Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-10

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


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

File:"Dreaming of the Beloved".jpg [edit]

File:"Dreaming of the Beloved".jpg, the book copyrights state that steve jameson, as the illustrator, maintains all copyrights to the illustrations and to the cover art as well. perhaps i made some error in forgetting to attribute the copyrights to him when i originally uploaded the image. --Huma irani (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You need a permission from the publisher. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"God Brother".jpg [edit]

File:"God Brother".jpg , the illustrator, the subject of this article, is named in the book as the copyright holder to all illustrations in the book as well as his cover art design.

 Not done You need a permission from the publisher. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"Just Imagine" book cover.jpg[edit]

File:"Just Imagine" book cover.jpg the book states that the illustrator, steve jameson owns the copyrights to all illustrations and the cover design as well.

--Huma irani (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You need a permission from the publisher. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SidurisAdvice.webm[edit]

Dear Sir, my sincere apologies for any confusion regarding this "Siduri's Advice" video. Please note that I have formally released (as of today: September 29th 2014) all aforementioned copyrighted materials (including ALL works by the Church of Siduri - which I founded in 2012 and am the sole director of) under CC BY SA 4.0. (https://twitter.com/PeterDyr/status/516686413811564545). Please let me know at you earliest convenience if any other information is required in order to restore this "Siduri's Advice" video? I am more than willing to jump through any hoops Sir. Peter-Dyr-COS (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I would like to note the following connected issue: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jim-Siduri. INeverCry 23:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leerstand in der Donaupassage, Passau.JPG[edit]

hello!

I am a constant worker at the regiowiki of that town where this shopping mall is standing. I wonder why this foto (link has been removed) in this debate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leerstand in der Donaupassage, Passau.JPG. There is really almost nothing copyrightable within this building. Please countercheck google images to get sure. The German freedom of photography laws do not forbid to picture building interiors as long as no copyrights are infringed. Please contact the author to reupload this photo if you make a pro image decission.

Thank you gery much for your patience! PassauerW (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploads by Jagy2a[edit]

(Review deleted uploads at Special:Log/Jagy2a.)

Permission has been received through OTRS (#2014080510009423) releasing these images under CC0 ({{Cc0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hilton College Rugby Player.jpg[edit]

Hello there. I have permision for the photo I uploaded at File:Hilton College Rugby Player.jpg. I was told I must refer to OTRS ticket 2013052310011269.

Thanks Mattpbarry (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they finish processing the email that was sent -FASTILY 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Talleres verano 2014 triptico.jpg[edit]

no se proque lo borraron alguien se quejo o porque fue borrado el cartel saludos

cartel borrado con nombre File:Talleres verano 2014 triptico.jpg

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorami.Horc.jpg[edit]

Esta foto está sacada de mi propioa página web www.elrincondelacuestaweb.es

Saludos VECO1 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 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 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo mabotecnica.jpg [edit]

Este logo es creado por mi, es de mi propiedad, la persona que ha hecho la denuncia ha saboteado con mala intención todos mis materiales en wikipedia, es de mi país, tengo sospecha que es alguien que cobra por colocar contenidos de otras personas, y no desea que nadie de mi pais tenga acceso a wikipedia

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 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remanufactura de compresores.jpg [edit]

esta foto la tome yo, es de mi propiedad, salio de mi cámara fotográfica que pague con mi propio dinero y la edité en mi propia computadora

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 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Remanufactura compresor limpieza.jpg [edit]

La foto es de mi propiedad, la tome con mi cámara fotografica de mi propiedad también

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 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Remanufactura compresores armado.jpg [edit]

Fotografía tomada con mi propia cámara, editada por mi, es mia

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 05:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OlympicsVillageSochi.jpg[edit]

According to the article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia in the amendment of October 1, 2014, it shall be allowed to reproduce „works of architecture, of urban development, and of garden and landscape art“ for any purpose and without consent of the copyright holder(s), provided that these works are „situated in places open for free attendance, or visible from that places“.--Sergei Kazantsev (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OlympicVillage.jpg[edit]

According to the article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia in the amendment of October 1, 2014, it shall be allowed to reproduce „works of architecture, of urban development, and of garden and landscape art“ for any purpose and without consent of the copyright holder(s), provided that these works are „situated in places open for free attendance, or visible from that places“.--Sergei Kazantsev (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KKC.JPG[edit]

According to the article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia in the amendment of October 1, 2014, it shall be allowed to reproduce „works of architecture, of urban development, and of garden and landscape art“ for any purpose and without consent of the copyright holder(s), provided that these works are „situated in places open for free attendance, or visible from that places“.--Sergei Kazantsev (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soles of Passion[edit]

Please could you restore the following three files because permission has been received with ticket:2014092510010588:

Thank you in advance. Green Giant (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Green Giant: Natuur12 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Multiple desktops on Windows 10.png [edit]

The screen shot I uploaded is fine in legal terms. It was available for anyone to use

--Rushy16 (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The copyright of Windows screenshots remains with Microsoft, so you would need to upload the file on your local project (where permitted) under a claim of fair use. Screenshots on Commons generally come from open source software, Linux etc. Nick (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:K.P.Parameswaran.jpg[edit]

It is a file completed owned by me. It is not a photo of me but i have direct permission from the person in the photo to access. the work is totally mine. I don't know how to show you the proof because the photo was taken in my own camera and i have asked permission to put the photo in wikipedia from the person in the photo.

What Jim said -FASTILY 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request not to delete by (User talk:Musiclanka)[edit]

(User talk:Musiclanka) please instruct me to provide letters or any passport copy ,national identity card of these photographers and publishers to prove the rights they have given to me officially,i have instructions from lawyers,original cds of sources,and media news papers and most of the works are from mine,and i have the rights for most of these pictures from Dinesh Subasinghe (a living artist) given to me for many media works .so please let me know what should i do,its unfair to delete valuable things belong to sri lankan music and arts history,its a country coming back after a bad 30 years war,there are very less detail about my country and its arts on the Wikipedia,so i try to write about artists in my country and i try my best to bring it to Wikipedia ,please help me to improve my faults ,so if you can give me any email adress or any contact detail i would like to send letters from lawyers and artist and from photographers and also there official contact numbers.regards (User talk:Musiclanka)


Collection of promo photos, albums artwork, posters, calendars. No evidence of permission(s).

  •  Oppose While I sympathize with the desire for more images from Sri Lanka, it is up to you, the uploader, to find and provide the necessary licenses to images. While you may own copies of newspapers and CDs, that does not give you any right at all to freely license them. Such permissions must be in writing in accordance with the procedures at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. COM:OTRS permission is required to restore the images. -FASTILY 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Revista-Tendencia-73.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My company is the author of that magazine cover Revistatendencia (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please have your company give a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 October 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 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joseph clancy.jpg[edit]

This image is a image capture of video that was taken by me. At a public event for which I attended and had proper clearance. The event was the Presidential Inaugural in Washington DC. Jimgerbig (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image is clipped from an NBC image which can be seen at http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_40/695216/141001-joseph-clancy-01_52bf769789d71550c5b5d27c8b8e9950.jpg. The image is credited there to the AP. Therefore, we can't restore it to Commons without a license from the AP..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Una diva.jpg [edit]

Las fotos son de mi propiedad mas de un fanatico de ella las tiene solo quize cambiar la que tenia la pagina wikipedia ya que me parece y a muchos que es vieja y fea {unsigned2|16:27, 2 October 2014‎|Davidfonse }}


 Oppose You may own a copy of the photo, but as noted in the edit comment at the deletion, the copyright is owned by the photographer, Raul Vega, see http://www.raulvega.com/p950201643/hefde6aa#hefde6aa . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Obscurity Poster.png [edit]

Hi Wikimedia,

I created the film Obscurity and had the poster design created, and also modified all the text myself. It is open, with no copyrights applied to it.

Please un-delete it for our Wikipedia article!

Thank you.

--MatthewFiler (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With few exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. Because this is a film poster, in order to restore it, you must provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note that the required license allows use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 2 October 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 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dactylorhiza cordigera.jpg [edit]

I request to undelete this file, since the copyright information is right. The original drawing of Erich Nelson and the digital image showing this drawing is property of the "Stiftung Dr. h.c. Erich Nelson", that I represent here. The person who asked to delete the image did not place any comment or reasoning. If he has any, he should place it in the User Talk. --Nelson1897 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ophrys fuciflora drawn by Erich Nelson.jpg.
 Oppose, as long as no valid permission has been sent to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 2 October 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 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hilton College Rugby Player.jpg[edit]

Hello there. I have permision for the photo I uploaded at File:Hilton College Rugby Player.jpg. I was told I must refer to OTRS ticket 2013052310011269.

Thanks Mattpbarry (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes the email you sent, they will restore the file. Your patience is appreciated! -FASTILY 03:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OIKOS Software, Inc..jpg[edit]

Permission for this file has been granted through OTRS (#2014080410000899) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). Adding {{Trademarked}} is also suggested. Thank you. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Anon126 -FASTILY 06:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Animal Clothing UK Logo 2014.png[edit]

I am an employee for Animal and we uploaded an updated logo (Animal Clothing UK Logo 2014.png) on 07:58, 13 August 2014.

For some reason this image was nominated for deletion and deleted on 01:20, 2 September 2014.

Can we please have the file Animal Clothing UK Logo 2014.png restored as this is the most recent version of the company logo.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimalTeam (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Patrik Svendsen[edit]

Please could you restore the following images because permission has been received with ticket:2014092010008331.

Thank you in advance. Green Giant (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 18:13, 3 October 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]

File:Sie7e Pecados.jpg y File:Paraíso Tropical.jpg

Quiero que restauren los archivos. Nikus711 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Nikus711Nikus711 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason given to restore anything -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-Venezuela.png[edit]

Esa imagen la cree yo, No le ha copiado de NADIE, Eso no es justo que borren si yo lo ise y ponen que viole los Derechos de Coperight — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristhianLP (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christine lauterburg.jpg [edit]

Ich möchte, dass das oben genannte Fotoportrait der bekannten Schweizer Sängerin Christine Lauterburg, welches aus unerfindlichen Gründen gelöscht wurde, wieder ungelöscht wird. Das Copyright der Foto wurde von der Autorin selber explizit zur freien Benutzung im Wikipedia Artikel über Christine Lauterburg erteilt. (UrsL (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored. -FASTILY 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacob Abrian.jpg[edit]

We kindly request to un-delete this picture as we have the complete copy right to use and distribute it, we are a producing consultancy firm and we have contributed in producing this image.

