, disgusting, images of penis. lol" (yes, including "lol"). The files were deleted without any further information - including some medical drawings frequently used in almost all wikipedia versions. Did the admin even look at the files he deleted? I highly doubt that. Also the argumation used in the deletion request ("pornographic", "lol", "disgusting") wasn't actually legitimate. I therefore request the review of all those deleted images by an admin more conscientious. (As I see some of them were already restored by now because of another request above. Unfortunately the request covers only a few) --StYxXx ⊗

@INeverCry: Could you look at this please? Yann (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had just posted the following message at the village pump, so I deleted it there and repost it here :
Wait a minute ! Since when a deletion request can be closed like that without any debate, when the "reason" is so stupidly unencyclopedic and when so many pictures are concerned ?! Where are the (real) arguments for the deletion of some pictures and the keeping of others ? Also note that people who uploaded the pictures were not informed of the DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of some discussion about this DR on IRC. I propose two actions here:

  1. An explanation of what went wrong with the process, as evidenced by many undeletions being needed. As has been pointed out, the nomination appears exceedingly poor, and probably poor enough to be closed without discussion or action.
  2. The DR should be reopened. Considering the large number of images involved more than the standard minimum of 7 days would be needed for appropriate discussion, or the DR should be broken up into a set of focused and manageable DRs.

Lastly, mistakes happen, everyone makes them so let's not over-dwell on it. What matters is learning how to do it better. --Fæ (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related UNDELs[edit]

Closing topic which appears to be resolved. -FASTILY 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TwentyThirtyThree EP Cover.jpeg[edit]

Hello

I am the owner, creator and copyright holder of the image File:TwentyThirtyThree EP Cover.jpeg

Signed Matt Adcock, 6 September 2014

@Purplefate: Hi, Please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. The file will be restored once the permission is received.

 Not done Please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. The file will be restored once the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remaining files after the Commons:Deletion requests/penis affair[edit]

The following remaining files are still showing red at the fake DR page Commons:Deletion requests/penis (along with things like "File:Village pump" and "File:Main page"…)

Should any of these be worthy of a proper DR, such DR should be dully filed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like none of the real files were actually deleted. He switched .JPG for .jpg. The .JPGs are nonexistent. INeverCry 18:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Looks like all files from the mass DR have been restored. If anyone sees any others that need to be restored, please post them here or on my talk and myself or another admin can restore them. INeverCry 19:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BeforeAfter.jpg [edit]

2 Photos taken by myself and merged together by myself making a before and after picture. Don't understand how it could breach copyright as it was uploaded with permission for public use. Please could you explain. Please explain exact which copyright has been breached as I took and cropped edited the pictures which make up the jpg file. I had chosen the licensing which allows usage by anyone for any purpose. (Public domain, as I understand it)

Thanks.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2011-09-04-IMG 5988 a Watt bei Scharhörn.JPG undelete [edit]

Liebe community,

der Löschgrund ist nicht nachvollziehbar. Das Bild ist zusammen mit hunderten anderen auf dem von WM Deutschland bezahlten Fotoflug entstanden und zusammen lizensiert und hochgeladen worden. Wie kann bei Serienbearbeitung an der Lizenzangabe eines Bildes ein Problem sein? Ich bitte die Löschung rückgängig zu machen,

Grüße

--Walter Rademacher (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Although you claim it is your own work, you did not put any license on it. Commons does not keep images that are not freely licensed. If you were, in fact, the photographer who took the image, please specify what license you want to use and we can restore it with that license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Interview With the Vampire, Anne Rice.jpg[edit]

Was deleted here because according to the English Wiki it's under copyright. The file I uploaded could possibly be argued to be under copyright (?), since it's a damaged (worn off) copy of the backcover, but I can't see how the version in the English Wiki could be under copyright here in Commons, as it's only text. I therefore ask for permission to replace the deletion version with a version equal or similar to the one in the English Wiki.

-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Anne Rice is an American author, so presumably USA laws apply to this. There is no copyright for book titles under US law and no copyright for typesetting used here. Therefore the book cover is PD. Note that in the UK there is a special 25 year copyright for typesetting, so this would not be free under UK law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yuri_Goloubev_David_Forman.jpg [edit]

Hello

Please can you undelete the image Yuri_Goloubev_David_Forman.jpg . I sent an email on 1 September 2014 at 20.07pm to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org on 1 September with permission from the photographer. I had previously sent this email on 26 July at 17.04pm. I reseent it on 1 September as I had not heard from you. Thank you.

The text is below:

Hello

I am sending the email trail below again - as evidence that I have been given permission to upload this image to Wikipedia for this page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yuri_Goloubev

Please confirm receipt. Thank you

Mary James

@Marycjames: Could you please send this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, I have just sent it, thanks for your help. MarycjamesMarycjames (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as moot: this is being resolved via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bettina Encke von Arnim 74.jpg Ticket#: 2014090410009325[edit]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

nachdem unterstellt wurde, das ich nicht die Rechte für die Bilder, die ich in dem Artikel von Bettina Encke von Arnim eingestellt habe (nachdem moniert wurde, dass Bilder der malerin auf der Seite fehlen würden)bzw, die Rechteerteilung der Rechteinhaber nicht gemßder Richtlinien von Wikipedia erfolgt sei, habe ich am 04.09. die Rechterteilung mit dem dafür vorgehenen Vordruck der Rechteinhaberin nachgewiesen und dies an permissions-de@wikimedia.org gesandt (Ticket#: 2014090410009325).

Bitte stellen Sie die Bilder wieder ein! --Dorothea Böhland (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that! OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 19:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

JuanCarlosFlorezArcila.jpg was deleted after just 1 day. The 1 week period was not respected to try to secure copyright for the image.[edit]

The image was deleted after just 1 day. The 1 week period Wikipedia establishes to try to resolve the copyright issue, as stated in the post on my user page, was NOT respected. I find this deletion to be contrary of Wikipedia's rules. Cbohorquezm (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Hon. Bruce Billson.jpg[edit]

I'm Bruce Billson and own the photo and have no issue with it being used as open source.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duleep Wijesekera.jpg [edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014040110009689).--MediaJet talk 03:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - ticket is invalid. Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the Heck,This is the Ticket I received,I sent all the necessary details regarding this photograph to the OTRS and this is what I got returned from them,anyway I have fed up with this system.--MediaJet talk 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well,with this Ticket number I received the message given below.
"This permission seems to be from a person depicted in the photograph, but the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred?"
In this case Photographer doesn't own the Rights to this piece of image,because he is hired to take this Photo,but How can I explain this to OTRS,better forget about this Photograph,Waste of my time.--MediaJet talk 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract" -> scan the contract and send it to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. 'Permission' invalid -FASTILY 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Support I agree with Elocobbola's and Carl's opinion above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uchitel po risuvane - detail1.jpg[edit]

OTRS permission received with ticket:2014090610011211. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 01:09, 9 September 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 Hyronimus299[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS-ticket:2014072210009241 Emha (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emha: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mariangela-vacatello.jpg[edit]

Reason: the author is Davide Cerati and released for public use for the artist Mariangela Vacatello, the file is also available on the net about the artist Mariangela Vacatello Michele.tarantino (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

O. Gail Poole images[edit]

All have OTRS permission under ticket:2014082510013283 from Nicole Poole, Owner, The O. Gail Poole Collection under CC-by-SA-3.0. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored. @TLSuda: Please add the OTRS tickets and adjust the licenses. INeverCry 19:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20080517 Crown Fountain towers from overhead.jpg[edit]

This was deleted contrary to consensus and with an inappropriate rationale. The registration cited (VAu000544065) applies to "computer graphics" (i.e., the images displayed on the towers, not the towers themselves). As this image shows only the towers, the registration is not germane. Эlcobbola talk 13:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The rationale looks incorrect (the registration number seems to be for a specific picture or pictures of the item, although the picture(s) predate(s) the fountain), but there is no reason to believe that this fountain isn't copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason to believe it's not copyrighted, if you'd bother to read and engage the discussion comments, is that it is two simple brick monoliths. By themselves, they appear to be below the threshold of originality. Why, for example, would one trouble to register the videos played on the towers but not the towers themselves? Where is the tower registration? Alternatively, the "bricks" are actually screens, which is why there may also be a useful article component - these are just specialized screens. Эlcobbola talk 15:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing registered as VAu000544065 appears to predate the fountain, so I assume that the fountain designer thought that registering the fountain separately is unnecessary as the fountain is a derivative work of VAu000544065.
You seem to be stating that little sweat is needed to invent something like this, but the sweat of the brow doctrine has been rejected in the United States. I think that significant creative input is needed to get the idea of putting two bricks like this and making a fountain out of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan4: I am not sure if this monument is copyrighted (that's why I asked Jim), but I think you contradict yourself here (or Jim did, if you are just copying his argument). The monument cannot be registered as VAu000544065 if that registration predates the monument. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VAu000544065 appears to be a depiction of the monument created by the person who created the monument. You can create depictions of monuments before the monument is created, provided that you use a method other than photography. In this case, the depiction appears to be a computer-generated illustration. The finished monument is in turn presumably a derivative work of this computer-generated illustration. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The finished monument is two rectangular structures. There is no copyright in a form like that, no selection and arrangement copyright (just two of them), and the building material / aesthetics does not add to the copyrightability. You can register derivative works separately just fine, provided there is additional expression. It's a bit difficult to have a structure be a derivative work of a drawing; while possible most of the expression in the drawing is the specific lines drawn, the angle chosen, etc., which usually are not present in a 3-D version. It's possible an arrangement copyright depicted in a drawing could be recreated in a 3-D piece -- that has happened (and was ruled infringement). In this case though, I don't think there is anything copyrightable left in the structure, so there's no copyright left for a photograph to be derivative of. Calling a photograph derivative of the original drawings is way too far a stretch, in my opinion. As for the videos of the faces shown on their surface, those are of course copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the result of this discussion should also apply to files listed below. Yann (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Carl, I disagree strongly with your opinion above. We have had similar discussions about sculptures in the USA before -- the USCO is very liberal about registering copyrights for minimalist sculptures by well known artists even when they are very simple. I remember the Commons discussion (and deletion) of Tilted Arc by Richard Serra, a simple rectangular slab of steel, that is USCO VAu000126617 1988 VAu000096606. Many people thought it was far too simple to have a copyright, but it clearly did. This is a similar case. If a simple slab of steel can have a copyright, then these two towers certainly can. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case as well, the registration you cite is a *drawing*, not the actual sculpture. "Description: art original : drawing." It does not necessarily apply to the sculpture at all, and should not be used as evidence the sculpture is copyrighted. You can make a drawing of an imaginary cube and copyright it; that does not mean the cube itself gets a copyright if someone sees the drawing and makes a cube. We would need a registration of the sculptural work itself. The CO has just been putting out the Copyright Compendium 3, which is what their copyright examiners use for guidance. The chapter on pictorial, sculptural, and graphic works is here; the chapter on general originality thresholds is here. They have a much richer set of examples than the previous compendium did, although I'm not sure they speak to this, but they have plenty of examples. The aesthetics and symbolism do not matter; it is the actual expression involved. These are two rectangular structures made of glass-like brick. I cannot see anything copyrightable there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Carl. I picked off the wrong registration number from the list of Serra's works. You might have noticed that the work to which you refer above has a different title. The correct number for the slab of steel titled Tilted Arc is VAu000096606, which is shown as "sculpture in plaza". Again I ask, if a simple slab of steel has a registered copyright, who are we to know beyond a significant doubt that these towers do not? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes, had internet issues last night so was not able to post earlier. I did find the registration VAu000096606 where the authorship is listed as "sculpture in plaza: Richard Serra." Reading a little about it, the author considered the specific placement in the plaza as part of the work, and it's entirely possible that it was more of an arrangement copyright rather than pure sculptural. It is however not a straight wall; it does have a particular curve, and is at a slight angle (was not straight up and down). I'm also not sure it was the same height all the way through, though it looks to be pretty close. It is probable those were just enough to make it not a simple geometric shape, at least coupled with the arrangement. After looking at photos of that wall, I probably would not have voted to keep on that one (even without seeing the registration), as yes it's a metal wall but the question is if it's a common shape, and I'm not sure that one is. As a counterargument from the new Compendium, it does say Georgina Glenn painstakingly sculpts a perfectly smooth marble sphere over a period of five months. The registration specialist will refuse to register this work because it is a common geometric shape and any design in the marble is merely an attribute of the natural stone, rather than a product of human expression. I do not see anything out of the ordinary with the fountains; they are two square towers. The combination with the video of the faces is what makes it more interesting, but the structure itself looks extremely basic, and there is no real arrangement copyright. The material they are made from does not matter. If there was a copyrightable design on the surface, that would be different, but it looks like a standard brick pattern. It's a cool fountain, but it's not the shape of the structures which is copyrightable -- the only thing would be the addition of the video of the faces. Pictures which focus on that aspect could be an issue, but photos of just the structures I don't see as being a problem. There is no registration in this case; it is incorrect to delete on the basis of the drawing's registration. (Reading the Copyright Office appeals cases, they often offer to register the submitted drawings or photos of the sculpture when they reject registration on the sculpture itself... might have been what happened here. Not evidence either way, really, as they could have easily gotten a copyright on the videos they used, and I'm not sure I see one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl Lindberg and Эlcobbola above. Yann (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:V35 Bonanza in flight.jpg [edit]

This file was published by Geoff Collins on flickr, and its photo page is here: [1]

As is evident on the photo page, permission has been given by the author for Creative Commons 2.0, for attribution with 'appropriate credit', which I gave. I may have erroneously used Creative Commons 4.0 as the permission license during the upload, as opposed to 2.0, which this license is. This image is of quality and aesthetic value for the pages that refer to its aircraft type, and because of a license permitting this, I request this file be undeleted. Thank you. Spartan7W (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Photo on Flickr is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0. Per Commons:Licensing this license is not accepted on Commons as CC-BY-NC-ND prohibits commercial use as well as publication of derivative works. —RP88 (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: NC/ND license. INeverCry 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beechraft Bonanza A36 in flight.jpg [edit]

This file was published by Bill Word on flickr, and its photo page is here: [2]

As is evident on the photo page, permission has been given by the author for Creative Commons 2.0, for attribution with 'appropriate credit', which I gave. I may have erroneously used Creative Commons 4.0 as the permission license during the upload, as opposed to 2.0, which this license is. This image is of quality and aesthetic value for the pages that refer to its aircraft type, and because of a license permitting this, I request this file be undeleted. Thank you. Spartan7W (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Photo on Flickr is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0. Per Commons:Licensing this license is not accepted on Commons as CC-BY-NC-ND prohibits commercial use as well as publication of derivative works. —RP88 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: NC/ND license. INeverCry 01:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:American Airlines DC-10 On Final.jpg [edit]

This file was published by Dean Morley on flickr, and its photo page is here: [3]

As is evident on the photo page, permission has been given by the author for Creative Commons 2.0, for attribution with 'appropriate credit', which I gave. I may have erroneously used Creative Commons 4.0 as the permission license during the upload, as opposed to 2.0, which this license is. This image is of quality and aesthetic value for the pages that refer to its aircraft type, and because of a license permitting this, I request this file be undeleted. Thank you. Spartan7W (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Photo on Flickr is licensed CC-BY-ND 2.0. Per Commons:Licensing this license is not accepted on Commons as CC-BY-ND prohibits publication of derivative works. —RP88 (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: ND license. INeverCry 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shez-New.jpg[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014090910012071). Eitan96 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Eitan96: Natuur12 (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haus_in_Ganzlin.jpg[edit]

Permission via OTRS-ticket:2014072310014439. --Emha (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Emha: Natuur12 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Natuur12: --Emha (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soundsuplogo2.png [edit]

File:Soundsuplogo2.png I am the owner of the file. Necessary explanations sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Vakhlov 09 september, 2014

Procedural close: OTRS permission sent per above. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the file if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Retro-future-vagabond.jpeg [edit]

File:Retro-future-vagabond.jpeg Please undelete the file. I am the copyright owner of the file and sent necessary explanations to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Vakhlov 09 september 2014

Procedural close: OTRS permission sent per above. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the file if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Human-wildlife_conflict.jpg [edit]

The deleted file was the work of an employee of the federal government of the United States, and was performed as a part of that worker's official duties. The work is in the public domain, and should not have been deleted. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherpioneer (talk • contribs) 04:38, 10 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:23, 10 September 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 Sterling Allan[edit]

Hello. Please restore File:David W. Allan.jpg and File:I. I. Rabi Award to David W. Allan.jpg because permission has been confirmed via ticket:2014090810019003. Thanks you in advance. Green Giant (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done@Green Giant: Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eggenberger Peter.jpg [edit]

Die Datei darf verwendet werden, ich habe diese vom Autor selbst dafür erhalten. Man darf den Autor auch fragen: info@peter-eggenberger.ch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gualterio (talk • contribs)

What elcobbola said. OTRS permission is needed to restore the image -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See User:a×pde's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg. See also my comment on Jameslwoodward's talkpage. Clear case imho. :) - Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Möhring/Nicolini – Urheberrechtsgesetz – Comment 2. Verlag Franz Vahlen, München 2000, ISBN 3 8006 0314 4, § 59 Rn. 14. German law is complicated, you can't use a § for all FOP cases. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Care to summarize (in context, please) what they write there? I'll just point out that de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland points out quite clearly that "Die Aufnahme von einem anderen Gebäude aus ist nicht zulässig, [...]" (not allowed are photos taken from other buildings). I fear the deletion on FOP grounds was correct. Lupo 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: see also de:Öffentlicher Raum (public space) defined as "der ebenerdige Teil [...]". User:a×pde's comment are correct for "öffentliche Räume", but that does not include public buildings. You can invoke German FOP only for photos taken outdoors where the photographer was on ground level on public space. Lupo 12:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Admin who deleted the file. Therefore I should  Oppose this, but I see that Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany and the summary at WP:DE disagree, so I have an open mind about it. In any case, we need to clarify the differences between the two summaries.

As I understand it, the image was taken from one of two places -- either a private viewing balcony with an admission charge or a restaurant, which is also a private place. Although there is usually no admission charge per se at a restaurant, one cannot usually just barge in, take a picture, and then leave.

At Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany we have:

  • "Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG."
  • "...the Federal Court of Justice found that a photograph taken from a balcony of a privately-owned flat in a neighboring house the key to which was handed out freely to everyone who asked for it, does not comply with the restrictions imposed by § 59 UrhG because it was not taken from a public way, street or place."

The first quote above seems to cover both the restaurant and the viewing balcony and contradicts Axpde's assertion. The second quote seems similar -- if a private balcony with no admission charge does not qualify, how does the private viewing place with admission charge or the restaurant qualify? The restaurant also would be ruled out by the requirement that the space be dedicated to public use -- if railroad stations, subway stations, and airports do not qualify, how does a restaurant?

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I don't particularly understand axpde's comment. He appears to be quoting arguments and indicating that the are not explicitly in § 59 UrhG. That's true -- § 59 UrhG is rather terse -- however it seems to ignore the courts' interpretation thereof, particularly die Hundertwasserentscheidung. Where is discussion rebutting application of that case? For example, it found "Likewise, the aerial view of [a publicly-situated] building is not privileged [to the exemption of § 59] if only because it shows parts of the building that are not visable from the roads, streets and public spaces" (Ebenso ist die Luftaufnahme eines solchen Gebäudes nicht privilegiert, schon weil es Teile des Gebäudes zeigt, die von dem Weg, der Straße oder dem Platz aus nicht zu sehen sind) and "The limitation is meant to allow the public to paint, draw, photograph or film that which it can observe with its own eyes from the street. To this end, the statutory provision is no longer covered, if -- for example, through a photograph -- a place out of sight to the general public is captured" (Die Schrankenbestimmung soll es dem Publikum ermöglichen, das, was es von der Straße aus mit eigenen Augen sehen kann, als Gemälde, Zeichnung, Fotografie oder im Film zu betrachten. Von diesem Zweck der gesetzlichen Regelung ist es nicht mehr gedeckt, wenn – etwa mit dem Mittel der Fotografie – der Blick von einem für das allgemeine Publikum unzugänglichen Ort aus fixiert werden soll.) There is a clear emphasis on "street view" here, and indeed this photo shows the rooftops and rooftop gardens. Absent discussion of die Hundertwasserentscheidung, COM:PRP seems to apply here. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dogecoin alternative.svg and File:Dogecoin logo.svg[edit]

Both files were deleted under the reason specified as unclear copyright status, however several factors were not considered, there are ethics surround organizations, especially open-source organizations (which restrict or avoid using copyrighted material, going as further as to contact the responsible for any original and copyrighted work to prevent any legal action). Dogecoin is cryptcurrency institution, which was already subject of a legal action by Doge meme creator, a institution in such a profile and relevance wouldn't simply rip off someone's work to stamp as its logo, just to attract the wrath of its original author. And when I commented off in the deletion discussion, the closer admin just focused on a shadow of my argument, where I wrote "it is not my responsibility to judge the fact that they actually ripped someone's photo off". I actually meant that judging by their relevance and notability, it didn't really matter, they licensed the photo, I'm just using their version as a base for mine work and I believe they wouldn't use a copyvio image as their logo.

Also the project co founder released the logo under creative commons with attribution license, this can be found on their asset repository on github, or on reddit[4][5][6]. Another point which wasn't discussed is that there are interviews in which Kabosu rescuer and subsequent owner acknowledge Doge and Dogecoin[7][8], not making any restrictive action against both of them, in fact she was not even responsible for the photos because the dog itself was triggering the camera shutter. Also the discussion didn't point out to the fact that Japanese jurisdiction over protecting author rights differs from North American ways[9], wherein you can simple use a photo if there is no restriction where you obtained it from, a fact which disturb Japanese people who don't understand why Americans ask permission for usage or derivation. Eduemoni (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was the closing Admin. There are two aspects to this.
First, what is the license on the Dogecoin? The only actual license statement I can find in the several cites above is at https://github.com/jdaverth/doge_assets where it is CC-BY-NC-SA, which, of course, we do not accept. If there is a clear statement of a freer license somewhere else, we need to see it.
Second, there is the fact that the Dogecoin is derivative of a photograph. While Eduemoni claims that Japanese law allows the use of an image without permission, even if correct, that sounds a lot like fair use, which, again of course, we do not permit. While the copyright owner of the original photograph may have said that she would not sue for the use of her image, that statement was not in the form of an irrevocable license and therefore might be changed at any time.
So, we have above a lot of supposition and assumption, but no evidence proving beyond a significant doubt that the coin is freely licensed and that the coin itself does not infringe on a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Ambiguity surrounding the images' copyright status will have to be confirmed via COM:OTRS in order for the files to be restored -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Telugu bala Satakam PDF File.pdf[edit]

The copyright holder himself has uploaded this book. Please restore it. I will help him apply appropriate tags. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two questions here:
First, is this a major work by a notable author? The only books we host in PDF form must fit that description. If not, it is out of scope.
Second, does the uploader have a license to all of the images shown in the book? The licenses must be not simply for use in the book, but for general use. Since I do not read Telugu, I have no idea who the subjects are, but since some images are in color and some are B&W, I would guess that they are not all the work of the author. Also, at the end of the book, I guess there is an image of the author himself -- he obviously did not take it himself as it is a posed portrait. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note please that the fact that the author may own copies of images does not make him the copyright holder able to license the images freely. That can be done only by the photographer, or if the photographer has transferred the copyright in writing to someone else, by the transferee. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. At any rate, if these are to be restored, please have the author follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Veyi Padagalu book cover.jpg[edit]

This book cover is of a book thats published way back in 1934. Please undelete it! --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India: "A literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other than a photograph) published within the author's lifetime enters the public domain when 60 years have passed from 1 January of the calendar year following the year in which the author died or, where the work is of joint authorship, the author dying last died.) The publication date ("book thats published way back in 1934") is irrelevant, as the term is based on author death. Who is the author (of the cover, not necessarily the text of the book), and when did s/he die? Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tengger_Cavalry.jpg [edit]

Hello,

I was asked by Tianran Zhang lead member of the folk-rock band Tengger Cavalry to upload this image on the band wikipedia page. The image was sent to me by him, i uploaded it using PD-ineligible. Because the image is his creation, not mine, i'm just helping him upload it. Can you please undelete it? --Iozsefvs (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Image previously appeared here and elsewhere. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance. Permission also needs to come from the author (e.g. photographer), not from the "lead member" (who presumably is in the photo as a mere subject, not author), absent evidence of a conveyance of copyrights. (As an aside, this file had no license; {{PD-ineligible}} would be unacceptable as that license applies only to works with no original authorship.) Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belgian Navy Patrol Ship P901 Castor.jpg[edit]

This is a non-copyrighted work placed in the public domain to be freely used by anyone. Source and author were credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verax666 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:กาะสมุย(2เรือ).jpg and File:OraBudho.jpg[edit]