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 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploads by Lovelybuter[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS #2014092410018439 for the Monica Hansen photos under CC-BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amydevers.jpg[edit]

File was previously deleted, but permission has come from the copyright holder (not the subject) through OTRS #2014080610001125 to use the photo under the standard dual license ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{Gfdl}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jorge Barreto Xavier 1.jpg[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014081110018947) under the standard dual license ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{Gfdl}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Minkowski- Foto.jpg[edit]

Hi,

My photo Minkowski- Foto.jpg was deleted from Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzysztofers (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the above image because I can confirm that permission has been received for this image with ticket:2014100410013022. Green Giant (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Green Giant: Natuur12 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:République_cover.jpg[edit]

Pido de la manera más atenta que vuelvan a poner la imagen que han eliminado del artículo "République (Videojuego)" ya que la imagen es exactamente la MISMA que en el artículo en su versión en inglés: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9publique_(video_game) Pueden ver que la imagen es la misma, no entiendo por qué la han eliminado, como muchas otras que en los artículos en inglés están presentes. --AlexisOrtizAcosta (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:République_cover.jpg [edit]

Well... If you don't restore a right image I'm going to upload and upload the image again and again... THE IMAGE IS IN USE FOR ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA

BE A BIT SMART... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexisOrtizAcosta (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Upload it to English Wikipedia then, and not Commons. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that, is a bad idea, as the image is a clear copyright violation. I see that you have uploaded the image again. That is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you follow through on your threat and upload the image to Commons a third time, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there is a genuine fair use claim, it could be hosted on en.wiki - but the "if" is clearly important. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done fair use is disallowed on Commons -FASTILY 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ake-Lindman.jpg[edit]

The photograph is in the public domain because it was first published before 1966. According to the §49a of the Finnish copyright law of 2005, all photographs released in Finland before 1966 are in the public domain. This photograph does not express personal vision such that no other person could be expected to have produced a similar image. The file was deleted without taking the discussion into consideration. --Mlang.at.elisanet.fi (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As shown in the DR, you clearly know that the following statement from your comment above is not correct:
"all photographs released in Finland before 1966 are in the public domain".
That statement is true only of photographs that are not "works of art". Deliberately making incorrect statements in an UnDR does not help your cause. And, by the way, the relevant year is 1964, not 1966. An image created in 1964 that is not a "work of art" will be PD on 1/1/2015.
This is a carefully posed studio portrait, skillfully done by an expert. Although the Finnish law does not exactly describe what is required for a photograph to be a "work of art", it seems to me that this should qualify.
There is also the fact that even if it is not a "work of art" it still has a 50 year copyright. Your own description of the image says:
"Late 1950s – early 1960s"
which suggests that it may not yet be past 50 years. The subject looks much the same as he does in this 1963 image, whose copyright has just expired File:Iiris-Lilja-Lassila-Ake-Lindman.jpg.
Between these two factors, I think it is fair to say that there is a significant doubt that the subject image is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Material already released to public domain according to the 1961 law still remain in public domain, although the 1991 law extended the copyright time from 25 years to 50 years (but the extension wasn’t retroactive). The relevant year is indeed 1966. This is an ordinary photograph and no photographer can by no means be identified from the style of it. It could have been taken by any (professional) photographer. There is no reason for deletion. --Mlang.at.elisanet.fi (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Assuming the image is not a "work of art" (which I do not agree to), if this is a 1960 image, then it is PD no matter what the 1961 law says. If it is a 1964 image, however, (and not a "work of art"), then the 1961 law does not apply and it is not yet 50 years since creation -- please remember that all copyrights end on December 31. I do not understand why 1966 applies at all.
Also, please remember that it is up to you to prove that the date makes it PD -- all we have now is your description "Late 1950s – early 1960s".      Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, the the 1991 extension wasn’t retroactive. So, a 1964 photograph went to public domain after the year 1989. However, a 1966 photograph was still copyrighted in 1991, when the law was changed, and only an existing copyright was extended in 1991 from 25 to 50 years. As the 1964 photograph had already lost its copyright at the end of 1989, it was not reinstated in 1991 anymore. That’s why “before 1966” is relevant. Judging from other photographs in the book Åke ja hänen maailmansa, I would judge that this photograph was taken well before 1966, probably in the very late 1950s. --Mlang.at.elisanet.fi (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need an exact date (i.e. day, month, year) backed up with a citation to a credible third party source, proving that the file is indeed PD, in order to host the image. If you have this information, please feel free to re-upload the image... -FASTILY 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two simple logos from Austria[edit]

This request is about the following two logos of a defunct Austrian company:

Both files were speedily on the ground of a supposed copyright violation. Both were wrongly tagged with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-at}} and the uploader named himself as author. This is irritating but a common mistake by users who are used to upload their own photographs but occasionally upload something different, like a logo. Both logos consist of letters and a diamond as a simple geometric figure. These are the logos of an Austrian company, thereby Austrian laws applies. As you can see at de:Schöpfungshöhe#Österreich, Austria requires a minimum threshold of originality for works to be eligible for copyright. In particular, they must be recognizable as piece of art which is significantly different from other works of art. Such an individual expression is, however, not to be found in these two logos. Regular Grotesk typefaces and simple geometric figures (diamonds and rectangles) are used with just one foreground color. In summary, I do not think that a deletion was justified and I ask you to undelete these two logos.

I contacted the deleting admin first and he asked me to go to COM:UDEL. He pointed out that U.S. law has to be followed as well but I do not see any problem here as my rationale is also valid in regard to US law. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Tagged as text logos. (The deleting admin, Ellin, is a she.) INeverCry 04:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resaca a València[edit]

From File:Resaca a València - 1.jpeg to File:Resaca a València - 23.jpeg Were deleted without deletion nomination as "Out of Scope". The files are taken in a book convention and show three artists with articles in at least one wiki.--Coentor (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, those files don't fall into "Out of Scope". They were deleted in a quite obscure way.--Coentor (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest asking the deleting admin on their talk. INeverCry 04:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Thanks.--Coentor (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for DR -FASTILY 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cipa logo med.jpg[edit]

Die Datei ist Eigentum von CIPA, den International Committee for Heritage Documentation. The file is property of CIPA, the International Committee for Heritage Documentation. Als CIPA Vice-President bin ich für die Beschreibung in Wikipedia verantwortlich (http://cipa.icomos.org/index.php?id=8) As CIPA's Vice-President I am responsible for its Wikipedia page. Kind regards, Klaus Hanke --Knorkenstein (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since we have no way of knowing whether you are who you say you are, in order to protect the organization, policy requires that the organization send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note that the license must cover all use, including commercial use, not just WP. The e-mail should come from an address at cipa.icomos.org. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Please contact COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CLUB DEPORTIVO FERROVIARIOS DE CHILE.png[edit]

El logo es de contenido libre y tengo autorización de dirigencia del club para subirlo con el fin de promocionar el club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBlackward (talk • contribs)

It is a contradiction to say something is free and also requires authorisation. The logo is a complex one that is significantly above the threshold of originality. The only way to resolve this is for an authorised person from the club to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but preferably not from a Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo or other free email services. Please ask them to complete a license statement using the example at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 18:47, 6 October 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 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adam Roses Wight.jpg[edit]

I created the composite image. The image on the right was taken by me. The image on the left is also taken by me, using a timer (available as an option on cameras since the late 1800s). Attributions were correct, I would be interested to watch this debate unfold, however there was no debate, nor was I notified of the deletion. Such an annoying surprise, to find that all my staff pages are missing the photo. It seems that I may have attracted attention of deletionists by having an artistic staff photo rather than shooting against a brick background. Destroy all art!

I'll go ahead and pursue the OTRS resolution cos I'm curious about how broken this process really is. See you soon.

Adamw (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adam Roses Wight.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as moot. Uploader has agreed to resolve via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eagle Condor Logo.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I spoke with Eagle Condor Humanitarian. They did not believe they had any copy right on the logo. They said that if there was, they give permission to have it used on Wikipedia. I can have an email sent directly from them, if necessary. Swaugaman (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a complex logo and unless they are using the logo without permission it is a pretty safe bet that they hold the copyright. The best way forward is for an authorised person to send a license statement directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an email address associated with their website. They can use the example statement at COM:ET for the license but remind them to fill the details in. Green Giant (talk) 19:00, 6 October 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 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1013082 nl clouds of sils maria 1407135387590.jpg [edit]

--Kristenonmyskin (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC) This is a movie poster, so I believe that's a public image that has their owners, but it can be used because the movie is public, it has been used by various web pages to promote the movie. Then I don't believe it's wrong to use that pic in this page. No intent of infringe any copyright.[reply]

All media on Wikimedia Commons must be released under a free license per Commons:Licensing. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright doesn't work that way. The copyright belongs to the publisher. A permission is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camp-x-ray-movie-poster.jpg [edit]

--Kristenonmyskin (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)This is a movie poster, so I believe that's a public image that has their owners, but it can be used because the movie is public, it has been used by various web pages to promote the movie, and in many comercial ways. Then I don't believe it's wrong to use that pic in this page. There's no intent of infringe any copyright.[reply]

 Not done Copyright doesn't work that way. The copyright belongs to the publisher. A permission is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SteveMann persisence of vision painting with lightvector pushbroom 1985.svg [edit]

This was a picture I made myself from 3 other pictures each of which I took myself.

One picture is a self portrait of my wearable computer (me wearing it which I did about 30 years ago).

The other two were pictures I took of long exposures using it.

Then I put the 3 together as the SVG file for description.

Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glogger (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the file link you will see a pink box which explains the who, why and when of the file deletion. In this case it appears at least one of the photos has been previously published at Wearcam.org. The file can only be hosted on Commons by completing the OTRS process i.e the copyright holder sends a license by email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the template at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 08:54, 7 October 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 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Futbala matĉo inter la Selektitaro de Esperanto kaj la Armen-devena Argentina Komunumo 01.jpg through 15[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014081310002576) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fuegian Dog.jpg [edit]

It still explains. And it is not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottishwildcat12 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope -FASTILY 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saloma-in-norma.JPG [edit]

it is my own picture where I remade the picture using computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shh zn (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image is clear a derivative work of the image at http://filemklasikmalaysia.blogspot.com.br/2014/03/saloma.html which does not have a free license. Therefore it cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jupiter Jill Music file to be undeleted[edit]

Please allow Jupiter Jill page to be displayed. It's important so people know they can never give up. I am a single mom veterinary ass't, who made up "Jupiter Jill" and all the music and all the merchandise with my two litle kids in mind so I could get off welfare. It's working! Please put up my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JupiterJill (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I said in my closing comment,

"Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, biographies belong in Wikipedia"
While I sympathize with your need to get off welfare, Commons is not a place for advertisements, see COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also deleted all of your uploads. You may not upload photographs taken by others unless and until they provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS. This includes photographs and artwork on CD covers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope. -FASTILY 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Musab bin Umair mosque massacre.jpg [edit]

I don't understand why this file was deleted. I was one of the many people who went to this mosque, to check out what happened, and I took a picture of it. If anyone see any non-free content in that image, please tell me. --Hashima20 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 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 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Пронина Тамара Ивановна.png[edit]

Участник:Лоэнгрин

Добрый день!