Lazy hack Wdwd accused me of being a copyright violator and threatened me with blocking over these two files — among the hundreds I manually uploaded from Fotopedia back in the last week of “life” of this site, which closed in August 10th. The reason for the speedy deletions and accusations was that the reported source urls were 404 — which has an obvious explanation for whoever bothers to read the files’ history. Editors more competent than Wdwd have been waiting for Archive.org to make available snapshots of those source pages in order to allow license review, which was eventually done for most of them so far. There’s no reason to keep these two files deleted just because Wdwd could not be bothered to do some basic research before deleting them speedily and harrassing me. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please refrain from dramatics, misleading statements, and ad hominem attacks. Wdwd put three entirely appropriate copyvio templates on your talk page. While it is true that the template warns that you can be blocked for uploading copyvios, it is not a threat in the sense you mean above. I see that you have been blocked before for behavioral issues. You should not be surprised if that happens again if you continue similar behavior.
Your characterization of Wdwd as a "lazy hack" is not only not allowed here, it is untrue. Wdwd found images that did not pass license review. It is not up to anyone but you to prove that the images are freely licensed. Until you find a source that clearly shows a free license, these should remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for go on showing me how 1st impressions can be deceitful, Jameslwoodward (in this case, my own 1st impression of you). Let’s play, then:
  1. If the template warns something that’s not really meant, then the template should be reworded. It is frankly scary for new users and and bloody offensive for established users. (Or maybe the template is okay and Wdwd just misused it, as I said?)
  2. You mention I was blocked in the past, so that means that I’m more likely to be blocked in the future, regardless of the situation — is that a policy? (I’m not even bothereing to address the reasons that got me blocked — the records are there to be read by whoever actually cares.)
  3. So Wdwd found images that did not pass license review done by bot, and unlike other editors in his stead did for 650 other such images, he merely pressed a button instead of doing some fact checking — that’s very much the definition of a lazy hack. (And being one is apparenty allowed here.)
  4. I did prove that these images were freely licensed, as the site was still up when I checked the license. It went offline Aug.10th as expected and announced and coupiously mentioned in Category talk:Photos from Fotopedia, I cannot be blamed for that. (Nor I’m blaming any admins for not being fast enough in their licese reviews, as Jameslwoodward implicitly is.)
  5. So you say those two should remain deleted while the other 650 have been waiting for Archive.org, as mentioned, and tagged with this mantainance category by decision of other admins, is that so, Jameslwoodward? I wonder how those admins — JurgenNL, Natuur12, and Yann — feel about that decision, as it seems to be disruptive of the way they have been dealing with license reviewing of these images from Fotopedia.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 21:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The said 404 links are expected to show up sooner or later at
as the other 650 dead links eventually did. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you -- if you'd cut out the histrionics and accusations of poor work by various colleagues who are all volunteers, we'd all be better off. Do you really think it helps Commons to behave the way you do?
And, by the way, you have asserted that Wdwd deleted the images -- that's not correct either, as Wdwd is not an Admin. They were actually deleted by INC, who is the third most experienced Admin on Commons and cannot be called a "lazy hack" by any stretch of the imagination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Veronica Vitale also known as Ivee Collins.jpg[edit]

The picture == Veronica Vitale also known as Ivee Collins.jpg == Veronica Vitale Logo from the Album Nel mio bosco Reale.png|thumb|Veronica Vitale Logo from the Album Nel mio bosco Reale]] they belong to me and our company. We owe the copyrights and we allow Wikipedia to use it.

Thanks to the Staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interscope Records Europe (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose As a previously published image purported to belong to Interscope Records Europe, permission will need to be provided from the relevant intellectual property/legal department(s) of Interscope Records, its European subsidiary, and/or its parent, Universal Music Group, using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What elcobbola said. COM:OTRS permission needed to restore the file. -FASTILY 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AndyRussell-1944-Capitol Records.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Correct copyright tag on this work is {{PD-US-no notice}} MiztuhX (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Andy Russell was signed by Capitol Records in 1944. Here is a link to an Amazon page that displays that Russell was a Capitol Records recording artist in 1944: http://www.amazon.com/Andy-Russell-Favoritos-Russe/dp/B0098PL7HI/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=1-2&keywords=andy+russell+1944

MiztuhX (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: There are no copyright markings on the image.

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.")

Thanks, MiztuhX (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request of File:Elderly_fitness_exercise.gif and File:To-seismic-sustainability-through-earthquake-protector.gif [edit]

My User page User:Vshustov has been vandalized on September 11 2014 by removing the following two entries: 1. File:Elderly_fitness_exercise.gif and 2. File:To-seismic-sustainability-through-earthquake-protector.gif which were immediately deleted by User:INeverCry without any discussion or crying (see her User name). However, it's never too late! Let's play by the rules, please, and perform at least temporary undeletion of the files to carefully discuss the concerns.Vshustov (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Both images were tagged for speedy deletion by an editor other than INC. Hardly vandalism, and you received notices for both ([10][11]). Both are screenshots of YouTube videos uploaded there with non-free licenses. It is incumbent on you to provide evidence that they are free, yet you seem content to play games with INC's username rather than to offer information for us "to carefully discuss". Regarding File:Elderly_fitness_exercise.gif, are you not the person in the video? If so, you inherently cannot be the author (i.e., the copyright holder, ceteris paribus). Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethnicity (magazine) Cover page July 2014 02.jpg [edit]

Please review again this file. this is a magazine cover page. magazine for reading to general public, it is not an product or service, it has a news category, all news views interviews and all other topics in it. this magazine title Ethnicity registered with RNI, Registrar - Newspapers of India, Please review & un delete this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahipalsingh74 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Copyright violation. INeverCry 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wolfram Wöß Portrait.jpg [edit]

Please undelte the file, there exists no copyright violation because I am the owner of this picture. --Laoswikiedit (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aquarel, portret van Jacob Por, vervaardigd door H.W. Rosema in 1910 - Unknown - 20428316 - RCE.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this image, because:

  • the photograph of 2009 was already licensed by a valid permissions-nl@wikimedia.org {{RCE-license}} https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:RCE-license
  • this is a photograph of a painting dated 1910, so PD-1923 applies for the painting. (The depicted Dutch restauration artist Jacob Por died in 1947.)

Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose: 1) The {{RCE-license}} applies to the digitization of the work (i.e., the photograph), not the underlying painting. 2) Mere creation is not the same as publication (generally the distribution of copies to the general public). Further, even if we were erroneously to assume it was published in 1910, works on the Commons must be PD in the US and their country of origin. PD-US (the publication threshold) is only applicable to the US position. The Netherlands is pma +70, so this would not be PD there until at least 01.01.2033 - per the deletion rationale, H.W. Rosema lived until at least 1962). Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyrighted until 2033 -FASTILY 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS Permission Received[edit]

The above files have been confirmed via OTRS (ticket # 2014082910020562) to be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 17:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AgenaTrader_ListChartGroup.png [edit]

I as head of Q&A of tradeescort.com definetly own those copyrights. check tradeescort.com

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hansard (1963) Malaysia bill STANDING ORDERS (REVISION).djvu[edit]

Work is Hansard which is currently licensed under OGL (and this appears to be dated to 1963 which means it would be out of copyright anyway under terms for British Parliamentary works)

The work is sourced at Wikisource (which someone here was seemingly unable to see).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done This wasn't deleted due to lack of a source; it was deleted because it had been using the deprecated {{PD-UK-EdictGov}} license (which someone there was seemingly unable to see). Indeed OGL/OPL per here. Эlcobbola talk 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Season 10 poster.jpg[edit]

Este arquivo, é apenas uma imagem de um poster de uma série, que se chama Supernatural. Encontrei na internet sem direitos autorais, até os autores de "Supernatural" postaram essa imagem em sua página no facebook.

Gostaria que restaurassem, por favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos Dantass (talk • contribs)

 Not done - unambiguous copyvio. See also COM:PRP#3 and #5. Эlcobbola talk 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OGP Declaration.pdf[edit]

Requesting review as this would given it's nature be eiwth PDUSgov , OGL or some other open license of the government parties to it.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose While its members are governments, the OGP is independent of its members. Some or all of its members have rules requiring that some or all of their documents are PD, but there is nothing that requires the OGP to follow any of those rules and it apparently does not. Its pages, including the one containing the subject file, have clear and explicit copyright notices. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete/Rights Holder[edit]

I am the legal and lawful owner of copyrights for the songs "The Night That We made Love" "Try Me" "My Girl" "Tootboot" Ima Nhigga And Prhoud (Dhe Anthem)" "Rhythm To Move Da Flag (Star Spangled Banner)" "Merry Christmas" and "Whaiting At Dhe Bhus Sthop." Perhaps, by adding (USA) to my pseudonym Put (Username "Put (USA)"), is what caused the mishap. The copyrights to these and all songs uploaded and to be uploaded by me, can be found under James Harold Arnold or Put, in the Library of Congress of the United States of America.

Respectfully,

James H. Arnold AKA Put — Preceding unsigned comment added by Put (USA) (talk • contribs) 02:21, 13 September 2014‎ (UTC) Also:[reply]

 Not done Out of scope & copyvios -FASTILY 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Wald an der Alz-2.JPG File:Schloss Wald an der Alz-3.JPG File:Schloss Wald an der Alz-4.JPG[edit]

Bitte meine Bilder mit der Lizenz {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} wiederherstellen.Luckyprof (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the files, but please apply that license tag to the file's description page -FASTILY 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sayyid Ahsanullah Qadri.JPG[edit]

This image file or photograph is Sayyid Ahsanullah Qadri.JPG is use for Identification and recognize to the person of his article (Sayyid Ahsanullah Qadri) that is why used. So, I humbled request you to kindly not delete the image file of Sayyid Ahsanullah Qadri.jpg. and secondly what i do for undelete image file plz help me out. Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)or Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong forum, file has not been deleted -FASTILY 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Keith wallen.jpg[edit]

Good afternoon I come to the issue of the information that I was canceled a few pages to modify the day yesterday which in spite of having no copyrights are images that deserved to be replaced by current and not modified as an act of vandalism or anything more like a proper person who appreciates music and also note that no one modified with new information of those artists or care about them and I take pains to modify them without intending to harm anyone or hurt anyone wanted to contrast them feel alive and well informed and apologize for any inconvenience caused--Prada16 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jasen rauch.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: is the most current picture of the band and what we did was modifcar page and put that which is the most current if ise me wrong correct and accept that I re-delete but while the band does not find sent somewhere asking withdraw wants return to the place not wanting it acts badly or hurt the band or anyone'm more of a good musician who likes to see that the pages are updated correctly hope your reply soon Prada16 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suzanne Muchnic 1984 – Mixed Media on Ragboard 25¾" x 40" Private Collection.png[edit]

Hello. Please restore this file because permission has been confirmed with ticket:2014091110020352. Thank you in advance. Green Giant (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored. @Green Giant: Needs license. INeverCry 18:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Farooq Family images[edit]

Can you please restore these image files

I am using this image from Flickr which allows the rights of this image to be shared by Wikipedia users:


Thank you

--S.raza (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An e-mail has been received by OTRS, including a claiming of the copyrights on all the pictures used in the Flickr account. Ciell (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of your Flickr links connect with the files you asked to be restored. I handled the ones I could find on the Flickr account. Ciell (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restore the image file File:Farooq Mansion In Bahrain.jpg - https://www.flickr.com/photos/rashidfarooq/4725642089/

I am using this image from Flickr which allows the rights of this image to be shared by Wikipedia users:

Thank you

--S.raza (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)s.raza.--S.raza (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC) --S.raza (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)14/09.2014--S.raza (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That file has already been restored. Ciell (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: All images have been restored. INeverCry 23:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Farooq mosque in Bastakiya, Dubai.jpg [edit]

Can you please restore the image file File:Farooq mosque in Bastakiya, Dubai.jpg

I am using this image from Flickr which allows the rights of this image to be shared by Wikipedia users: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rashidfarooq/15215231616/

Thank you

--S.raza (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)s.raza.--S.raza (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC) --S.raza (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)14/09.2014--S.raza (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Resolved. INeverCry 23:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BiH1991a.png [edit]

My file is deleted for no reason. The guy who asked you to delete it said that "it is slightly modificated version" of some other file. But that is just not true. You can check a format and details and you will see that those are two totaly diferent files even though they deal with same thematic. My file is much more precise and I spend few months until I made it. I am very suprised that you delete it just because someone asked for that. It is the most detailed ethnic map od Bosnia ever made and it clearly bother some people who don't like truth.--Sigra35 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose While I agree that this map is not a derivative of the particular map referenced at the DR (note, for example, differences in the widths of the protrusions on the western border), it is clearly derivative of some other map. A source for the underlying work on which this was based is needed to determine whether it is free. Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree completely with elcobbola -- while it may not be derivative of the map mentioned in the DR, the base map was not drawn from scratch by Sigra35 -- it came from somewhere and probably has a copyright. Unless Sigra35 can satisfy the community that the base map is freely licensed, we can't restore it. As for the accusation that "it clearly bother[s] some people who don't like the truth", that's just silly -- I have absolutely nothing at stake in Bosnia and I don't think that elcobbola does either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off course that I used some other map as a base. But that other map only had borders of country and municipalities. I added entity line and then I added every city and village one by one. Not only their position but also which ethnic group is majority and by how much. You see, the bigger circle for some city indicate how much people live in that city in total (according to agenda at right). And the smaller circle indicate how much is the majority nation bigger than other 2 main nation. For example, in city colored with green color, light green circle indicate how much people is in town in total (the green color because the Bosniaks were majority in town) and the dark green indicate how much are Bosniaks there more than Serbian and Croatian together. So you see, that was a big job. I spend months doing that. For each village and town I had to determine not just their position in some municipality but also the size of circles and color of the. The point and purpose of that map is exactly that. To show which ethnic group was majority in each town and village. The Borders are not the point of map. Off course that some other map had to be used as a base for the purpose od borders. But if that is the problem then 99% maps here should be deleted. The guy who made DR here has a lot of maps who used some other map as a base for borders as well. Regarding the people who protest this map and I said "they don't like true" the guy who made DR is clearly in that group. Who is not from this area will not understand. But this map is problem for Serb' nationalists because they like to color all mountains, rivers, woods and thing like that in their color. This map is realistic so that bother them because it shows how they were majorities in the small towns and villages. Hard to explain to people who are not from here I guess. --Sigra35 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the source/the base map for my work. Here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiH_1739.png As you can see in "licensing" it say "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. "--Sigra35 (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Since we now have a PD source for the base map, I see no reason that this should not be restored. Although the license on the base map does not require attribution, it is always a good thing to attribute sources, even if they are PD, and if you had done so, this deletion would not have happened. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done per Jim -FASTILY 04:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Respetable Logia Maimónides Nº 173 -- Córdoba (España).jpg[edit]

File:Respetable Logia Maimónides Nº 173 -- Córdoba (España).jpg Este archivo cuenta con autorización de uso y se puede ver en https://www.facebook.com/Maimonides173 Solicito se restablezca para su uso en entrada a wikipedia próxima a realizar una vez que la referencia este disponible RLSMaimonides173 wc (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:«Las hijas de Danao» film poster.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hereby affirm that I, Escarlata Godiri, "aryekaix" in wikimedia , who is the associate producer of the film LAS HIJAS DE DANAO, is also the holder of the exclusive copyright of the following attached image (which is the film poster of our films LAS HIJAS DE DANAO). I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. You can check it by visiting http://www.lashijasdedanao.com/zonaprensa.htm. In that link you can check that all images in that section are free to be published.