При всём неукоснительном уважении и соблюдении правил Википедиии, мне непонятно, отчего вдруг сделанную мной фотографию уже давно умершей оперной певицы, которую я хорошо знал и про которую написал статью, сочли нарушением?? Как мне необходимо загрузить фото, чтобы соблюсти все правила?

С уважением, Лоэнгрин (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image was taken in 2004. That is very recent, not "long dead" ("давно умершей"). Copyright lasts a long time -- even 1904 would not be old enough to assume that the image is free of copyright.
The image has a watermark from clip2net.com, which is a copyrighted site. The image can be restored to Commons only if we get a free license from the copyright owner, using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It might have been named Image:20th anniversary.jpg. This IS my picture.[edit]

Hello. You deleted my picture. I think it was named "20th anniversary." I think so, but I'm not sure, and I don't know if it said "image" or "file." This is my image. It belongs to me. I have had this picture since it was taken. I don't understand why you think it is not mine. Thanks. --TheatreMan (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my picture. I own it. Please undelete. Thanks. --TheatreMan (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Previously published outside. A permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Equipo Directivo Habitissimo.jpg [edit]

Hello, I request to reconsider the deletion of the picture since it is under the Wikipedia policies. The picture is in the press section on Habitissimo's Website and it is free to use and share. I think I made a mistake when uploading the file and I dind't reflect correcte the free license of this file. I found it here: http://www.habitissimo.es/prensa clickeng on "Foto Corporativa": http://spain.blog.habitissimo.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/07/foto_habitissimo.jpg

The image is not indispensable for the article, but it makes it richer and more informational so I think I'd be better for the quality of the article to include it.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia 2252 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any free license mentioned at http://www.habitissimo.es/prensa, and the terms described at http://www.habitissimo.es/terminos_de_uso are non-free. Looks like just another case of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos to me. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per LX. Yann (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beacon Plumbing.jpg[edit]

To whom it may concern;

My name is John Williams the Online Marketing Director for Beacon Plumbing Inc. I sent an email at approximately 8:49 PST 10/8/2014 to OTRS providing detailed information and a release form.


Please feel free to call me at 253.893.0057 should you have any questions for the LOGO JPG in question or email for confirmation at john@beaconplumbing.net

Best,

John M. Williams Online Marketing Director --Beacon Plumbing Inc. (talk) 15:52, 8 October 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 16:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Plumbing Inc. Please note, however, that the image is almost certainly out of scope, as Beacon Plumbing is probably not a notable business. We do not generally host logos of businesses that would not qualify for a WP article. Also, please read COM:ADVERT since that probably applies to you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bob Goff.jpgFile:Bob Goff Uganda.jpgFile:Somalia girls.pngFile:Uganda Leadership Academy.jpg[edit]

I am the executive director for Restore International. I hold all the rights to these photographs listed above, some photos are my own work, some are those of friends who have gone over and taken photos. Please unblock these photos or let me know what action needs to be taken to ensure that these photos can be up here.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah.eriksson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since the images have appeared on copyrighted web sites, policy requires that each of the photographers send a license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jake Vendramin Capilano Blues.jpg[edit]

I am requesting that the file: File:Jake Vendramin Capilano Blues.jpg is undeleted.

The original photo can be found on the Facebook page of the photographer Vancouver Sports Pictures here: https://www.facebook.com/VancouverSportsPictures/photos/pb.185725351111.-2207520000.1412801490./10152694238301112/?type=3&theater

The photographer states that the photos are free to use to support student athletes here: https://www.facebook.com/VancouverSportsPictures/info.

I need this photo for the header image of the Jake Vendramin Wikipedia page.

--Jakevendramin (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "Free" has several meanings on Commons. The statement on the site is actually:
"We post free sports images on this group site to support athlete profiles and sports events."
The images are, indeed, free of charge. However the statement says nothing about a free license, derivative works, or commercial use. In order to restore this image, we will need a license from Vancouver Sports Pictures, see OTRS.
I also note that Draft:Jake Vendramin has been declined on notability grounds. In order to meet the notability requirements for WP (which also apply on Commons), an athlete must have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." That does not appear to be the case here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyright and notability requirements must be satisfied. INeverCry 22:33, 8 October 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]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014090910011009). --Mdann52talk to me! 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John boyd.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photograph john_boyd.jpg is my photograph and I am writing the article on John Boyd Milliner. Proof that the photograph is mine can be seen at the url below: http://johnboydhats.co.uk/milliner/biography/ (John Boyd MBE. Beauchamp Place London. Garry Rigby © 2014.) 90.219.158.200 11:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded by Indigojones666. The comment above is from an IP. The source says the image is (c) Garry Rigby. There is no obvious connection between any of them. In any case, since the image has appeared on the Web with an explicit copyright notice, it can be restored only if Garry Rigby sends a license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ebola-isolation-oslouni.jpg [edit]

This image was one of a series of 10 images published on the Oslo University Hospital webpage, with the following text accompanying the images:

​"Godkjente pressebilder fra infeksjonsposten til fri bruk."

Which translates to:

"Approved press images from the infection ward for free use"

It seems the user who deleted this image thought that Verdens Gang (VG), a major newspaper here in Norway, were the copyright holders. Gautehuus (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free use is not a satisfactory permission for commons. We need free for commercial use and permission to create derivative works. Ankry (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. "Free use" can mean simply that there is no charge -- it does not necessarily give any license at all. "Press images" is also a problem, because it restricts the use to the press and is nowhere near as general as we require. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Master Vithal and Zubeida in Alam Ara, 1931.jpg[edit]

The image was deleted post the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Master Vithal and Zubeida in Alam Ara, 1931.jpg. I suppose the rationale used was wrong. The image is a screenshot of the 1931 film (80+ yrs old) and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#India says that for films and sound recording the copyrights expire in 60 years. Inviting involved editors @Tatewaki and Jameslwoodward: . §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been handled by a note on my talk page -- Dharmadhyaksha is correct, for movies the rule in India is 60 years after publication, not 60 p.m.a.. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mikael Palola is a public ficure. So it shoudnt be a problem[edit]

--Mikko.Tenhunen (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to File:Mikael Palola.jpg
The problem is not whether he is a public figure. The problem is needing permission from the copyright holder before we can host the image. The next step is to read COM:OTRS and send in a license using the sample statement at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Green Giant (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smuel Avneri.jpg[edit]

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014083110013262).. Thanks Hanay (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

URAA: 540 files mass-deleted by Fastily, that are still all redlinks.[edit]

In Yann's close of Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA, Yann wrote, "Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. " but it looks like there's been no request / discussion in COM:UDR of a Massive restoration of deleted images 'by' the URAA. Yann confirmed it's appropriate to open one, so here one is. User:Fastily's mass deletions have not been reversed or self-reverted. example. I request restoration of these mass-deleted images, which are one entry in User:Avenue's list: 540 files mass-deleted by Fastily, that are still all redlinks. Fastily is active; is it appropriate for the community to prod him to self-revert? I will not participate further in the discussion; IMO there's been enough discussion already, and consensus has been determined. I respectfully request that everyone leave this alone unless you have the authority to override consensus, or have performed the undelete, or have something else to say that is NOT related to the URAA or positions on or arguments about appropriateness of URAA-impacted content. --Elvey (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to this comment in the proding to check if the closure will be consensual: "I do not think this is a proposal for mass-undeletion, as above; "files would be undeleted after a discussion in COM:UDR for each proposed undeletion" should be the correct process. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)".
So, if you want to get in one request a massive restore of the integrality of the content, please open a new RfC.
If you wish to restore a specific file, or a set of files from a specific architect, painter or photograph, please open one request by file or such set of files.
If you consider the Fastily actions as a sysop damages Wikimedia Commons, you can start a discussion for a deadminship request. --Dereckson (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Nothing to undelete. The request were a notice of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, and a comment on the user actions of Fastily, and not a specific undeletion request. --Dereckson (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Biometric Two-way Permit (Front).jpg[edit]

This file is an official sample of a Two-way Permit and all the personal information inside is fake. So it shouldn't be delected due to Personality rights reason. --Whisper of the heart (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Nothing to undelete. Yann (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Downtown Hespeler (6622482049).jpg[edit]

Given that exactly two people weighed in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Hespeler (6622482049).jpg I was surprised the discussion wasn't closed as "no consensus". I eventually learned the administrator had deleted the image because they didn't think it was in project scope. When I found a place where the image was useful on en.wiki, and uploaded a copy to en.wiki, I thought I had established that the image was in scope. I then asked the closing administrator if (1) they agreed the image was in scope after all; and (2) whether they would restore the commons copy.

The closing administrator did not choose to reply to whether the image was "in scope". Instead they declined to restore the image on esthetic grounds. I am concerned because I think the wording of COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project doesn't allow administrators this kind of discretion -- images are in scope if they are in use. Period. The specific wording of this section repeats this point several times:

  • "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose."
  • "Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."
  • "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope."

The closing administrator is correct that a more ideal image could be imagined to illustrate this condo development. But how many of the commons images in use on other WMF projects are the ideal image? I am going to repeat one of those passages from COM:SCOPE "Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough" -- which I think invalidates the closing administrator's justification for not restoring the image on quality grounds.

In my opinion I have established the potential usefulness of this image, and it should be restored to the commons even if someone were to find a clearly superior image, and upload it.

P.S. -- a peripheral point -- as part of his or her justification for not restoring the image the closing administrator referred to it as a "grey building", implying it was mundane and unexceptional, when in fact it is a 19th century stone building. The developer's experienced a delay in re-using the structure, which implies it may be a designated heritage structure. Such buildings are rare enough, in Ontario, that I think many contributors would argue that it is worth having images of all remaining 19th century stone structures. Geo Swan (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In scope, even if not used on a Wikipedia Project in the future, as useful to illustrate the real estate development of Hespeler. --Dereckson (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploads by User:Aesica Pharmaceuticals[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014090910011223) under the standard dual license ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{Gfdl}}). It seems that the images were deemed out of scope; even so, I hope that someone will fulfill this request to avoid a repeated claim of copyright violation once the English Wikipedia article is recreated. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia logs shows a deletion by JohnCD the 27 August 2014 with the rationale G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
Why do you think the article is going to be recreated? --Dereckson (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dereckson: I have no comment on the likelihood of that happening, but I was thinking just maybe we should account for the possibility. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon126: I don't think this is valuable to restore out of scope files on OTRS ticket clearing copyright. The fact they want to give permission about copyright doesn't override the scope issue.
I let this request open if another administrator has other views on the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Images are out of Scope. INeverCry 19:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Solicitud de Restauracion de Imagenes[edit]

Sr. Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (wilfredor@gmail.com):

Solicito, de la manera más atenta, sean restauradas los siguientes archivos de la biografía Ramon Peinado Checa:

File:Cartel3.png File:Ramon Peinador Checa - Montañas de Taxco.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa - Acapulco.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa - Los Dos Guardianes.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa PopoConPalmeras.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa MujerEnElEstudio.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa LaMujer.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa HombreConSombrero.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa HistoriaDelCine.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa Pluqueria.jpg File:Ramon Peinador Checa ElPaisaje.jpg File:CabezaDeHombre.jpg File:Acolman.jpg File:Perfumes de Oriente.jpg File:PaisajePeinador.jpg File:EsposaPeinador3.jpg

El Mtro. Carlos Peynador me solicitó publicar el artículo referente a la obra de Ramon Peinador Checa, su padre, y por ende, me autorizó a publicar estas obras.

El Mtro. Carlos Peynador, siendo hijo del pintor Ramon Peinador Checa, heredó su obra y por esto tiene los derechos universales sobre su obra.

Para comprobar que el contenido del artículo Ramon Peinador Checa no es ilegal, le transfiero la copia del correo enviado a Ud.:

" El Lunes, 29 de septiembre, 2014 13:38:40, Carlos Peynador <cpeynador@yahoo.com.mx> escribió:


Sr Wilfrido R. Rodríguez H.

Estimado Sr.

Soy hijo del pintor Ramón Peinador Checa. De quien el Mto. Jaime Cruz realizó un artículo para Wikipedia.

Soy heredero universal del maestro Peinador y por lo tanto poseedor de los derechos de autor de sus obras.

Yo proporcioné al Sr. Cruz todas las imágenes de: carteles, grabados y oleos que aparecen en Wikipedia, yo personalmente saqué las fotografías de las mismas, y todas ellas obran en mi poder y son de mi propiedad.

Así mismo puedo dar fe de que los datos biográficos que ahí se mencionan son fidedignos.

Solicito a Ud. de la manera mas atenta haga lo necesario para que las imágenes ocultas, aparezcan de nuevo.

Comprendo la labor que Ud . realiza y que por lo tanto debe cuidar los derechos de propiedad de las imágenes que en esa aparezcan.

Agradeciendo de antemano las atenciones que se sirva tener a la presente me permito suscribirme como su Atto y S.S.

Arq. Carlos Peinador Sánchez.
Vulcano # 20 Frac. Bello Horizonte 2a sección.
Cuernavaca Mor. C.P 62340 México.
tel 777 3 15 53 94
email. cpeynador@yahoo.com.mx"

Le solicito, nuevamente, que sean restaurados los archivos mencionados en esta solicitud, de lo contrario, nos veremos en la penosa necesidad de declinar de presentar la biografía en su sitio, porque hemos tomado las debidas precauciones para no subir material ilegal y no sería adecuado presentar esta importante biografía de forma incompleta.

Si Ud. requiere de información adicional, no dude en solicitarla, y hagamos lo correcto.

Jaime Cruz R. jaimecruzr@hotmail.com

--Jaime Cruz R (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
We acted to protect your copyright interests: imagine someone had uploaded the work without your authorization, you now know we try to avoid that to happen.
Contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a copy of the written documentation asserting you're the copyright holder, the current request and finally the license you want to use to publish the work.
See Commons:OTRS for more information.
You can also use permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org if you wish your request to be handled by spanish speaking volunteers.
I only address here the Wikimedia Commons matter: as an autonomous project, we don't really care about what you want to do or ask on a Wikipedia project. Please adress any request about biography there. --Dereckson (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 19:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sejarah Malaysia - Nisan Ibrahim Yacoob di Kalibata.jpg[edit]

I just find the file in the internet and I put the source information as requested earlier. Thank you--Ciput.putrawidjaja (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you found the file on the Internet, then most likely you are not the copyright holder. Please read COM:Licensing carefully.

Not done. Green Giant (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekebergparken Ann-Sofi Sidén Fideicommissum.JPG[edit]

This is a photograph of one side of a sculpture, This is a photograph of one side of a sculpture, and needs to be considered within freedom of panorama of Norway. The sculpture is in a public park with free admission. The photograph can hardly be used for commercial purposes by anyone. The photograph can hardly be used for commercial purposes, and photographs of the same sculpture can be found at several other sites. Concerns also:

  •  Oppose I'm confused -- you cite COM:FOP#Norway above -- what part of
OK for buildings only
do you not understand? Your comment "The photograph can hardly be used for commercial purposes by anyone" is irrelevant -- Commons and WP require that all images be free for commercial use. This is because there are very few uses that are actually non-commercial, see COM:L. The fact that other people on the Web infringe the sculptor's copyright is also irrelevant -- the Web is a mass of copyright infringements. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. FOP in Norway only applies to buildings. -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2014 Winter Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

Hi, These should be restored, now that there is FoP in Russia for architecture. And I don't think there could be a copyright on a picture of a fireworks. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: All but one restored, which was of a non-architectural subject. I've also added the DR to the proper cats. INeverCry 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Öhm... Sorry, but I believe I'm currently in the wrong movie... Could anyone please tell a stupid old fart like me, what this RfD has to do with any thinkable FoP issue? The files do not depict any architectural elements, but they very well show several creative stage sets which are intellectual property of the IOC, or of its authors, being clearly above the originality threshold. This file, just as example, is clear copyright violation with zero architecture. Several files just got restored without any discussion, a few minutes after opening this UDR. It definitely needs at least a discussion. IF the files have to be restored, then surely not with FoP-Russia template. Unbelievable what some admins do allow themselves. --A.Savin 19:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sochiclosingceremony.jpg shows the inside of the arena with nobody performing; File:Погасший Олимпийский огонь в Сочи.jpeg shows the outside; both are definitely architectural. I've re-deleted the stage set, which was a mistaken undeletion, but the other two I undeleted show people inside an arena. The one with the olympic rings is questionable, but the one showing the procession of Olympic participants should be ok, as there's nothing artistic about people walking in a line, and the only element in the photo that was copyrighted was the architecture of the inside of the arena, which is now ok. I wouldn't object to re-deleting the one with the people assembled into olympic rings if the closing ceremony director has a copyright on them/the formation. In the end, I was doing my best to be helpful. My apologies if I overstepped. INeverCry 19:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was my explanation necessary to see the obvious? And was this personal attack necessary, too? --A.Savin 20:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is all your snark necessary for anything? I reverted your post on my talk because I don't want to see it for the next 3 days before it gets archived. It wasn't any more of a personal attack to say you're being hostile than you accusing me of abuse was, so don't be dramatic. INeverCry 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as basically inactionable. For anybody who believes the files should be deleted, please start a new DR -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben Jealous.jpg [edit]

I would like to request for an undeletion of File:Ben Jealous.jpg . I have cited the original source of the picture I uploaded to be a public photo on facebook. If the photo is made public on facebook, I believe sharing it at Wikipedia should not be a violation of copyrights, as the uploader on facebook tacitly consents to the fact that his photos could be viewed and used by the public when he made his photo public in the first place.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzhang17 (talk • contribs)

@Jzhang17: Hi,
Your image has a copyright owned by the photographer. For Wikimedia Commons, a free license with a formal permission is necessary. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 21:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KFA Logo.jpg [edit]

This logo has not under Copyright protection. In all KFA web and another sites are used widely. And has not any problems. --Cidel (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a copyright on all recent logos. It can still be used under fair use, or with a limited permission, but that's not enough for Wikimedia Commons. Here a free license with a formal permission is necessary. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 21:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banda Camila Mario Domm y Pablo Hurtado.jpg [edit]

There are other images of artists like wikipedia and I see that the deleted, Why mine if ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandro Buscaglia (talk • contribs)

@Leandro Buscaglia: Hi,
Because your image comes from [1] which says © 2014 Sony Music Entertainment. All Rights Reserved. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyright violation. INeverCry 21:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Langkawas2.jpg [edit]

I myself took this picture of the langkawas plant I planted at the back of my house. (Ringer (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This appeared to be a page from a book, but you did not give a source apart from "English Wikipedia", which isn't really helpful. The author name did not match your username either so the only way to restore this file is to give a proper source. Green Giant (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Ringer, are we talking about the same image here? This is clearly a page from a book, probably 18th or 19th century and therefore probably PD, but, as Green Giant says, without the source we cannot restore it. There is no way in the world that it is a photograph of an actual plant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sungko ni Ina.jpg[edit]

I myself took this picture. What particular reason somebody proposed it be deleted? (Ringer (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The photo was focused mainly on a banner, so before you can claim the photo copyright, you would need to find out the copyright status of the banner. That copyright holder would need to contact the OTRS system and release the banner under a free-culture license. Green Giant (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Green Giant (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Discobitch (Kylian Mash) at NRJ Music Tour Event.jpg[edit]

I want to undeleted this pix, I took it and have all rights. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulrancic (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done. This image was published elsewhere before it was uploaded here. If you are the copyright holder, please see COM:OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kylian Mash at Starfloor.png [edit]

I want to undeleted this pix, I took it and have all rights for it. Thx you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulrancic (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It is a copyright violation of a Facebook image. If you are the copyright holder, please read COM:OTRS for details of how to license the image. Green Giant (talk) 04:45, 11 October 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 and File:Retro-future-vagabond.jpeg[edit]

Soundsuplogo2.png was already undeleted by the same OTRS ticket that I have (#2014090910011009). Retro-future-vagabond.jpeg also has permission confirmed through OTRS #2014090910011143. Both have been made available under CC BY-SA 3.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekebergparken Sean Henry Walking Woman.JPG [edit]

This is a file completely unreasonable nominated for deletion. The sculpture is in a public park, the whole sculpture is not shown in the picture, it is in its natural environment and there is no violation of Norwegian law to continue to let this file be part of the Commons. The tag is what must immediately be deleted! User:Carsten R D
 Oppose Unfortunatly there is no so called freedom of panorama for sculptures in Norway - see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Norway. regards. --JuTa 11:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP in Norway for sculptures -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekebergparken Ann-Sofi Sidén Fideicommissum.JPG [edit]

Deletion of this image is based on a misunderstanding of Norwegian law. This is a photo of a sculpture that is placed permanently in a park with free admission. The photograph can hardly be used in commercial purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten R D (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