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. [Escarlata Godiri, "aryekaix" in wikimedia , associate producer of the film LAS HIJAS DE DANAO ] [15TH SEPTEMBER 2014] Aryekaix (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  'Oppose - the linked website states that "promotional material (poster, trailer and photos) can be freely used for broadcast advertising." That does not fit within the licenses required for Wikimedia, because the image has to be free for anyone to use in anyway they wish, and not just for advertising the film. Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an email address associated with either of the websites, using the format at COM:ET. Please include the link for the file, even if it has been deleted. Green Giant (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See Green Giant's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kando Kalman mozdony.jpg [edit]

A photo of an innovation from about 1910 normally has been published at that time as an illustration of an actual report. If decades later somebody publishes it and claims to be the first publisher, he has to prove that it was unpublished before, not vice versa. Otherwise some clever people could demand license fees for photos they are not the owner of at all.

Therefore, for the free use of an old photo it cannot be necessary to tell the first date of publishing and name the first publisher.--Ulamm (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Unfortunately, your reasoning does not work. This is a locomotive built in Hungary and used in Italy. The copyright rules are different and the location and date of first publication will determine whether this is still under copyright or not. If it was first published in Italy, then it is probably PD. If it was first published in Hungary, then it may be PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is not closed!
One voice is not sufficient to maintain deletion.
If the file can be PD with both most probable countries of first issue, the deletion affords a proved reason, not the restoration.
And User:Jameslwoodward has to prove, that he wasn't the initiator of this deletion.

--Ulamm (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - On the contrary, "the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained" (COM:EVID). For the purposes of Commons, it has to be clearly PD, not just that it might be or it probably is. Otherwise Commons would probably have twice as many files as now. Green Giant (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done In all cases the user must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain. Keeping this deleted per COM:PCP and COM:EVID. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BQF Qualitätszeichen.png[edit]

Ich Habe die Berechtigung vom Zeicheninhaber bekommen dieses Zeichen bei Wikipedia einzustellen.

Dipl. Ing Sebastian Geruschka Geschäftsführer der BQF info@fluessigboden.de Tel.:030 20314 553 www.bqf-fluessigboden.de --Solala1982 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Alle Bilder und Texte auf den Seiten von der Bundesqualitätsgemeinschaft Flüssigböden e. V. (BQF), unterliegen einem Copyright."
All images and text on the pages of the Federal Quality Community liquid soil e. V. (BQF), are subject to copyright. We therefore suggest that the use is permitted only with prior written permission.
translator: Google
Therefore, in order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the organization using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Needs COM:OTRS permission to be restored -FASTILY 05:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Distance Between Us poster.jpg[edit]

Movie Buff Creations owns the Copyright of the file. We have approval from Movie Buff Creations. Contact chandu@moviebuffcreations.com to verify.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distancebetweenus (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Onyx600ppx1.jpg[edit]

This file uploaded originally by User:Fastily in 5.12.2010. It was deleted by User:Fastily in 20.6.2013 as ploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file. But the point is that the file was in use in that time in he.wiki article (her GlobalUsage). If license issue is o.k. than there was no reason to delete. Geagea (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor quality photo imo, but if you want it you can I have it I guess... -FASTILY 05:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aquarel, portret van Jacob Por, vervaardigd door H.W. Rosema in 1910 - Unknown - 20428316 - RCE.jpg new argument: already CC-3.0[edit]

The image is part of an 460.000 image donation of public images, hosted by the Dutch State Heritage Agency (RCE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijksdienst_voor_het_Cultureel_Erfgoed), who has the rights to these images in more ways,

  1. see the license https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:RCE-license.
  2. RCE donated this image to Commons under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as you could see. RCE had settled the rights. The image is publicly downloadable from RCE website too, http://beeldbank.cultureelerfgoed.nl/alle-afbeeldingen/indeling/gallery?searchfield=aquarel+jacob+por+rosema. There was a link to this source on the description page, under CC-BY-SA-3.0 (source is CC-BY-SA-3.0). This image is free to use under CC-BY-SA-3.0 anyway, anyone can upload it legally to Commons.

Thank you, kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose as per this request and my explenation here and the discussion here. The picture is available under a free license but the painting at the picture is still under copyright in The Netherlands. Natuur12 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again  Not done, please read Natuur12 comments again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schilderij, zelfportret van Jacob Por - Utrecht - 20428314 - RCE.jpg was already CC-BY-SA-3.0[edit]

This image was deleted although it came from a public source, which distributes this image under license CC-BY-SA-3.0, in a Dutch state heritage downloadble image database, RCE beeldbank http://beeldbank.cultureelerfgoed.nl/alle-afbeeldingen/indeling/gallery?searchfield=jacob+por+zelfportret. Source is CC-BY-SA-3.0. anyone can upload it legally to Commons. Please undelete. Thank you, kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose as per this request and my explenation here and the discussion here. The picture is available under a free license but the painting at the picture is still under copyright in The Netherlands. Natuur12 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyrighted until 2033 --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Station name - 1.jpg, File:Station name - 2.jpg[edit]

Request temporary undeletion

Both files are required as part of a discussion at Asansol Junction railway station at wikipedia. They may be removed once the discussion has been concluded. In any case, they are screen shots of a web page hence should not have fallen foul of commons policies.

Superfast1111 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [12], [13], [14], [15] -FASTILY 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mallory Haldeman IFBB Pro.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo has now been removed from the site in question by the webmaster immediately upon my receiving notification and I have confirmed it is now longer available. The direct links to the thumbnail and file is also no longer functional, showing it's been removed from the offending site. As the photo was taken by me, I declare it in the public domain and have removed the offending copyright inference by having it removed from the website in question Surtom (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Celebration of the Five Hundredth Anniversary of Foundation, University of St. Andrews.djvu[edit]

Request temporary undeletion

I am the contributor that made the iniital deletion request.

As a PD-US work, this would be acceptable at English Wikisource, So I am requesting a temporary undeletion to enable a Commons/Wikisource admin to perform a localisation of the file to English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Now seemingly Transfered. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abrahamsamuel.jpg [edit]

It was a photo taken by me using my camera and tripod. A foolish attempt by a novice made my photo get deleted. Abesam (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:PCP - @Abesam: you attacked a user in the DR, the next time you will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yuri Goloubev David Forman.JPG[edit]

Hello. Please restore the above file. Permission has been received with ticket:2014090710007509. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PHOX_.E2.80.93_.27PHOX.27_Album_Cover.jpg [edit]

I concepted, shot retouched and uploaded this photo ( File:PHOX_.E2.80.93_.27PHOX.27_Album_Cover.jpg ), which is the album cover for the debut record of PHOX. It is my intellectual property and, as such, I'm not sure why it was taken down.

--Mmmmmmmmmmichael (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Michael Doyle Olson, 09/17/14 at 14:34:06PM CMT[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alben for Congress 2004.jpeg[edit]

I am the owner of this campaign brochure and all marketing materials relating to my 2004 campaign for U.S. Congress in the 8th Congressional District of Washington State.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions about this matter, at: alex_alben@yahoo.com

Sincerely,


Alex Alben

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion requests File:José Humberto Ocariz.JPG y otros[edit]

Un grupo de fotografías aportadas por mí en los últimos años fueron borradas masivamente por INeverCry a solicitud de EugeneZelenko quien alegó falsamente que se trataban de una "Collection of historical photos, not own work" y alegó que NO entiende español. Algunas de esas fotografías son mi trabajo propio. Otras son fotografías de libre uso por tratarse de fotos oficiales. Otras son procedentes de archivos familiares suministradas al autor. Lamentablemente a todas las fotografías le dieron el mismo tratamiento y las borraron. La fotografía File:José Humberto Ocariz.JPG es un trabajo propio y solicito sea restituida. La fotografía File:Ramon J Velasquez JUL11.JPG es un trabajo propio y solicito sea restituida. La fotografía File:Edgar C. Otálvora NOV09.jpg es un trabajo propio y solicito sea restituida. La fotografía File:Ligia betancourt nov 2004.jpg es un trabajo propio y solicito sea restituida. La fotografía File:RJVelasquezPMarquezOtalvora.JPG es un trabajo propio y solicito sea restituida. La fotografía File:RamonJVelasquez.jpg es una fotgrafía de uso publico por tratarse de un material oficial venezolano y solicito sea restituida. La fotografía File:Atlas Escolar de Venezuela por Pedro Arnal.jpg es la portada de un libro cuyos derechos de autor ya fenecieron y solicito sea restituida. Las fotografías File:AlbertoGarrido1.jpg y File:ARNALPedro1.png proceden de archivos familiars suministrados al autor y solicito sean restituidas. Gracias Luis ciudad vaca (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A group of photographs contributed by me in recent years were massively deleted by INeverCry at the request of EugeneZelenko who falsely claimed that they were of a "Collection of historical photos, not own work" and claimed that it does not understand Spanish.

Some of these photos are my own work. Others are photographs of free use for official photos. Others are from family archives, supplied to the author. Unfortunately all the pictures gave him the same treatment, and deleted them.

File:José Humberto Ocariz.JPG photography is an own work and I request to be reinstated.

File:Ramon J Velasquez JUL11 photography.JPG is an own work and I request to be reinstated.

File:Edgar C. Otálvora NOV09.jpg photography is an own work and I request to be reinstated.

File:Ligia photography nov 2004.jpg betancourt's own work and I request is returned.

Photography File:RJVelasquezPMarquezOtalvora.JPG's own work and I request to be reinstated.

Photography File:RamonJVelasquez.jpg is a photograph of use public because it is a Venezuelan official material and request is returned.

Pedro Arnal.jpg photography File:Atlas School of Venezuela is the cover of a book whose copyright is already perished and I request to be reinstated.

Photos File:AlbertoGarrido1.jpg and File:ARNALPedro1.png come from files familiars supplied to the author and I request to be returned.

Thank you

--Luis ciudad vaca (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the files for you -FASTILY 21:31, 17 September 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 Copyright permissions have been given to use the still. The photograph comes from Murray Melvin who commissioned it, to replace the one on his wiki[edit]

Copyright permission has been given to use the still. The photograph comes from Murray Melvin who commissioned it to replace the one on his wikipedia page which he did not sanction and which he wants removed. Please use the still I posted. Thank you.

Procedural close as a request without a link to the file in question -FASTILY 03:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assorted Hansard extracts and UK Govt papers on Malaya, Sawark and Borneo[edit]

I am requesting a review given that these all appear to be UK Govt papers or Hansard. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sally Kirkland 2014 by Photo Brian To.jpg[edit]

Please could you restore the above file. Permission has been received from the photographer with ticket:2014091510022531. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raj Chetty.jpg[edit]

apparently the deleting admin has difficulty understanding english.
"MacArthur Fellows Images and Video
With respect to use of photographs and videos maintained on this website pertaining to the MacArthur Fellows by the media, the applicable Creative Commons License will be Attribution: CC-BY. This permits non-commercial and commercial use by media as long as there is attribution." i.e. CC-BY-4.0 [16].
i would request restoration of image. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ad hominem attacks are never helpful. They become silly, though, when it is the attacker who suffers from the problem described.
For general use, the MacArthur web site is CC-BY-NC, which is unacceptable on Commons. However, MacArthur makes a specific exception for use by the media which is CC-BY:
"With respect to use of photographs and videos maintained on this website pertaining to the MacArthur Fellows by the media, the applicable Creative Commons License will be Attribution: CC- BY. This permits non- commercial and commercial use by media as long as there is attribution. [emphasis added]
Since many Commons users are not "media" and images on Commons must be free for all uses, not just by media, that license is not acceptable here. Therefore the deletion is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escultura Leitor.jpg[edit]

I'm a photographer and also a web designer.

We have put together the website chiconiedzielski.com

And the image (though uncropped) can be found here: http://chiconiedzielski.com/esculturas-brasileiras-famosas/escultura-leitor-na-universidade-senac/

If you scroll down just a little bit, you can even see my company's name "Trisong" a the bottom of the website. The same name I use at Wikimedia Commons.