So it does not matter that the pictures are taken in a public place without photo ban (as specified in the law it is permitted), or that many other players have pictures of exactly the same artwork on their websites?
As Jim pointed out above, the web is full of copyright violations but that doesn't mean they are all right. The point is that all files on Commons must have correct licenses and that anyone should be able to use the files in any way they wish even commercially. It is completely beside the point whether anyone does reuse Commons files. You have had my nomination and five administrators who have agreed that we cannot host such images. How many other editors opinions do you need before you understand that we are only following Commons policy? Green Giant (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Carsten, you cannot just keep requesting undeletion when the consensus is against hosting these images. So far, five other editors have agreed that Commons cannot host images of recent Norwegian sculptures. It doesn't matter if there is limited commercial opportunity; what matters is that people cannot reuse the images for commercial purposes. Green Giant (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Georges Connes à 50 ans.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photograph of my grandfather is a family photograph taken by his son. Yves Connes (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph has a copyright which is owned by the photographer or his heirs -- in this case your father or uncle. If he is still living, then we will need a license from him; if not, we will a license from all of his heirs, in either case using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 11 October 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 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stèle Georges Connes musée de Mayence.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photograph was taken by myself on the inauguration day 05/11/2011 in presence of Pierre Connes, his son, the mayor of Mayence and the cultural advisor. This very picture was published in the local papers. Yves Connes (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your photograph of the stele has a copyright, which is yours to license and you have done so. However, the stele shown in the image has a copyright of its own. The photograph on the stele also has a copyright. In order to restore the image to Commons, we will need a license from the creator of the stele and from the photographer of the image on the stele using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. We'll need permission from the creator of the stele, submitted via COM:OTRS, to restore the file -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LONDRES1972.JPG [edit]

The images File:LONDRES1972.JPG, ANGOLA 57- 2.jpg and VENDEDORES 1945 - 2.jpg are photos my father took of his own work. My father was a painter and he usually documented his work with photos. He died in 1992 and his archives (including these photos) were left to me. I scanned them and uploaded them to Commons in order to insert them on the appropriate wikipedia entry (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Est%C3%AAv%C3%A3o_Soares). I don't think this qualifies as copyright violation, so I'm asking you to undelete them, please.

all the best, Pedro Soares Impressionante (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In each case there are two different copyrights here -- that for the painting and that for the photo. If your father took the photos, then he owned both copyrights. If you are his sole heir, then you own the copyrights; if you are not his only heir, then probably the copyrights are owned by several people. In any case, since you did not take the images yourself and you did not paint the pictures, policy requires that you -- or all of the copyright holders, if more than one -- provide a license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pintores 1952.jpg [edit]

This message relates to the following files:

File:Pintores 1952.jpg File:NO TEATRO NACIONAL S. CARLOS.jpg File:Serra da Leba, Angola (1957).jpg File:Na Brasileira.jpg File:Estêvão Soares 4.jpg File:Estêvão Soares 5.jpg File:Estêvão Soares 2.jpg File:Estêvão Soares 3.jpg File:Estêvão Soares 1.jpg

that I uploaded to Commons in order to insert them on the wikipedia entry of Portuguese painter Estêvão Soares (pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estêvão_Soares), and that you now deleted. Estêvão Soares was my father and these are personal photos took by him or by some friend at his request. My father died in 1992 and left me his archives, including these photos, that I now scanned and uploaded. None of these photos were published anywhere, much less in the internet, and they were certainly not made for commercial use.

Given the above, I'm requesting the undeletion of these files.

thank you, Pedro Soares Impressionante (talk) 22:54, 11 October 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 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mikael Hoel.jpg[edit]

OTRS not handled, just received in no-info-queue at Ticket#2014092310009129. Nsaa (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vårstigåa.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the picture File:Vårstigåa.jpg. Permision given in Ticket#2014092310026655. Nsaa (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of three files on Wikimedia[edit]

On October 11, 2014 User Turelio had three of my photos removed that were uploaded to Wikimedia that are for future use for my Wikipedia entry under the women in the arts project. I am appealing the decision to delete my photos from Wikimedia because I am the copyright owner but my picture has been previously published with my permission by various new sources on the web and other outlets. The photos were taken for use by my company Super Woman Productions and Publishing have been previously used on my website, social media accounts and other copyrighted materials that I own including books I have published. The news sources do not own the copyright to the photo they were only granted my permission to use the photos.

I will gladly remove Creative Commons permissions and retain all copyrights to the images on Wikimedia, if necessary, however, the copyrights were not infringed upon by me, because I am the copyright owner and Turelio deleted my photos without properly verifying who owned the copyright to the photos. If the images I own, of myself, used for professional identification of who I am as the CEO of Super Woman Productions and Publishing are not permitted to be uploaded, then I will not consent to anyone else adding photos of me to Wikimedia or Wikipedia either.

The three files that were deleted are:

File:Angela T. Jones.jpg File:Angela T. Jones April 2012 01.jpg File:Angela T. Jones April 2012 02.jpg

--RealSuperWoman (talk) 17:12, 12 October 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 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:forcades.jpg [edit]

Esta fotografia me la ha proporcionado la misma Teresa Forcades, que tiene los derechos sobre esta fotografia. Ella misma es la que me ha pedido que la cambiara de su descripción en wikipedia.

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 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Langvatnet I, Langvatnet II, Langvatnet med Storskrymyen i bakgrunnen, Litlvatnet - Storvatnet, Risfossen - Driva, Åmotsdalsryggen mot Dovrefjell og Åmotsdalen mot Drivdalen[edit]

Please undelete all these pictures

  • Langvatnet I
  • Langvatnet II
  • Langvatnet med Storskrymyen i bakgrunnen
  • Litlvatnet - Storvatnet, Risfossen - Driva
  • Åmotsdalsryggen mot Dovrefjell
  • Åmotsdalen mot Drivdalen

See Ticket#2014092310009307 Nsaa (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not very helpful. Can you please provide URL/wikilinks to the deleted files, thanks -FASTILY 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not providing links: Here they are:
Kind Regards Nsaa (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsaa: Thanks. I restored the titles with deleted revisions. No files have ever existed under File:Langvatnet med Storskrymyen i bakgrunnen.jpg, File:Litlvatnet - Storvatnet, Risfossen - Driva.jpg, and File:Åmotsdalen mot Drivdalen.jpg. Are you sure those are the correct names? -FASTILY 21:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry:
The other ones I don't know. Just the message in the email on OTRS. --Nsaa (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsaa: I've restored File:Litlvatnet - Storvatnet.jpg, and it needs the ticket added, license, and source. File:Risfossen - Driva.jpg is non-existent. INeverCry 04:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Nsaa (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 07:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Litlvatnet - Storvatnet, File:Ryphusa (summer pasture).jpg and File:Waterfall in Tronget, Vinstradalen.jpg[edit]

Please undelete

per Ticket#2014092610019363 --Nsaa (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for File:Waterfall in Tronget, Vinstradalen.jpg. No file has ever existed at File:Litlvatnet - Storvatnet, Ryphusa (summer pasture).jpg, are you sure this is the correct title? -FASTILY 21:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch
** File:Waterfall in Tronget, Vinstradalen.jpg
** File:Waterfall in Tronget.jpg
** File:Vinstradalen.jpg
Thanks a lot --Nsaa (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsaa: The 2nd and 3rd file are non-existent. INeverCry 04:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... then the message we got is wrong on these. Thanks for checking! --Nsaa (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 07:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RUSE O-I.png [edit]

The file has run out of copyright AND is on an open-source wiki. This file has not violated any copyright laws, and I suggest that you notify someone if they're in question instead of immediately taking it down without any contact. The wiki source is on the I-O Super-Heavy Tank site, I put it there for good measure. Please put it back up.

--Killerradish (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This is a drawing of a tank that may or may not have been built by the Japanese in 1944-45. The drawing is certainly still under copyright, particularly so if it is part of R.U.S.E., which is a copyrighted game. It is up to you to prove that it is somehow freely licensed. I suggest you provide us with the actual URL of the licensed source rather than ranting about Commons basic policy of deleting all obvious copyvios on sight. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jessica May 4436.JPG[edit]

file without license prematurely deleted, seven days not having elapsed. not a copyright vio. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Very poor quality, not used, no license provided. Yann (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Yann -FASTILY 18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patterson Sims 4442.JPG [edit]

file without license prematurely deleted, seven days not having elapsed. not a copyright vio. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 03:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Very poor quality, not used, no license provided. Yann (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Yann -FASTILY 18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Constatin Severin.JPG [edit]

This file was given to me for wiki upload from the autor and the subject of the page, more exacly Constatin Severin, please tell me, how can I reupload in proper, legit way the photos.

Regards, Catalin Persic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalinpersic (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose
First, it is unlikely that the subject of an image actually owns the copyright and has the right to license it. It is much more likely that the copyright is owned by the photographer.
Second, permission "for wiki upload" is not sufficient. Both Commons and the WPs require that an image be free for all uses, including commercial use and derivative works.
In order to restore this to Commons you must have the actual copyright holder give us a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. If you are the copyright holder, please read COM:OTRS and use the email verification process. Green Giant (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Morais. Rodaje "Los chicos del puerto". 2012.jpg[edit]

El archivo "Alberto Morais. Rodaje "Los chicos del puerto". 2012.jpg" es una fotografía que realicé yo misma durante el rodaje de la película "Los chicos del puerto" en 2012. De hecho, la imagen fue retocada porque se veía a otra persona del equipo y prefería que en la imagen estuviera sólo el director. Les pido por favor que incluyan de nuevo la imagen. Si necesitan más explicaciones o demostraciones no duden en pedírmelas. Saludos, Nusgn (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment No tengo posibilidad de observar el archivo, sin embargo, en breve un administrador podrá responderte. Muchas gracias por tomarte el tiempo de escribir aquí. Feliz día --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Como lo indica, Jameslwoodward, la imagen se encuentra previamente en https://www.caimanediciones.es/entrevista-alberto-morais-sept-2013/ sin una licencia libre. Es necesario enviar un permiso a OTRS preveendo la nueva licencia libre para su publicación aquí. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image appeared previously at https://www.caimanediciones.es/entrevista-alberto-morais-sept-2013/ without a free license. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder provides a free license, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The copyright holder can get the image restored if they go through the COM:OTRS process. Green Giant (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Das Homestory Magazin.jpg[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014092910007521) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 16:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Anon126, please check everything is in order. Green Giant (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NEP y Grete Mostny, 1954 Franz Stoppelman (648x1024).jpg[edit]

I have permission by the owner of this image to use it, it's the Natural History Museum of Chile, which I'm working for, the museum authorized me to use their photo archive --Jisa39 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File has not been deleted -FASTILY 21:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WorldHighestBiclycle.jpg [edit]

Hi,

I disagree with the decision to delete the picture WorldHighestBiclycle.jpg. The reason of its deletion is that the Liège-Guillemins station is submitted to copyright.