I have also sent the requested e-mail:

I hereby affirm that I, Jonathan Soifer the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escultura_Leitor.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. 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.

Jonathan Soifer | +55(11)4551-7292 or +55(11)94242-4488 | jonathan.soifer@trisong.com.br Copyright holder. 09/12/2014

Still, the media was deleted. What else can I do? Can you restore this image please?

Thank you

--TriSong (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. Once COM:OTRS processes the email you sent, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tonic_Breed_2014.jpg [edit]

I'm the owner of this photo.

--Survivethis (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Patrik Svendsen 19/09-2014[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben Howard.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The name of the uploader and the author suggests that they are the same, plus the file looks original (high quality) and there is EXIF data... I don't see why this file had to be deleted. Trijnsteltalk 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - File has valid EXIF, has been here for quite some time and the files is used by reusers.Uploaders accountname and the author match. I cannot find a copy of the file from before 11 October 2011. If anyone thinks that this file should be deleted it should face a full DR and not a semi-speedy procedure. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Milad Tower in Tehran City.jpg [edit]

Please note that this structure is one of the main symbols of the Tehran City, this photo shows only a portion of this structure, and the photographer has given us the permission to use this photo. Besides, yes, there is no law issued in this regard (Freedom of Panorama) in Iran, but this does not mean that they have issued a law against taking these pictures. So I think that in this case, we should refer to the common law in the world. Please reconsider about deleting this photo. Thank you. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close This file has not been deleted; there is nothing to undelete. You may enter your comments at the ongoing DR. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dana Mead.jpg [edit]

Please undelete the image Dana Mead.jpg that was removed on Sept. 10, 2014 by user CommonsDelinker as user Thomas E Leonard sent requisite written permission via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sept. 3, 2014 in email with subject line "Photo Permission Request" from tleonard333@gmail.com. --Thomas E Leonard (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close Per above, permission has been sent to COM:OTRS. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three files by Baumberge[edit]

There is no valid reason for the deletion. There are no documented copyright violations against this file. The license of the file corresponds properly to the GFDL. The authorship of the claimant is clearly noted in the image description. MagentaGreen (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These three files were all uploaded by User:Baumberge and all three DRs were started by him. While we do not usually delete files at the request of the uploader, if the images are unused on WP, the decision rests with the closing Admin.

Since these were all deleted 16 months ago, I do not understand why you are raising the issue now or, indeed, how you know that "The authorship of the claimant is clearly noted in the image description." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly only a guess, but it behaves exactly as with the other pictures he has posted. He has his photos provided with a signature that has been removed from various editors rightly. However, he wanted to fight back with the deletion request. He put the request in the same way for many of his paintings without ever specifying a reason. This applies also to the above-mentioned three images.
  • Files by Baumberg with signature
The examples demonstrate both the type of signature as well as the relatively high quality of the images. They should not be deleted without a previous discussion. I think this should also apply to the three already deleted files. Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It makes no sense to me to edit these images, if they were then deleted without reason and only due to the caprice of a single admin.
MagentaGreen (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose These were deleted via uploader request. The uploader is an adult and I see no reason why the deleting admin shouldn't have respected his wishes as he did. The first two are images of the uploader himself, and the third has his copyright watermark intact. If he wants these images restored he can request it, but I don't think we should reverse deletions requested by the uploader without his input or agreement. INeverCry 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The first two are indeed of the uploader; as unused images of a non-notable person, they would have been subject to deletion on COM:SCOPE grounds regardless of the user's request. The third may also have scope issues. It is indeed of the Longinusturm, but at a somewhat bizarre angle that partially obscures (and distracts from) the tower with out-of-focus vegetation. File:Longinusturm-sommeransicht-2007.jpg is far superior for educational use (i.e., illustration of the tower), so I see no reason to restore the image in the absence of a compelling reason for retention and contrary to uploader's request. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete anything -FASTILY 00:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg[edit]

This is a puppet consisting of a small set of 2D objects which has been deleted in potential contradiction to the official policy of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. There is a single small rod which can be either ignored under COM:DM or masked out. The closure uses the rationale that the official policy is not good enough, as the WMF and existing Commons community consensus does not take into account that the original Bridgeman decision was for oil paintings, not for other types of 2D works. This has not been our past convention for interpreting the view on scans and photographs of 2D vs. 3D artworks. If an administrator wishes to act beyond official policy, I would expect them to propose that change to the community rather than deleting images outside of policy to set an effective precedent. In such a proposal we might consider other cases such as the wire-framing decision of Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. a case that intrinsically provides alternative shadows and re-texturing for an original artwork and yet was not considered to introduce sufficient new creativity to produce a copyright.

Considering the precedent this could set, this deletion request should have more than one opinion, especially when the one opinion I gave was to keep, in contradiction to the close. Examples of future deletions on these grounds would include photographs of old or even ancient 2D artworks that are not flat paper or oil paintings, and have potential for trivial shadow lines or reflections, such as paper cut-outs, paper templates, tile cuts, large flat crochet work, copper etchings, scrapbooks, glazed or enamelled surfaces, ancient frescos, etc. Consequently raising for UNDEL discussion as the DR has already been closed. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was the closing Admin. Note that one other user felt that the delete was appropriate, so Fae's summary above is not entirely accurate. As I said at the DR, Bridgeman covered only Old Master paintings. I think WMF's extension to all 2D works, including drawings, etchings, wood block prints, and the like is appropriate. Our current policy is very careful, however, to exclude works that are nearly flat, such as coins, carvings, and the like. I also agree with that.
I do not believe I am changing policy with this deletion. In fact, I think it is Fae that is trying to extend our PD-Art policy to a work that is not 2D. The subject work is not flat -- it consists of sticks (slats) of wood that have depth. The image is not a "slavish copy" (Bridgeman words), but required considerable care and skill to photograph without having distracting shadows. In that respect, the image is similar to an image of a coin or a carving, which we do not include in PD-Art. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the image was not of "sticks (slats) of wood". This inverts the case. As I recall there was one small rod, which could be masked if not covered by DM. The other elements are a small number of flat pieces of wood, not sticks, which by design were intended to be extremely flat as the work is intended to be seen as a silhouette, being a shadow puppet intended to be seen as a 2D projection. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jim and per Meshworks. Fae's invocation omits consideration of the finding that "to the extent a photograph reflects the photographer’s decisions regarding pose, positioning, background, lighting, shading, and the like, those elements can be said to 'owe their origins' to the photographer, making the photograph copyrightable" and, in quoting Nimmer, that "the photographer is entitled to copyright solely based on lighting, angle, perspective, and the other ingredients that traditionally apply to that art-form.” The decision against the computer models was based on the finding that "Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like." As Jim noted, this image is not a slavish copy as contemplated by Bridgeman. Rather, it has a particular background, a particular lighting, a particular angle, etc., all elements identified by Meshworks as "ingredients" that may give rise to copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, however can you explain why we should not put the precise same rationale in new DR requests for all photographs on commons of old crochet work or plates for etchings that we currently host as if they were 2D works, both of which have choices for lighting, shading, positioning, background etc.? In fact the same logic actually applies to old oil paintings as careful choice of lighting will show brush-work more distinctly than flat on lighting. This choice appears to be overturning our standard Commons interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • When it comes to photographs, the copyrightable elements are the angle, the positioning of the subject (if under the photographer's control), the lighting, the framing, and elements like that. With a straight-on photograph of a painting, most of those elements are gone. The positioning, framing, and angle are basically all pre-chosen -- about the only thing left is lighting, and in most cases that is about skill (just trying to reproduce the painting accurately) and not creativity. If there was an out-of-the-ordinary lighting used to make a unique photo of a painting that is otherwise straight-on, that could be different. But with coins and subjects like this, the other copyrightable elements come back into play a little bit, quite possibly enough to cause the photos to be copyrightable. I'm pretty sure that photos of picture *frames* (as a product) were found to be copyrightable, so the line isn't very far off. I think I would side with deletion on this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, this would not apply to images for which the uploader is the photographer – far from your hyperbolic “all photographs". Secondly, your purport is that this is some new interpretation. It is not; rather, you seem merely to misunderstand or not to be aware of the underlying considerations of Bridgeman, Meshworks, et. al. That others may share or have shared this misunderstanding is an irrelevant innovation of OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola talk 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete anything -FASTILY 00:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kongemonument til Kong Olav V.JPG , File:Krigsseilermonument.JPG[edit]

These are my pictures, taken 13.09 in Trondheim. If I could provide any prove that these were taken by me, I can do that. Otherwise, please undelete my pictures.--Sparklinn (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 18:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toto Forever Poster.jpg[edit]

Reciently 3 files were deleted from my account:

The reason given was "possible copyright violation". But I have all the copyright regarding these images. Personally I toke the pictures and also I edited it. I already send the email with the copyright license and also a further email with different places where my images are displayed with the license allowing to be publish and used freely.

I contact The Photographer, the user that delete the images, and he suggest to use this way of request to re-upload it.

Please, let me know if you need any more information or if you need that i place a request for each image.

Thanks

Almostred (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are film posters, so they require a license using the procedure at OTRS. Since you have already sent the license, the only thing to do is wait. OTRS is, like all WMF projects, staffed by volunteers and is understaffed, so their backlog often runs more than a month. Please be patient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. Please wait for OTRS to restore the files -FASTILY 18:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alleskino - Logo.svg[edit]

Bitte wiederherstellen, Logo ist eigenes Werk und freigegeben.

Please undelete, logo is own work and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

See the proof

https://www.alleskino.de/about-us/

--Alleskino (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope -FASTILY 18:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:İbrahimxəlil xan.jpg [edit]

Mən şəklinin lisenziyalaşdırılmasında xətaya yol vermişdim.--Samral (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Əslində şəkildə bu lisenziya olmalı idi PD-old-70 --Samral (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The stated source is
http://www.168saat.com/index.php?action=static_detail&static_id=1569
That page does not have any free license, so we cannot keep this without a license from the creator, using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. COM:OTRS permission is required to restore the image -FASTILY 18:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camil Hasanli.jpg [edit]

Mən elə şəkilin müzakirəsinin getdiyi bir vaxtda müəlliflə əlaqə saxladım və o mənə şəkili öz adımnan yükləməyə izn verdi. Mən indi şəkli geri qaytarıb self|cc-by-sa-3.0 lisenziya şablonu ilə öz adımnan yükləmək istəyirəm.--Samral (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. COM:OTRS permission is required to restore the image -FASTILY 18:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tonic Breed 2014.jpg[edit]

Please could you restore the above file. Permission has been confirmed with ticket:File:Tonic Breed 2014.jpg. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Green Giant: Please add the ticket as soon as you can. INeverCry 20:14, 20 September 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 Remux[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All these OTRS-permissions are still in process. I contact the authors of the files and I got their permissions, but the process in OTRS is really slow. So i want the undeletion of this files.

es: Todos los permisos de estos archivos aún estas en tramite en OTRS. Yo mismo contecte a los autores de estos archivos y consegui de ellos el permiso para usarlos. Por lo tanto pido la restauración de estos archivos. Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 03:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask about the progess of the OTRS permissions at the OTRS noticeboard, if you haven't already. I'd be happy to restore these as soon as some OTRS tickets are available. INeverCry 04:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes the email(s) that was sent, they will restore the files for you. Your continued patience is appreciated! -FASTILY 05:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contraportada del libro: Experiencias con un Yogui.[edit]

La foto del libro es de mi propiedad, lo he hecho yo, tengo los derechos de autor y yo soy el autor de ese libro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.108.86 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is about File:Contraportada Experiencias con un yogui.jpg, which was uploaded by Bongos. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BatbBroadwayLogo.jpg [edit]

A pictures of Disney that I posted does not violate the rights of the corporation. I added an assignment when I posted the pictures; Disney allows the use of posters, that is not for commercial purposes. Are within the law of wikipedia. Bya97 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have proof of that?? We simply can't take your word with regards to your statement. And besides, Commons requires that all images uploaded to it be available for all uses, including commercial so as to maximize the potential reuse of its contents. From COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." (emphasis mine). That runs contrary to your statement. details. Tabercil (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. What is the place of another wiki where I can load the image beyond the Commons?

I'm editing a page, and I need pictures. Bya97 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • We're not talking about use elsewhere - we're only discussing placing the image here on Commons - that we have a very clear requirement in order for an image to be uploaded here. For one thing, fair use is not allowed on Commons period. Please read COM:L for further details. Tabercil (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio. No fair use on Commons. INeverCry 17:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TheLion KingMusical.svg.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the laws of wikipedia says that images allowed by the corporation, including those which are not for commercial purposes are allowed. This image is of a poster qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Bya97 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, fair use is not allowed on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio. No fair use on Commons. INeverCry 17:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leaked gov't correspondence was deleted for "copyright"[edit]

[[17]] was deleted without warning or discussion by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#File_deletion Please undelete since this is leaked gov't correspondance and should be considered PD. Mehmetaergun (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be considered PD? As far as I know, works of the Turkish government are not generally PD, and being leaked hurts, not helps the case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And according to w:Hakan Fidan, they took major parts of the net down in Turkey to stop its dissemination. So it's pretty obvious they're going to assert copyright if they have half a leg to stand on.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Prosfilaes -FASTILY 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

REAPER 2014 movie to undelete[edit]

No copyright conflict. Movie poster available for mass exhibition. Need to showcase on wiki page for promotional purposes.

 Not done: Posters are copyright and cannot be hosted on Commons. However you might be able to argue "fair use" on the Wikis where it is used. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Izlaiduma gads.jpg [edit]

Hello Sir/Madam,

I represent new Latvian-made pseudo-documentary "THE LESSON" (Latvian:Izlaiduma Gads). I am authorised to do anything necessary to promote, market, produce and make film's success bigger.

I am writing in connection of blocking/deleting a poster of the movie. ( File:Izlaiduma gads.jpg ). The author has authorised any action necessary in accordance to the previously mentioned intentions and any other that are executed whether by me, AGIRS NEMINSKIS, or any other representative.

I am asking you to unblock or undelete the file so that I can insert it into the official wikipedia page of this movie.


Thank you, Agirs Neminskis +371 299 664 77 scott.agirs@gmail.com

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Universitas_Sam_Ratulangi_Manado.png [edit]

Dear WIKIMEDIA,

I uploaded the picture in order to complete my university profile on Wikipedia. My university profile wasn't complete on Wikipedia and there wasn't anyone eager to complete it. Indeed, the picture has a copyright, but it is also my university's copyright. I didn't upload it for my own benefit or interest but it's for my university progression to become an excellent university. I hope my reason could be acceptable.

Best Regards, --LAW AYR (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose While you apparently had the best of intentions, the fact remains that the logo is copyrighted and cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the university using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:sanjit magar.jpg [edit]

this image is for my user page so please do not delete.--Sanjit.khulal (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elektronika_User_Interface.png[edit]

Elektronika_User_Interface.png

This picture is a screenshot of the free, open source software Elektronika (see: http://aestesis.eu/elektronika/ ). The video clip seen in the screenshot is one of the clips included with the software by default. The source code of the software is released under the Apache 2.0 license (see: https://github.com/aestesis/elektronika/blob/master/License.txt ). In view of this I was wondering if you could undelete it? Thanks.

I raised this with the Administrator who deleted it, her response was as follows:

Hi AlphaTangoVideo: The image didn't contain sufficient information in the accompanying file for a reasonable person to understand that the source is released as you say. I don't feel qualified after having made this error to work on the COM:UNDEL of this image. Please go to COM:UNDEL and have one of their administrators help you with the restoration of this file. Thank you for your understanding. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellin_Beltz )

AlphaTangoVideo (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The license shown at http://aestesis.eu/elektronika/ is CC-BY-ND, which is not acceptable for Commons or WP:EN. The Apache license which is found at the location you cite is not used on Commons, principally because it requires that every use of the licensed material must include a copy of the license. Thus, in order to use the image on Commons, the image description would have to include the whole license. Please see COM:Licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Apache Software Foundation's own advice on how to apply the license suggests that the authors of the license consider providing a link to the license to be in line with the spirit of the requirement in 4(c), and as far as I know {{Free screenshot|license=Apache}} is accepted here. If it's not, we've got a bigger problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...That said, the last note in {{Free screenshot}} is probably relevant with respect to the video screenshot, since it is presumably not a direct result of the program code itself. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dana Mead.jpg[edit]

Please restore the above file. Permission has been received with ticket:2014090310018362. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Martin Jensen.jpg[edit]

I kindly ask you to reload our picture - our company, Albatros Media a.s., as owner of Plus publishing house, represents an publishes Martin Jensen´s books in the Czech republic. The photo was made by ourselves at World of book fair in Prague this year. I´m very concerned about your policy of deleting pictures.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilounek (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We delete images after due process when it appears that there has been a copyright violation. This is done to protect the copyright owner -- in this case, apparently, your company -- from people who falsely claim to be the copyright holder. We also prohibit uploading an image a second time without due process -- a rule you have broken.
In this case there are six copyrights for which we must be concerned: the image itself, the cover of the book, and the four large images on the display behind the subject. If your company holds all six copyrights, then the image can be restored to view after the company sends a license using the procedure at OTRS. Note that OTRS has a significant backlog, so it may be a month or more before the image is restored. Please do not reload the image a third time -- if you do, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.
If your company does not own all six copyrights, then the image can be restored only if we receive a free license from all of the applicable copyright holders using the same procedure. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 18:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tlingit_dancers.jpg [edit]

Reason for deletion was: File was deleted on 16 September 2014 by BrightRaven for "No permission since 6 September 2014". It is unknown if a proper license was provided by the uploader.

Reason for undeletion is: The file is under public domain, as stated by the source: "Dancers: Edward Curtis 1910; [Public domain image]". This declaration can be found in the source code of the web page (to access the source code press ctrl+u on most browsers). I'm requesting the file to be undeleted and provided with the correct license: PD-old-50-1923, public domain because the work was published before 1923 and the author has died over 50 years ago (source on author's age: loc.gov). Finnusertop (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The licence provided by the uploader ({{Cc-zero}})) was not valid. Curtis was American. {{PD-old-50-1923}} is not appropriate, because it can only be used when the copyright term in the country of origin is life + 50 years or less. {{PD-US-1923}} could be used instead. I agree with the undeletion request. BrightRaven (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-old-50-1923}} can be used for files from any country, provided that the file is in the public domain in the source country, that the file was published before 1923 and that the author has been dead for at least 50 years. It is preferable to use {{PD-old-50-1923}} instead of {{PD-1923}} if it is known that the author has been dead for at least 50 years as this provides information about the copyright status in more countries than {{PD-1923}}. However, {{PD-old-auto-1923|1952}} is even better. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored 1910 picture published in the US by an American photographer. BrightRaven (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sovereign Logo (Current).png [edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to request undeletion of the above image. I work in the Communications Department of Sovereign Housing Association and am creating our official Wikipedia Page.

The Communications Team own the copyright on the Sovereign Logo and would like to be able to use it on our page.

If you require further verification of this, please direct a query to my company e-mail address: Kaelum.Neville@sovereign.org.uk.

Yours faithfully,

Kaelum Neville

--Kaelz18 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you yourself are not the owner of the copyright, policy requires that the copyright owner send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Please note that OTRS has a significant backlog, so it may be amonth or more before the logo is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guaymas 1858 png.png [edit]

Este Archivo esta INCLUSIVE con la fecha escrita de 1858, obviamente ya pasaron mas de 100 años desde su publicación, ademas el archivo no tiene copyrigth, por el simple paso del tiempo.

This file is from 1858, i have the original but is to large, if you ask me for it, ill sen to you, but is like 18mb the file have date of 1858

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Curp leticia calderon.png [edit]

es un documento publico asi como llo es una acta, se encuentra para consulta popular en Mexico, por eso estan en REGISTRO PUBLICOS

this is a public document, like a public birth act, is on public records

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tetabiate.jpg [edit]

Tetabiate es una litografia de 1910 ya paso su tiempo

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jesus H. Preciado chico.jpg [edit]

Tambien se afecta File:Jesus H. Preciado.jpg File:Jesus H. Preciado.png

todas estas como ven son la mismas pero editadas en formato o bien en en tamaño, son parte de los arvhivos historicos de paginas de la Unam, no recuerdo la publicacion del libro, pero la imagen esta tomada de las litografías de alrededor de 1850-1870. donde aboviamente ya pasaron 100 años

Also afectingː File:Jesus H. Preciado.jpg File:Jesus H. Preciado.png

This images are frim historic files from UNAM web pages, i dont remenber the book, but this pictures were from 1850-1870.

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ignacio de la Torre y Mier.png [edit]

esta litografia en especial es del dominio publico en Mexico se encuetra en el museo de la Cd de mexico, no receurudo el nombre pero es del dominio publico, no hay que confundir que se haya sacado de una publicacion contemporanea, lo importante aqui es que los derechos de autor ya caducaron, por eso en la publicacion la pudieron sacar

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Los 41 maricones.png [edit]

este estampado salio de un periodico de 1890 alrededor, la revolucion mexicana aun ni empezaba, por lo que obviamente ya pasaron mas de 100 años

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Convenio jecker-torreycia y gaston raousset de boulbon.png [edit]

este documento esta en los museos de Mexico, es parte de la muestra del periodo de Mariano Arista 1852 y donde aboviamente ya pasaron mas de 100 años, se tomo de una re-publicacion municipal en Guaymas de 1954, donde hacen referencia donde tomaron la imagen (del museo de Mexico), la publicación de guaymas fue por el 100 aniversario de la gesta Heroica, se encuentra en el museo de la calle XV en la antigua Carcel municipal

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Convenio miguel blanco y gaston raousset de boulbon.png [edit]

Este archivo tambien es parte de la muestra que se hizo por el 100 aniversario de la gesta Heroica de Guaymas, tambien se tomo de una publicacion de esa fecha, esta imagen es parte de una serie de documentos del periodo de arista (mariano) 1852, por lo que obviamente pasaron mas de 100 años, si se dan cuenta he tratado de tomar las fotos yo mismo, pero no vivo en mi puerto, asi que tome las publicaciones y ellos la tomaron de los museos y los museos pues ya son del dominio publico.

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gaston de Raousset-Boulbon2.jpg [edit]

est junto con los demas en una litografia mucho antes de 1923 asi que ya tiene el copyright libre

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Invasores franceses en Guaymas.png [edit]

esta es una foto del alrededor del años 1890-1910, por lo que ya tieme mas de 100 años

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ermitaarcones00140911.jpg[edit]

este fichero esta hehco con mi movil la foto y es libre para hacer lo que se quiera con la foto.

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CAM008383.png [edit]

es una imagen mia y no tienen por que borrarmela. --Juan11211992 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Azasugar.gif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the png contains error which were marked in the gif version of the file Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you just want access to the image annotations that were on the gif's file description page. Here they are, as follows: 

{{ImageNote|id=1|x=282|y=162|w=49|h=50|dimx=494|dimy=321|style=2}}
incorrect stereochemistry
{{ImageNoteEnd|id=1}}
{{ImageNote|id=2|x=371|y=2|w=32|h=38|dimx=494|dimy=321|style=2}}
incorrect stereochemistry
{{ImageNoteEnd|id=2}}
{{ImageNote|id=3|x=115|y=88|w=64|h=27|dimx=494|dimy=321|style=2}}
Which specific AD-mix (alpha vs beta) is used to give this specific (_2_) enantiomer?
{{ImageNoteEnd|id=3}}

-FASTILY 18:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Improbable Journey of Berta Benz.jpg[edit]

I work for Deborah Hutchison. She owns this file and gave permission to post to Wikipedia. There is no copyright violation happening here.

Allowthenow (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Christopher Lowman, 9.24.14[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hedda Sterne Self portrait.JPG [edit]

I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published (and there is no other copyright involved). Picture was taken with my own device. The work belongs to my personal collection and was bought through an intermediary (the auction house / specialized shop). If necessary i can prove the previously stated. --Sabnic (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an OTRS issue. Ownership of the physical item (which is what the requester says they can prove) has nothing to do with ownership of the intellectual property (IP). Unless the auction papers explicitly convey the IP, something I've not seen and something the requester has not claimed, there is nothing OTRS can do here. Эlcobbola talk 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Malea_shoot.png [edit]

I am requesting undeletion of this photograph of Malea McGuinness. I work directly for the artist herself and her husband Doug Klein (dlkjet on Wikipedia/Wikimedia), I have their permission and authority to share, distribute and reproduce the photograph and have been bonded with the task of updating, correcting and adding new information to her Wikipedia page.

The image in question is available freely, is not protected by or in any infringement of anyone's copyright. If you have questions about this request, you may contact the owner of the photograph directly if you would like further information or documentation, his email address is dlkjet@aol.com and he is expecting to speak with you.