I would like to notice that: 

- The rail station isn't the main purpose of picture.
- We can just see some steel and glass in the rear of the picture. This picture doesn't show the general design of the station.

Nothing deleted yet. Please your comment in the deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20th anniversary.jpg[edit]

Author has released the photo into the public domain, noted at the bottom of the original Web page. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Anon126. Green Giant (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedro Barahona de Lemos.jpg [edit]

It is my grandfather's photo. He gave it to me to put on this article... No copyright infringed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.40.240 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

If your grandfather is the subject, it is unlikely that he owns the copyright and has the right to license it. Permission "to put on this article" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP require permission for any use. IN order to restore the image, we will need a license from the actual photographer, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avenida Capitão Correia de Campos.jpg [edit]

It is a photography of a street... No copyright infringed. Please Marcus something stop deleting my photos. Sincerely, pedromariabl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.40.240 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Cyron let the following rationale in his speedy deletion request: “Marking as possible copyvio because http://www.wook.pt/authors/detail/id/44127”
Do you know who has taken this street photo? --Dereckson (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Although the image does not appear on the page which Marcus cited, it has a border and does not appear to be an ordinary upload. You have a history of copyvios and most, if not all, of your uploads have either been deleted or have DRs on them. While you claim "own work" in the image description, your note above does not say that you are the photographer. All in all, I see no reason to restore this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:C.V.G. van Oosterzee - S.G. Timmers Verhoeven.jpg [edit]

This picture was taken and owned by my family, I only scanned it, the person who made the picture does not live anymore. There is no reason to revive it.

This picture was taken and owned by my family, I only scanned it, the person who made the picture does not live anymore. There is no reason to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterz (talk • contribs)

We need in this case:
  • the name of the photographer
  • your kin relationship with the photographer: the permission must be given by the copyright holder (in the easiest case, the only child of the photographer)
We can with this information restore the picture and document that directly on the picture.
If you don't want to document the kin relationship publicly on the picture in the permission field, you can alternatively choose to give the information privately following Commons:OTRS procedure, so we'll only note on the picture the fact the permission has been recorded by our OTRS volunteers. --Dereckson (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Dereckson. We'll need permission submitted via OTRS by the copyright holder to restore the file -FASTILY 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:C.W._Bruinvis_rond_1900.jpg [edit]

When I uploaded the file I use the wrong license code. I should have used the license: Author died more then 70 years ago AND the work was published before 1923 [because the pictured man died in 1922 and they used it for printed matter at his funeral].

Archivaris072 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Although we are not told the source country, I think it was the Netherlands. If that is correct, then you must show that the author of this image either (a) died more than 70 years ago or (b) was anonymous. For (a), an image taken in 1900 is too recent, by about 15 years, to assume that the author died before 1944. For (b), please note that anonymous means just that -- that the author of the image intended that his name not be known. The fact that we do not know the author does not make it anonymous and, in the case of a studio portrait such as this, it is extremely unlikely to be the case. The subject of the image would almost certainly know the photographer's name. Publication prior to 1923 is irrelevant if the image is actually from the Netherlands. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bruinvis_aan_het_werk_als_gemeente-archivaris.jpg [edit]

When I uploaded this file, I used the wrong license code. I should have used the codes that stated that de Author died more then 70 years ago AND that this picture was published before 1923 because this picture was used at printed matter at the funeral of the pictured man in 1922.

Archivaris072 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Although we are not told the source country, I think it was the Netherlands. If that is correct, then you must show that the author of this image either (a) died more than 70 years ago or (b) was anonymous. For (a), an image taken in 1900 is too recent, by about 15 years, to assume that the author died before 1944. For (b), please note that anonymous means just that -- that the author of the image intended that his name not be known. The fact that we do not know the author does not make it anonymous and, in the case of a studio portrait such as this, it is extremely unlikely to be the case. The subject of the image would almost certainly know the photographer's name. Publication prior to 1923 is irrelevant if the image is actually from the Netherlands. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DeborahReed.jpg [edit]

Hello,

I probably mucked up the form for uploading images or chose the wrong copyright. I know ignorance is a poor excuse. Anyway...Deborah Reed is a client of mine. I made her website. She asked me to create a Wikipedia page for her. The photo is owned by her. She approves the usage of it. I didn't find the photo in the log, so I don't know the reason is was removed. I would very appreciative if you could let me know what I did wrong and how I can correct the problem.

Thanks!

Tina Granzo (for Deborah Reed)

--TinaMarG (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two problems here. First, the image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://reed-braun.com/about/. Second, this does not appear to be a selfie, so it is very unlikely that Deborah Reed is the photographer. Both problems can be solved by the actual photographer providing a license using the procedure at COM:OTRS.
As an aside, note that Commons has guidelines and WP:EN has rules about editors who are paid for their work. See Commons:Guidance for paid editors and WP:NOPAY. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done what Jim said. 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 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judge Alonzo Conant,jpg to undelete.jgp (Econantkrohn47 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC))[edit]

Dear Sirs:

My name is Ellen Conant Krohn, daughter of Judge Alonzo Conant, jpg photo that was deleted Oct. 1, 2014. I have responded to any and all edits regarding the photo. The photo is owned by me solely (a photo of my father). Please restore the photo to the Wikipedia page Alonzo Conant as soon as you can. I believe that I have explained everything to my best knowledge and am stressed that you have done this. Please help my help you rectify any thing that I must do to undelete his wonderful photo.

My family is very upset about this and the sooner we can get this resolved the better. Thank you so much for your time. I anxiously await your prompt reply and to restore his photo.

Sincerely, Ellen Conant Krohn 4 Meadow Lane Brewer, Maine 04412

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 19:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Opo0210b.tif [edit]

(copied from a discussion with Fastly)

After re-checking this, I do not see the reason for a speedy deletion:

The file has a source information: http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo0210b/ (Html-page) http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/original/opo0210b.tif (file itself)

On the bootom left of the page is an link to the copyright information: http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/ (this link has been copied in commons, too)

And there is a usage Q&A: 

Q: Do I need to contact all the people named in the credit line for permission to use an image or video?
A: No. Images and videos published on spacetelescope.org are, unless explicitly stated otherwise, 
   cleared for reuse without needing to contact the individuals or organisations listed. 
   Their names must not be removed from the credit, however.

So at least this Image is not qualified for speedy deletion.

My opionion is, that the copyright is resolved by spacetelescope.org which is operated by ESO.

Please restore.

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concern cited in the speedy tag was: "Per [2], NOAO images are copyrighted. Source specifically credits NOAO (and not Hubble) for this image." Seems pretty accurate as far as I can see. -FASTILY 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it´s not the whole picture. Checking the NOAO license, they have in chapter II. B. three usage categories, where only Commercial Use is requiring a permission.
ESO (spacetelescope.org) states they have for this image the permission (of NOAO) for use under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
To put it in other words: most images on commons are copyrighted, many of them under cc-3.0. This is not a reason to speedily delete them ;-)
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Fastily. The image is credited to NOAO/AURA/NSF, so if you wish to have the image hosted on Commons, you will need to ask them all to license it. NOAO's copyright page suggests that some files need permission before being used commercially. This doesn't necessarily make them unfree but requiring each user to request permission individually does make it unfree. Since there is some doubt about the copyright status, the file must remain deleted under COM:PRP. Green Giant (talk) 22:55, 16 October 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 Cecil H[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014090310013625). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't think so. As I read the OTRS file, it is permission from the creator of a third party web site (http://leon-printemps.fr.nf/) dedicated to Leon Printemps to use images from the site. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the OTRS correspondence or on the site that suggests any permission from the heirs of Leon Printemps. Further, the message comes from an address at orange.com -- it could be from anyone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Insufficient OTRS permission. INeverCry 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colorado House Representative Dan nordberg.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was claimed, without any basis in fact, to be copyrighted. Other official Colorado state legislator pictures are allowed on wikimedia without dispute. For example, Colorado speaker of the house Mark Ferrandino's page is permitted to use his official image:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ferrandino

This deletion was careless, and the reasoning is inconsistent. If necessary, I can get permission from the legislator himself as he requested this image be added to his page, but I'd rather avoid the hassle, just because of some trigger happy moderator.

Please restore the picture. If it isn't restored, we will submit a formal complaint referencing the admin who deleted the image. Philotheos5909 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I nominated File:Colorado-Rep-Mark-Ferrandino.jpg for deletion, as the permission there is not accessible. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Threats don't help your cause at all. There are three problems with what you say above. First, it is unlikely that permission from the subject is sufficient. The copyright to most images is owned by the photographer and US law requires that transfers be in writing. Second, permission for use on WP is not sufficient. Both WP and Commons require that images be free for all uses, including commercial use and derivatives. Finally, the two Admins involved, Yann and Fastily have between them almost a million actions on WMF projects, while you have a total of three. Who is anyone here going to listen to?
In order to restore this image, we will need a free license from the photographer or the actual copyright holder using the procedure at OTRS.
And, by the way, your initial statement is dead wrong. With a limited number of exceptions which don't apply here, all images and other created works, including the subject file, are copyrighted from the moment of creation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann - Well in that case you might as well take down pictures for all of our legislators, right? Because it's more than just a few. Here, browse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Senate

Don't forget our senators too. In fact, why stop with Colorado? Why not go after every state legislator in this country? Pull them all, because obviously THAT would be in the interest of the wikipedia community and in the interest of the public who use this medium as a means of researching their elected officials. I mean these pictures are definitely not for public use, which is why they are used in the public domain virtually everywhere. Every time the media mentions one of them in an article, these official portraits are usually included, both online, in print and on TV. And you know what? No one makes a fuss about it as everyone understands that official portraits are fair use, except for the moderators here who can't seem to apply a little bit of common sense, or at least defer to other use cases when there is ambiguity.

Like I said, I have permission from the legislator himself, who was irritated that some random person decided he couldn't host his own picture on his own page.

@Jim -- I could care less how many millions of edits you all have. This attitude that a few people matter more than others because they spend all their time inserting themselves into virtually everything which is posted by other people is what is wrong with wikipedia to begin with. Ironically, the reason I rarely contribute is because of this. And the person who only contributes to topics they're knowledgeable about should carry MORE weight than those who make millions of edits to things they obviously have no deep interest or knowledge about.

If I have to contact OTRS or whatever and prove my claim, I'll do it. If you consider that a threat, so be it. I'll go to whatever higher authority necessary to get the image restored. Surely you all don't have the final say, or this place is even more corrupt than I thought.

Honestly guys, if other legislators knew you were taking down their pictures, they wouldn't be happy about it. Neither would the public.--Philotheos5909 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law is apparently a topic you have no deep interest in or knowledge about, which is why you're having problems here. New photos, even of government officials, are in copyright unless (a) they're taken by someone working as a photographer for the federal government or (b) the copyright holder, usually the photographer, releases copyright on them. Commons does not accept "press photos" without a clear license, just like we don't accept any other photos without a clear license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim - These photos are posted on a government website so I doubt the photographer, who isn't even listed or credited, maintains any sort of rights. It would be impossible to find out who they are anyway.

It wouldn't be all that hard; you'd just have to call and talk to people. It takes bureaucracy for the photographer to lose all rights, in which case someone in that office should have a signed contract that transfers the rights. If no one in the office has a contract of any sort, they're playing one of those games of "the plaintiff obviously intended" and "it was clearly understood" that gives some lawyers ulcers and others Mercedes.
Government website means nothing. Government websites can and do post photos that are under copyright, both with and without appropriate permission. The works of state governments are copyrighted just like any other works, and even the Federal government can hold copyrights others have given it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim - Explain to a new person, is there any way to simply link to the image on the page from the government website and add credit/source? Would that be sufficient. It doesn't necessarily need to be hosted by wikimedia. We just want it to be available. Thank you.

Look, I know that obeying rules can be a nuisance, but we do have rules here and we require people to follow them.
First, permission for WP is not enough -- we require a free license for all uses, including commercial use. Your talking about your unhappy boss isn't going to change the fact that his permission for WP isn't enough. Unless he is willing to have the image used anywhere for any purpose --even for attack ads from his competition in the next election -- it can't stay here.
Second, it is unlikely that the subject of a professional portrait has the right to freely license it -- most photographers reserve those rights.
Third, we don't know who you are. You say that Mr. Nordberg gave permission, but we get many people who make claims that simply aren't true.
All of these problems can be solved simply by your reading OTRS and then getting the actual copyright holder to give the required free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done. Firstly, this page is not for long-winded discussions - focus on the file you came to talk about. Secondly, there is enough doubt about the copyright status of the file that you need to ask the copyright holder to read COM:OTRS. If they wish to license the image they can send an email to the address given there. Thirdly, please don't direct threats of any kind at volunteer editors. Instead, if you have enquiries of a legal nature, please send an email to legal@wikimedia.org and debate it with the lawyers. Green Giant (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sobia_Khan.jpg [edit]

Please undelete Sobia_Khan. I took that picture. Its my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touseef1983 (talk • contribs)

This was published on a blog before being uploaded here, so a permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo JT Bioscopen.png [edit]

Hello,

Repeatably, the logo of JT Bioscopen keeps getting removed from Commons due to 'missing permission information'. It is in no way possible to add any more information when uploading the file, so that's why I'm sending this message. As official communication employee at JT Bioscopen I can hereby confirm and acknowledge that the logo can be used in Wikimedia Commons.

Hope to hear from you soon.

--Renevdk (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct that there's very little you could do when uploading to provide permission information. That's because anyone could create an account and claim to represent a company. For the same reason, confirmation here is not really useful either. What you need to do is to follow the instructions on your user talk page and send in an e-mail from a verifiable address. Please note that permission to use the file on Commons is not sufficient; the permission must be for publication under a license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose (for copyright purposes; trademark restrictions still apply). You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Sufficient OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arthur Dutch-Schultz Flegenheimer.jpg [edit]

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94506912/ public domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCH25 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take more than two words to explain why you disagree with the arguments presented in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur Dutch-Schultz Flegenheimer.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio AP image. INeverCry 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blueberry Shock Virus Symptoms[edit]

I wrote to the photographer asking if I could use his photo under a free license. I received a reply from the photographer stating that I could use his photo for my article. I'm new to Wikipedia articles and got assigned to do this for a project for school. I'm hoping you can undelete my photo or tell me the correct way to go about adding it again since it is okay with the photographer. --Jslotty (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jslotty. If you could forward the email to our OTRS team, stating the filename on Commons and describing the situation, we can confirm the permission and get this undeleted. We just need a paper trail where we don't have visible explicit permission from the source. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that permission to use the photo in an article is not sufficient for Commons to host it. For that to happen, the photographer would have to agree to publish the photo under a license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, in modified or unmodified form. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Sufficient OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BAD Co. Official Company Logo.png.[edit]

This was the official company logo for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser8383 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyrighted logo. OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Futbol Deluxe Portada Argentina.jpg [edit]

  • File:Futbol Deluxe Portada Argentina.jpg

The original file is in CC license by the author of the software and the owner of the copyrights Santiago Siri. And also the files:

--JoRgE-1987 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The images appear on a Flickr account owned by Santiago Siri as CC-BY, but the game was developed by Eluxion and marketed by Strategy First in 2005. I see nothing to suggest that Strategy First has released the game on any freely licensed basis. I may be missing something here, but it looks like Flickrwashing to me..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Jim - no evidence of free license from copyright holder. INeverCry 21:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:madeontwitterprofile.jpg [edit]

Used as Madeon twitter profile image and free to public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekjack (talk • contribs)

 Not done Please read COM:L --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flylotogether.jpg The watermark that was complained about was our watermark! It indicates our ownership. Thank you...[edit]

The watermark that was cited as the reason for the removal was the festival's logo. Indicating ownership.

--Dayvidday (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image is credited, both in the watermark and in the file description, to Gleb Budilovsky. The image description calls out source and author as Together Boston, which is, of course, inconsistent with the credit to Budilovsky. Since we have no way of knowing how User:Dayvidday is connected to either, policy requires a free license from Budilovsky using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:fabrizi2-2.jpg I am the administrator of the wbsite of the image![edit]

Goddo Morning, I am the administrator and owner of the website and I am the owner of the image. I kindly ask you to not delete and remove the image of the Journalist "Filippo FABRIZI"

Thank you for your cooperation. Kind regards. Pietro Sambenedetto

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 08:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Achraf Baznani.jpg [edit]

the photo is under CC BY-SA 4.0 as mentionned in the artist website: http://www.baznani.com/about-the-artist/ Bestforone (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done That is the case. Added {{Licensereview}} to the file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Greta-facebook.jpg [edit]

Hola,

Solicito deshacer el borrado del artículo, tengo autorización del dueño de la imagen, que es el Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile

Saludos y gracias,

--Jisa39 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to undelete, because the file has not been deleted (yet). You need to follow the instructions on your user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File has not been deleted -FASTILY 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Todd Mason.png[edit]

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, David Patton, am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Todd Mason.png - (A Photo of Todd Mason).

I agree to publish that work under the free license STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [ "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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.

[David Patton dpatton1020@gmail.com] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (I am the copyright owner)] [10/17/2014] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.5.174 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

As stated at Commons:OTRS#Email address, you should e-mail the permission to our e-mail response team ("OTRS") at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (not post it here) and the e-mail you send must come from an e-mail address that helps establish that you are who you say you are (so not a Gmail address). As also stated on the same page, when following the procedure described there, there is no need to request undeletion here. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please email this to COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BJP-flag.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason given to delete this file is that "the lotus symbol in this flag is a piece of art....l continues to be copyrighted under Indian copyright law." But the same file with the same the lotus symbol (in different format) is available as a File:Flag of Bharatiya Janata Party.png and it says that "Under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 section 52 (t) the lotus is not copyrightable and also because the Election Commission of India publishes the symbols of recognized political parties making it available in the public domain." Hence the delete reason is not justified. Jayarathina (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Stefan. FOP is not applicable. -FASTILY 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jewelry women.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it is with CC-BY and should therefore be valid in Wiki Commons. It is my own work, both the orginal painting and the photo of it. I am new to Wiki commons (my first attributions) so maybe I did something wrong. I can´t understand what is wrong thought. Maybe it means I should not put any of my work to Commons if it is deleted after I put the work in putting it there. Sibbajoa (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained at my talk page already. Regards! ~ Nahid Talk 23:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant x-post. This was already explained here -FASTILY 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Money For Lunch Photo.jpg[edit]

I created the File:Money For Lunch Photo.jpg for Money For Lunch and have their authority to upload the works to Wikimedia. I can send an a letter on letter too.

Please let me know, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyxcellwiki (talk • contribs) 03:21, 18 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because the image is in use on the Money For Lunch website, where it says "All rights reserved". Please ask the copyright holder to license the image via the OTRS system. Green Giant (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beacon Plumbing.jpg[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014100810017388) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 02:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The draft on en.wiki, w:Draft:Beacon Plumbing, has been declined for lack of notability. There's no reason to restore an out of scope logo of a non-notable company. INeverCry 02:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. This is just spam. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sony Xperia M2.jpg [edit]

I requested permission from Sony to use that image on the Sony Xperia M2 article. So please restore it. --Kamranm1000 (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Firstly, we would need OTRS permission from the copyright holder, and secondly, the licence would have to allow commercial and derivative use, and couldn't be restricted only to use in a particular article. See COM:L for acceptable licensing options. INeverCry 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per INC -FASTILY 05:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:In-jin Yoon.jpg [edit]

Hi. I uploaded my professor(supervisor)'s own picture due to his request. I want you to undelete his picture. If you need any public permission of the owner of the picture, I can forward his email to you(even though it was written in Korean language). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyisgold (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I doubt very much that this is actually your own work, as you claimed when uploading it. It is also unlikely that it is the work of the subject, as it does not look like a selfie. Therefore the copyright probably belongs to the actual photographer. For that reason and because the image has appeared on a copyrighted web site, policy requires that the actual photographer or other copyright holder send a free license, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 01:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ehrengrab Carl Mengers auf dem Wiener Zentralfriedhof.jpg [edit]

Dear Sir or Madam, due the correspondence with Mrs. Hedwig Abraham, who is the copyright holder of the image i uploaded "Ehrengrab Carl Mengers auf dem Wiener Zentralfriedhof.jpg", i have the permission to use the image for the articel on wikipedia. Please restore the image. Thanx! (I also wrote an e-mail to permissions@wikipedia.org to prove the correspondance.) --Hatschek (Diskussion) 23:05, 19. Oktober 2014 (CEST)

As stated on Commons:OTRS, when following the procedure described there, there is no need to request undeletion here. Do note, however, that permission to use the image on Wikipedia is not sufficient. For Commons to host it, the copyright holder must agree to publication under a license that allows anyone to use it in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the image was deleted. So I asked the copyright holder to upload it herself on wiki commons, because it is her own work. I hope this will work out! --Hatschek (Diskussion) 00:43, 19. Oktober 2014 (CEST)

 Not done. Hatschek, once an image has been deleted for any reason, please do not re-upload it or encourage anyone else to upload it until the issues have been dealt with. There is not much point you sending an email to OTRS because what we really need is a license statement from the copyright holder. Ask her to read COM:OTRS and then make use of COM:ET for the license. Green Giant (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:In-jin Yoon.jpg [edit]