Loudersoft (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cayetano Navarro.jpg [edit]

CAYETANO NAVARRO VIVIO DE 1811 A 1870, LA LITOGRAFIA ES DE ESA EPOCA, ESTA EN EL LIBRO DE MEMORIAS DE AYER DEL AYER DE GUAYMAS, O ALGO ASI, TAMBIEN ESTA EN UNA PAGINA DE INTERNET DE WWW.GUAYMAS.GOB.MX, ESA LITOGRAFIA TIENE MAS DE 100 AÑOS, Y EL HECHO QUE SEA USADA EN UN LIBRO NO SIGNIFICA QUE POR LOS MISMO LOS EDITORES SEAN DUEÑOS DE SU COPYRITH, YA QUE TAMBIEN LA USANPOR QUE ESTA LIBRE DE LICENCIA ES DEL DOMINIO PUBLICO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambuston (talk • contribs) --Cambuston (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kimon Loghi (1873-1952), Garoafe in vas albastru.jpg [edit]

I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published (and there is no other copyright involved). Picture was taken with my own device. The work belongs to my personal collection and was bought through an intermediary (the auction house / specialized shop). If necessary i can prove the previously stated. If it helps, you can find the registration of the transaction, and an image of work on (search for: Kimon Loghi (1873-1952), Garoafe in vas albastru): http://www.arcadja.com/auctions/en/private/alis_auction/2011/5/31/1450533981/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabnic (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose This is a derivative work; ownership of the physical artwork (mere property rights) and/or the camera is irrelevant. Unless your auction papers explicitly indicate conveyance of intellectual property rights, you cannot license this image without permission of the author's heirs/estate. Эlcobbola talk 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per elcobbola -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jose Maria Yañez.jpg [edit]

YAÑEZ FUE UN GENERAL DE PRINCIPIOS DE SIGLO XVII, LA LITOGRAFIA ES DE ESA EPOCA, ESTA EN EL MUSEO NACIONAL DE LAS FUERZAS ARMADAS EN LA CIUDAD DE MEXICO, YA QUE EL FUE COMANDANTE SUPREMO DEL MINISTERIO DE GUERRA, ESTO LO PUEDEN CONSULTAR EN EL ARCHIVO HISTORICO DE LA PAGINA DE LA SECRETARIA DE LA DEFENSA NACIONAL http://www.archivohistorico2010.sedena.gob.mx/, ESA LITOGRAFIA TIENE MAS DE 100 AÑOS, Y EL HECHO QUE SEA USADA EN UNA PAGINA DE INTERNET NO SIGNIFICA QUE POR LOS MISMO LOS EDITORES SEAN DUEÑOS DE SU COPYRIGTH, YA QUE TAMBIEN LA USAN POR QUE ESTA LIBRE DE LICENCIA ES DEL DOMINIO PUBLICO. --Cambuston (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joe chamaco.gif [edit]

JOE CHAMACO NACIO EN 1910, POR LO QUE ES OBVIO QUE EL AUTOR DE ESTA FOTO (ALREDEDOR DE 1930) YA TIENE MAS DE LOS 70 AÑOS QUE PIDE LA LIBERACION DE LA LICENCIA, Y ADEMAS QUE ES CASI SEGURO QUE YA MURIO, AUNQUE ESO ES INTRASCENDENTE YA QUE SUS DERECHOS CADUCARON, POR LO QUE LES SOLICITO POR FAVOR REACEPTARLA ESTA LIBRE DE LICENCIA ES DEL DOMINIO PUBLICO.--Cambuston (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oscar-Bonfiglio.jpg [edit]

Oscar-Bonfiglio NACIO EN 1905, TOMANDO EN CONSIDERACION ESO, LA FOTO ES DE ALREDEDOR DE 1930-1940 YA QUE SE RETIRO EN 1938, LO MAS POSIBLE ES QUE LA FOTO SEA DEL MUNDIAL DE 1930 EN URUGUAY, POR LO QUE SUPONIENDO SEA DE 1938 ESTE AÑO CUMPLIO 76 AÑOS, POR LO QUE A LICENCIA DEL DUEÑO ESTA CADUCA. PASANDO A SER DEL DOMINIO PUBLICO --Cambuston (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PlutarcoEliasCalleschacon.jpg [edit]

Plutarco Elias-Calles Chacon fue el hijo de el General Elias calles, Plutarco jr nacio en 1901, esta litografia se puede apreciar que ya tiene la edad para que el artista este muerto, no se como vean ustedes por eso la agregue.

--Cambuston (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rodolfo Elias Calles.jpg [edit]

Rodolfo Elias-Calles Chacon fue el hijo de el General Elias calles, Plutarco jr nacio en 1900, esta fotografia se puede apreciar que ya tiene la edad para que el artista este muerto, o bien ya pasaron mas de 70 años, no se como vean ustedes por eso la agregue.

--Cambuston (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Don Rodolfo.jpg [edit]

Rodolfo Elias-Calles Chacon fue el hijo de el General Elias calles, Rodolfo nacio en 1900, esta fotografia se puede apreciar que ya tiene la edad para que el artista este muerto, o bien ya pasaron mas de 70 años, no se como vean ustedes por eso la agregue.

--Cambuston (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please state the credible source explicitly declaring this file to be freely licensed on the file description page -FASTILY 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VicenteGzlezLizondo.jpg[edit]

Also File:Miguel_Ramon_Izquierdo.jpg Taken from an official source and deleted as Copyvio. If not mistaken was this or maybe this photo taken from the Spanish Parliament website, which allows free reproduction as can be seen in this upload.--Coentor (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have just added {{Delete}} to the image you cite above. The first clause in the restrictions quoted is "a) Not alter the contents of the information", which is ND, something we do not permit on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Agree The literal translation from spanish is "that the content of the information won't be altered". The original sense in the original language is closer to "don't tergiversate" rather than "don't modify". Ask Wikimedia Spain if You have any doubt about the license and its meaning.--Coentor (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant to use {{Support}} rather than {{Agree}}, as you don't appear to be agreeing with me.
"Tergiversate" is a great word, but I don't see how it applies here. Webster gives "fudge, hedge, pussyfoot, equivocate, waffle, weasel" as synonyms. Could a user draw a mustache on the photo without breaking this rule? Add a speech balloon (as in comic strips)? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Coentor the requester? Agreeing with him/herself? Эlcobbola talk 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The legend was written with text in mind, as I understand it. WM Spain should have more information.--Coentor (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per Jim. Whether we take the cognate translation ("alter") or the purported translation of the spirit ("tergiversate"), it is nevertheless a limitation on the scope of derivatives, effectively ND. Alternatively, whatever the translation, the meaning intended seems sufficiently vague as to cause signification doubt as to freeness, a COM:PRP concern. If congreso.es indeed intends to allow derivatives, let them say so explicitly in correspondence through COM:OTRS if we are to host the file. Эlcobbola talk 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To let them say it explicitly We shuld contact WM Spain, becaure that tenplate wasn't created by me, so it was made by anyone else, under some interpretation of the law. They are the ones who should know How Congreso works, and the ones Who should contact them if there is any need of getting a ORTS or whatever.--Coentor (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as inactionable - permission for the file, if obtained, needs to go through OTRS in order for the file to be restored -FASTILY 21:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Perfil del indio paucar.jpg [edit]

AMIGOS SOLICITO QUE RESTAUREN LA FOTO CARGADA, YA QUE ES DE MI AUTORÍA. File:Perfil del indio paucar.jpg ESTA FOTO ES TOTALMENTE PROPIA, FUE TOMADA EN LA TIERRA DONDE VIVI MI NIÑEZ Y ADOLESCENCIA, PAUCARTAMBO, PASCO. TIERRA DE MIS PADRES, CON UNA MAQUINA FOTOGRAFICA ZENIT, UNA DE LAS PRIMERAS MÁQUINAS FOTOGRÁFICAS QUE USÉ EN MI INCURSIÓN HACIA EL PERIODISMO. ME PARECE UN EXABRUPTO QUITARLA INMEDIATAMENTE, SIN MEDIAR LA MÁS MÍNIMA CONVERSACIÓN. GRACIAS. PD. EN CASO CONTINÚEN CON EL EXABRUPTO SOLICITO ME HAGAN EL FAVOR DE BORRAR ABSOLUTAMENTE TODOS MIS TRABAJOS TANTO DE WIKIMEDIA COMO DE WIKIPEDIA, YA QUE NO AMERITA QUE CONTINÚE UTILIZANDO UNOS SERVICIOS QUE PARA NADA CONSIDERAN LA CONVERSACIÓN PREVÍA CON EL AUTOR, DEMOCRÁTICA ANTE CUALQUIER SUPUESTO USO INDEBIDO DE UNA FOTO Y/O ARTÍCULO. JCRADIOTV (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.jcradiotv.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=17. Therefore, Commons policy requires that the copyright holder send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colonos migrantes en la selva central.jpg [edit]

Una vez más pierdo mi tiempo con Uds., para indicarles que cometen un grave error al eliminar fotos que son de mi autoría File:Colonos migrantes en la selva central.jpg
Lejos de utilizar mi tiempo para continuar contribuyendo con Uds., lamentablemente me veo en la imperiosa necesidad de aclarar que estas fotos correspondientes a la selva central de Perú, corresponden a trabajos realizados durante mi estadía en esa zona del Perú, en mi condición de Jefe del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Palcazú, como lo narro en mi libro: Amores Asháninka, ver: http://www.lulu.com/us/es/shop/jorge-carri%C3%B3n-rubio/amores-ash%C3%A1ninkas/paperback/product-21317928.html Si insisten en considerar que se trata de plagios o situaciones por el estilo, háganme el favor de no sólo eliminar las fotos sino incluso los artículos a los cuáles dediqué mi tiempo. Gracias. JCRADIOTV (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PD. Con razón escucho mucha gente que se resiste a contribuir con Uds. Sean más diplomáticos y no eliminen inmediatamente lo que a título personal algún imberbe considera que ha sido plagiado. Ahora todo es más fácil de comprobar, no lo hagan más difícil, un simple email o chateo, puede resolver cualquier duda que se tenga, antes de proceder tan autoritariamente a borrar nada.

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Espíritu guerrero Yanesha.jpg [edit]

Una vez más pierdo mi tiempo con Uds., para indicarles que cometen un grave error al eliminar fotos que son de mi autoría File:Espíritu guerrero Yanesha.jpg
Lejos de utilizar mi tiempo para continuar contribuyendo con Uds., lamentablemente me veo en la imperiosa necesidad de aclarar que estas fotos correspondientes a la selva central de Perú, corresponden a trabajos realizados durante mi estadía en esa zona del Perú, en mi condición de Jefe del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Palcazú, como lo narro en mi libro: Amores Asháninka, ver: http://www.lulu.com/us/es/shop/jorge-carri%C3%B3n-rubio/amores-ash%C3%A1ninkas/paperback/product-21317928.html Si insisten en considerar que se trata de plagios o situaciones por el estilo, háganme el favor de no sólo eliminar las fotos sino incluso los artículos a los cuáles dediqué mi tiempo. Gracias. JCRADIOTV (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PD. Con razón escucho mucha gente que se resiste a contribuir con Uds. Sean más diplomáticos y no eliminen inmediatamente lo que a título personal algún imberbe considera que ha sido plagiado. Ahora todo es más fácil de comprobar, no lo hagan más difícil, un simple email o chateo, puede resolver cualquier duda que se tenga, antes de proceder tan autoritariamente a borrar nada.

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Espejos del Palcazú.jpg [edit]

Bueno no puedo escribir a cada uno de estos archivos lo mismo, lean los demás y comprobarán las razones de mi justo reclamo. File:Espejos del Palcazú.jpg Apelo a la conciencia del implacable imberbe que borró esta foto.
JCRADIOTV (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: You taken the picture from Flickr, and the source says clearly (c) All rights reserved. You need the explicit permission of the copyright holder, or he/she must send an OTRS ticket to authorize the usage of this file in Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required, or the license must be changed on Flickr to a free license. INeverCry 18:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hábitat Yanesha.jpg [edit]

Una vez más pierdo mi tiempo con Uds., para indicarles que cometen un grave error al eliminar fotos que son de mi autoría File:Hábitat Yanesha.jpg Lejos de utilizar mi tiempo para continuar contribuyendo con Uds., lamentablemente me veo en la imperiosa necesidad de aclarar que estas fotos correspondientes a la selva central de Perú, corresponden a trabajos realizados durante mi estadía en esa zona del Perú, en mi condición de Jefe del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Palcazú, como lo narro en mi libro: Amores Asháninka, ver: http://www.lulu.com/us/es/shop/jorge-carri%C3%B3n-rubio/amores-ash%C3%A1ninkas/paperback/product-21317928.html Si insisten en considerar que se trata de plagios o situaciones por el estilo, háganme el favor de no sólo eliminar las fotos sino incluso los artículos a los cuáles dediqué mi tiempo. Gracias. JCRADIOTV (Discusión) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC) PD. Con razón escucho mucha gente que se resiste a contribuir con Uds. Sean más diplomáticos y no eliminen inmediatamente lo que a título personal algún imberbe considera que ha sido plagiado. Ahora todo es más fácil de comprobar, no lo hagan más difícil, un simple email o chateo, puede resolver cualquier duda que se tenga, antes de proceder tan autoritariamente a borrar nada.

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patrioticos Yaneshas.jpg [edit]

Una vez más pierdo mi tiempo con Uds., para indicarles que cometen un grave error al eliminar fotos que son de mi autoría File:Patrioticos Yaneshas.jpg Lejos de utilizar mi tiempo para continuar contribuyendo con Uds., lamentablemente me veo en la imperiosa necesidad de aclarar que estas fotos correspondientes a la selva central de Perú, corresponden a trabajos realizados durante mi estadía en esa zona del Perú, en mi condición de Jefe del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Palcazú, como lo narro en mi libro: Amores Asháninka, ver: http://www.lulu.com/us/es/shop/jorge-carri%C3%B3n-rubio/amores-ash%C3%A1ninkas/paperback/product-21317928.html Si insisten en considerar que se trata de plagios o situaciones por el estilo, háganme el favor de no sólo eliminar las fotos sino incluso los artículos a los cuáles dediqué mi tiempo. Gracias. JCRADIOTV (Discusión) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC) PD. Con razón escucho mucha gente que se resiste a contribuir con Uds. Sean más diplomáticos y no eliminen inmediatamente lo que a título personal algún imberbe considera que ha sido plagiado. Ahora todo es más fácil de comprobar, no lo hagan más difícil, un simple email o chateo, puede resolver cualquier duda que se tenga, antes de proceder tan autoritariamente a borrar nada.

  •  Comment: I say again, the picture were uploaded to Flickr and are not published under a free license. If you really are the owner of that Flickr account, please the OTRS process in order to probe than you really are the copyright holder of the pictures. If you are not the actual copyright holder, you must request a permission of the actual copyright holder of the pictures. This is a problem with you and the copyright holder of the file, NOT Commons.
Also, if you really are the owner of the Flickr account, is better to release the pictures under a free license in order to share in Commons without problems. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required, or the license on Flickr must be changed to a free license. INeverCry 18:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Espejos del Palcazú.jpg [edit]

Una vez más pierdo mi tiempo con Uds., para indicarles que cometen un grave error al eliminar fotos que son de mi autoría File:Espejos del Palcazú.jpg
Lejos de utilizar mi tiempo para continuar contribuyendo con Uds., lamentablemente me veo en la imperiosa necesidad de aclarar que estas fotos correspondientes a la selva central de Perú, corresponden a trabajos realizados durante mi estadía en esa zona del Perú, en mi condición de Jefe del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Palcazú, como lo narro en mi libro: Amores Asháninka, ver: http://www.lulu.com/us/es/shop/jorge-carri%C3%B3n-rubio/amores-ash%C3%A1ninkas/paperback/product-21317928.html Si insisten en considerar que se trata de plagios o situaciones por el estilo, háganme el favor de no sólo eliminar las fotos sino incluso los artículos a los cuáles dediqué mi tiempo. Gracias. JCRADIOTV (Discusión) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC) PD. Con razón escucho mucha gente que se resiste a contribuir con Uds. Sean más diplomáticos y no eliminen inmediatamente lo que a título personal algún imberbe considera que ha sido plagiado. Ahora todo es más fácil de comprobar, no lo hagan más difícil, un simple email o chateo, puede resolver cualquier duda que se tenga, antes de proceder tan autoritariamente a borrar nada.

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PDR Palcazú.jpg [edit]

Una vez más pierdo mi tiempo con Uds., para indicarles que cometen un grave error al eliminar fotos que son de mi autoría File:PDR Palcazú.jpg Lejos de utilizar mi tiempo para continuar contribuyendo con Uds., lamentablemente me veo en la imperiosa necesidad de aclarar que estas fotos correspondientes a la selva central de Perú, corresponden a trabajos realizados durante mi estadía en esa zona del Perú, en mi condición de Jefe del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Palcazú, como lo narro en mi libro: Amores Asháninka, ver: http://www.lulu.com/us/es/shop/jorge-carri%C3%B3n-rubio/amores-ash%C3%A1ninkas/paperback/product-21317928.html Si insisten en considerar que se trata de plagios o situaciones por el estilo, háganme el favor de no sólo eliminar las fotos sino incluso los artículos a los cuáles dediqué mi tiempo. Gracias. JCRADIOTV (Discusión) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC) PD. Con razón escucho mucha gente que se resiste a contribuir con Uds. Sean más diplomáticos y no eliminen inmediatamente lo que a título personal algún imberbe considera que ha sido plagiado. Ahora todo es más fácil de comprobar, no lo hagan más difícil, un simple email o chateo, puede resolver cualquier duda que se tenga, antes de proceder tan autoritariamente a borrar nada.

  • Español: El problema acá es que hay plagio, ya que las fotos fueron sacadas de la cuenta de Flickr a la que se enlaza (cuyas fotos fueron subidas el 2012), y dichas fotos no han sido publicadas bajo una licencia libre. Si realmente eres el propietario de las fotos (y el propietario de la cuenta de Flickr), por favor sigue el conducto regular mediante OTRS para probar su autoría y autorizar su uso en Commons. Si no eres el propietario de esas fotos, te estás arriesgando a una severa violación de copyright por usar material con copyright en tu libro; eso ya es un problema con el propietario de los derechos de autor de las fotos, NO con Commons.
English: The problem here is there are copyvio, because the pictures has been taken from the Flick account linked in the Copyvio tag (pictures uploaded in 2012), and the pictures are published not-under a free license. If you really are the copyright holder of the pictures (and/or the owner of the Flickr account), please follow the OTRS procedures in order to proble the authorship of these pictures and authorize the ussage in Commons. If you don't are the actual copyright holder of the pictures, you are risking a severe copyright violation for using copyrighted material in your book; that it is a problem with the owner of the copyright of the photos, NOT with Commons.
--Amitie 10g (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required, or free license at Flickr. INeverCry 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Savo2013.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i took that photo, so there is no copyright violation Sebastian27 (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Bad speedy request that should not have been honored. 1) The resolution (622 × 1,363) is not particularly low and the (poor) visual quality, positioning of the subject, and lack of metadata are suggestive more of cropping than of being a copyvio; 2) Uploader has hundreds of contributions going back to 2012 with no history of copyvios (and uploads look fine at a glance); and 3) image does not turn up elsewhere on Google Images and TinEye. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smallsdsa4.gif [edit]

this is a free image its a gif --AN298 (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deleted as a copyvio from http://rocketdock.com/addon/icons/28671, which has an upload date of February 2010, and no free license, while you uploaded it to Commons just a couple weeks ago. INeverCry 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per INC. Yann (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ellen Clifford and Kurt Morningstar in Desire Street (a film by Roberto F. Canuto & Xu Xiaoxi).jpg[edit]

Undelete above, please. For some reason that I don't know the links were related with this ticket; the copyholder sent me an email about them, but or he forgot to join the links in the first ticket, or maybe the files are duplicated. Please check. Thanks.

@Willy Weazley: Hi,
Please sign your posts. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Detroit Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I created the image, and I own and maintain the website, hellbeasts.com, that featured the image. Cleo8it (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plainville, Massachusetts Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the following files:

File:Jacksonville, North Carolina Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg File:Campbell County, Tennessee Jane Doe.jpg File:Clarion County, Pennsylvania Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg File:Odessa, Delaware Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg File:Spokane, Washington Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg File:Detroit, Michigan Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg File:Durham, Ontario Jane Doe facial reconstructions.jpg File:Little Miss Lake Panasoffkee facial reconstruction.jpg File:Woman in the Trunk facial reconstruction.jpg File:Lady of the Dunes facial reconstructions (with and without freckles).jpg File:Plainville, Massachusetts Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg File:Detroit Jane Doe facial reconstruction.jpg

I created the images, and I own and maintain the website, hellbeasts.com, that featured these images.

If you have any questions or require more information, please feel free to contact me at cleo8it@gmail.com.

Judy Reimer (Cleo8it) September 26, 2014

Cleo8it (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tribune Company.svg [edit]

If it's the same as File:Tribune Company logo.png the licence is clear. Fortunately the CommonsDelinker making (consciously) garbage code ( in the entire MediaWiki space ).[18] ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 08:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AFED_magazine_198-199_cover.jpg [edit]

AFED_magazine_198-199_cover.jpg

source of the debated AFED magazine 198-199 cover image

A footnote of the image source (AFED Mag website) states: «© All rights reserved, Al-Bia Wal-Tanmia and Technical Publications. Proper reference should appear with any contents used or quoted. No parts of the contents may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means without permission. Use for commercial purposes should be licensed.»

Undelete because I have the permission from the copyright's owner to use all magazine 'cover images' and 'public event photos' in Wikipedia project. You may contact copyright's owner for confirmation. --J.Domna (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete because the use of the cover does not limit the copyright holder's ability to sell the magazine, as the magazine archive is available online free of charge within the publisher's website. --J.Domna (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This is a clear copyright violation. The argument in the last paragraph does not stand up -- the publisher reserves all rights and the fact that a Commons copy "does not limit" does not make the infringement appropriate. Permission for use "in Wikipedia project" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require that images must be free for all use, including commercial use. This can be restored only if the publisher provides a completely free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale

It is believed that this image's use qualifies as fair use because:

  • the publisher/copyright owner freely circulates magazine cover image, in media press of each new release, for public domain.
  • Its use here does not limit the copyright holder's ability to sell the magazine,
  • It is being used for informational purposes only, not for profit.
  • It is being used to show the cover of the very magazine being discussed in the article in the section about this magazine.

 Oppose Fair use is not permitted on Commons, see COM:Fair use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio. No fair use on Commons. OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dario_Giustozzi.png [edit]

Estimados, quería pedir la restauración del archivo Dario_Giustozzi.png ya que sin darme cuenta y por mi inexperiencia cuando lo subí por primera vez dije que los derechos eran reservados y me confundí.

¿Serían tan amables de restaurarlo?

Saludos cordiales.

--Municipalidad Almirante Brown (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Municipalidad Almirante Brown[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pictures of stage performance[edit]

Hi,

Following a discussion with Spurzem, I think that some pictures of stage performance were deleted by error:

These are shows with horses or costumes. I don't think there could be any valid copyright claim from the show director on these pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I don't understand the edit comments at all, but if these are actually outdoor live action (one looks like it is in a movie theatre), and the background is natural, not man-made, then I agree with Yann that the only copyright here is the photographer's and there is not one for the costumes or staging. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Yann & Jim. These need to be categorized and cleaned up a bit. INeverCry 18:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:bragoc.jpg [edit]

I send allready the autorisation statement to the photo owner about copyrights, please wait till the recievement! --Shabicht (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the license is received and processed by OTRS, the image will be restored. Since OTRS does not have enough volunteers, it has a long backlog -- it may be more than a month until the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. INeverCry 18:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial shot of present Intramuros.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo is used by the Intramuros Administration Page. UnangKarlito (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That may be so, but there is no reason to believe that the image is freely licensed. It appears at skyscrapercity, which is a site with an explicit copyright notice. The Intramuros official site has no mention of copyright either way, which means that it is copyrighted and is not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyright violation. INeverCry 18:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galina Vale.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, I am Galina Vale, This photo was created by myself. This photo shows up in a google search because, I have previously uploaded it to my website www.galinavale.com also to facebook. Please reconsider deletion. Thank you. Novaguitarra (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Green_edit.jpg[edit]

I am Galina Vale , this photo is by me and only me who has full rights to use of it. I am happy to release it to public use here in wiki

The file has not been deleted yet, so that there is nothing to undelete. You can explain your position at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Novaguitarra. --rimshottalk 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, nothing to undelete. --rimshottalk 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

SolesofPassionDuo.jpg[edit]

To Whome It May Concern,

I am requesting that the files listed here please be undeleted. I had submitted permission from the copyright owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The email below contains the forward that I sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on September 25, 2014.

Please communicate with me so I can resolve this rather than run into any ambiguity with respect to what has happened with the file.

1987atomheartbrother

--

Dear Wikimedia Permissions Team,

Regarding...

(1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SolesofPassionDuo.jpg (2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SolesofPassionInsideCover.jpg and (3) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SolesofPassionLogo.jpg

... please see the email forward below.

1987atomheartbrother



Forwarded message ----------

From: <info@solesofpassion.com> Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:41 PM Subject: Soles Of Passion Autho, Info, & attachments To: 1987ahb@gmail.com


I hereby affirm that I represent Passion Music, LLC the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached photo, and graphic logo images.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content 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. Steven Wolfe/Managing Member Passion Music, LLC September 11, 2014

---

--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is confirmed, the image will be restored. INeverCry 05:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

PMQ Night Market.jpg [edit]

I have sent out an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to verify the copyright detail for PMQ Night Market.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PMQ_Night_Market.jpg on 26 Sep 2014. Please kindly help to undelete the file. Thank you! Viola jim (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is confirmed, the image will be restored. INeverCry 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:香港紅葉.jpg [edit]

I have sent out an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to verify the copyright information for File:香港紅葉.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%B4%85%E8%91%89.jpg on 26 Sep,2014. Please kindly help to undelete the file. Thank you! Viola jim (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is confirmed, the image will be restored. INeverCry 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:香港.jpg [edit]

I have sent out an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to verify the copyright information for File:香港.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF.JPG on 26 Sep,2014. Please kindly help to undelete the file. Thank you! Viola jim (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is confirmed, the image will be restored. INeverCry 05:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Projectsoullogo.jpeg[edit]

This logo is under fair use, as Project Soul have put the picture on their official Twitter page (https://twitter.com/hoshino_calibur). I request that it be undeleted, as this is the current logo Project Soul is using to go about their business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cue The Corruption (talk • contribs) 05:17, 29 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Fair use isn't allowed on Commons. See Commons:Fair use. INeverCry 05:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:saloma-songket-2.jpg [edit]

the reason i want it to be undeleted is that the picture looks better to be on wikipedia because people will know her more.--Shh zn (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)shh_zn[reply]

 Oppose. As stated above, deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. We don't host copyright violations just because they make a Wikipedia page look better. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio. INeverCry 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SAN NICOLAS SIN FUNDACION.pdf[edit]

Solicito se revea el borrado de mi imagen. rprimo --Ricardodarioprimo (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to undelete, because the file has not been deleted (yet). Please follow the instructions on your user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-09&oldid=358737502"