Yesterday I asked you to undelete this file. (I also wrote the reasons). I would be thank you if you reply me as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyisgold (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

You already got a reply. Please don't keep asking just because you didn't like the answer; the answer isn't going to change. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 06:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hassan El Shafei.png[edit]

we do own the copyrights for the pic. we can provide any documents if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedelsha3er (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Please ask the copyright holder to contact OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Герб СССР на фасаде Главного павильона ВВЦ-.JPG [edit]

According to the article 1276 of the Civil Code of Russia in the amendment of October 1, 2014, it shall be allowed to reproduce „works of architecture, of urban development, and of garden and landscape art“ for any purpose and without consent of the copyright holder(s), provided that these works are „situated in places open for free attendance, or visible from that places“.--KSK (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 01:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marca da Feira do Livro em Gotemburgo 2014.jpeg [edit]

Esta imagem é pra uso de divulgação de um evento de grande porte literário. A imagem é para ilustrar o evento que se realizou, o simbolo da Feira do Livro em Gotemburgo. O site que divulga a Feira não especifica fonte ou autor.--201.36.109.169 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:06, 21 October 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 you can use it is a gif --AN298 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stabilimento di produzione SIAD di Osio Sopra, Bergamo.jpg [edit]

Buongiorno, scrivo per conto di SIAD S.p.A. e mi occupo della gestione della nostra pagina SIAD su Wikipedia. Abbiamo ricevuto segnalazione da "Gunnex" che ci viene chiesto di eliminare l'img in oggetto. La fotografia in questione è di proprietà SIAD pertanto è autorizzata e può/deve rimanere sulla nostra pagina, in quanto illustrativa del nostro stabilimento di produzione. Grazie--Simonabloise (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. The file has not yet been deleted, so a comment here is out of place. You must comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stabilimento di produzione SIAD di Osio Sopra, Bergamo.jpg, not here. Since the file comes from a copyrighted web site, the owner of the copyright must provide a free license, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

prajyot mahajan live in delhi[edit]

File:prajyot mahajan live in delhi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajyotmahajan (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Looks like you somehow missed the instructions immediately above:
4. State the reasons for the request
5. Sign and date your request
Also, no file by that name has ever existed on Commons. Presumably, you mean File:Prajyot Mahajan live in delhi.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Prajyot, you have had a lot of files deleted, so please read COM:OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ВДНХ 58.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: new {{FoP-Russia}} Ikar.us (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One ✓ Done, the other is a statue, and FoP in Russia is only for architecture. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1024 pps8 b w farbempfindlichkeit.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Speedy-Deletion of a screenshot showing very simple user interface. I think this should go to COM:DR instead. Rillke(q?) 21:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that pd-shape/simple applies to the interface, but I can't say the same for the image of the house incorporated in the screenshot. Is this also freely licensed? If not, this should stay deleted as a case of missing clear evidence of permission. -FASTILY 21:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was indicated in the file description page. I guess Hedwig Storch took it? Hedwig, hast Du das Foto gemacht? -- Rillke(q?) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See File:1024 Kärnten, Blick vom WulfeniaHang auf die WatschigerAlmhütte-1815.jpg. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support with reasoning of Commons:Deletion_requests/Mac_Screenshots ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done & converted to DR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

ObststandlDidi2014.jpg[edit]

Das Photo ist mir der Zustimmung von Dieter Schweiger entstanden und es wurde von mir (fabnor) für Wikipedia gemacht. --MEK1984 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 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 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Musée_des_confluences_le_14_octobre_2014.JPG [edit]

Hello, This picture has been deleted by NahidSultan because of copyright violation which specified that the picture was too recent, but there is no violation. I really took this picture myself on october the 14th 2014 in Lyon. There is no reason to cancel it, therefore I would like the picture to be undeleted. --Samolymp (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Samolymp:
The deletion rationale is Too recent building => no Fop in France.
The architect has copyright protection, and a photo of a building infringes it.
FoP is a reference to the freedom of panorama (liberté de panorama), an exception some countries (and most European) have in their copyright legislation to allow to take pictures of the public space.
So in a nutshell, in France, Belgium, Italy, you can't redistribute without architecture copyright holder authorization a photo of a building as long as the architect isn't dead, and 70 years after that.
It's a pity, your photography allowed to document use of péniches in near water buildings construction.
If you need to use it for a French or English Wikipedia article about the museum, you can upload it locally under the recent building EDP for fr. or under fair use for en. --Dereckson (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Dereckson -FASTILY 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uppal, Tim.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Its from the Canadian government website, which is public domain! Redflorist (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted for the following reason: "See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Canada, 50 years for crown copyright not passed for this photo." INeverCry 22:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per INC -FASTILY 07:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Athlete_EMS_recovery.jpeg[edit]

I had loaded the image, with extension jpg, and with the proper copyright documentation uploaded into OTRS. A Wikipedian had a copyright problem with the image and made changes with the comment: "(Fixed images - just a slight file name issue - User:Gciriani pointed me towards the OTRS validated images)". I think he edited the image changing the extension from jpg to jpeg to fix things up. Then somebody else deleted the file weeks later, on Sep.14. I was never notified of the deletion log, nor was I notified of the deletion. I still do not understand what went wrong.Gciriani (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-check your inbox (and spam box) for any replies from OTRS and, if applicable, send another email to COM:OTRS and inquire about the status of the image. -FASTILY 07:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jokowi swearing-in, 2014.jpg and File:Pelantikan Jokowi rahmat3-770x465.jpg[edit]

These were deleted by User:Yann. As I noted in the image, they are works of Indonesian government and are released to the public domain by law. In the log it says "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing" without giving any specific, or any reason why Yann thinks it is a copyright violation after being released to public domain. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ron Latz.jpg and File:Jeff Howe.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Both images comply with the {{Cc-by-2.0}} license. Both are derivatives of photos that were released under this license, which allows derivative works, on Flickr.

As to the rationale given by the deletion nominator as to why both deserved deletion, that the author attributed to the images was himself in the images and therefore it was not possible he was the author, it can be assumed that the images were taken by someone that works in his office. Both images were uploaded using Flinfo, a tool that automatically fills in several fields in the upload form using data from Flickr. The author that the tool returned is what was used in the upload form for both images.

One image that was nominated at about the same time by the same user using the same rationale was not deleted, most likely due to a user giving an explanation for not deleting, who makes similar arguments as I have here, on its deletion requests page, which can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeremy Miller.jpg. LightSoup (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose What you have said above only confirms that the deletion was correct. The person who actually took the picture owns the copyright and only that person can license it. Restoration will require a license from the actual photographer(s) using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Jim's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover of Opening Moves.jpgFile:Cover of Breakthrough.jpgFile:Cover of Stalemate.jpg[edit]

My name is Chris Coling, but I write under the name of Colin Gee. I am the copyright holder for all images and quotes from the Red Gambit series. I appreciate your vigilance, but the book cover images should be reinstated. Thank you. regards, ChrisC

Should you wish to confirm this, please access my writers email at gee_coling@yahoo.co.uk, or contact me via my website www.redgambitseries.com.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisC2116 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see Jim's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Milen Vrabeski, MD.jpg [edit]

Hello!

I would like to add some clarification about the picture of Milen Vrabevski. It was made and given to us from the author Mr. Statul Karabashev in EU Parliament during an event, sponsored by Milen Vrabevski. Mr. Karabashev is informed that the picture is going to be used in WIki article about Milen Vrabevski. I am sending contact details if you would like to confirm for yourself:


KARABASHEV Statul

Bruxelles* Tel: +32 228-44786 Fax: +32 228-49042/41740* Email: statul.karabashev@europarl.europa.eu

Regards, Moelreda (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see Jim's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TreppeBahnhofOverath.jpg[edit]

to undelete Fehler des Bots, {{Own}} -- Duschan1944 19:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, habe es entsprechend angepasst. Bitte prüfen ob so okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gordon Ball.jpg [edit]

This is specifically listed as for public, media use. It couldn't be more clear that it's available for use. Please refer to the site, here: http://www.gordonballsenate.com/ instead of just deleting everything you find.

Gutenbergbible (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Nonsense request. Per that site: "©2014 GordonBallSenate.com All rights reserved"; and per its terms of use: "You are granted a limited, non-sublicensable license to access and use the Sites and the Site Materials for your informational, non-commercial and personal use only" (emphasis added). Эlcobbola talk 22:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Elcobbola. Images cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons unless they are free for anyone to use for any purpose, even commercially. Green Giant (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CD naslovna strana-page-001.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I haven't broken Copyright violation because it's my album cover (that hasn't been copyrighted yet) and I self published it under the design and a name that doesn't already exist. Mladen Bartul Marušić (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • With limited exceptions, which don't apply here, everything has a copyright from the moment of creation until it expires, usually 70 years after the creator's death, so this CD cover certainly has one.
Also, there is an image of a cobra that appears three times and a drawing of one that appears once. Did you actually photograph the cobra? I doubt it, so you are probably infringing on the photographer's copyright. Did you draw the drawing? Again, possibly not. It is not our concern if you ignore copyright on your CD cover, but we won't keep a copyvio here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. If you are the copyright holder of the album cover and/or the images depicted on the cover, please follow the procedure outlined in COM:OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heterogeneous cat.JPG[edit]

I of course agree with the statement that Euro coins are copyrighted, but it is new to me that photos of Euro coins are protected by copyright, just because a Euro coin is on the photo. Sounds like a joke. -- Linksfuss (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I think you would agree that you cannot take photographs (or scans) of a recent book and sell them for a profit. The same is true of photographs of any copyrighted work -- the photograph is a derivative work of the subject and has two copyrights -- that of the photograph and that of the subject work. Both need a license, and in this case we do not have a license for the coin.
Using a coin to show the size of am pbject is also bad practice for a simpler reason -- the vast majority of people around the world will not know the size of any given coin, so it is a poor thing to use on a project that serves the entire world. Far better to use a metric ruler. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using a ruler might be a good idea, but that is not the point here. There is a copyright (I am not sure if this is even the right legal term in relation to coins and notes) on coins in order to prevent counterfeit, which I believe is the intention of the applicable regulations. It is pretty difficult to see how this would be possible with this photo. -- Linksfuss (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, see Jim's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-001.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted by User:Yann on 9 October 2014, 20:55h (UTC). @Taivo: User:Taivo suspected a copyright violation. The reason he gave was: "There is no freedom of panorama for 2-dimensional works in Thailand." But now I found this: {{FoP-Thailand}} I suppose this is enough to undelete this picture. --hdamm (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the template again. You can publish a picture of a copyrighted building, but not a picture of a copyrighted picture or a picture of a copyrighted painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Yann. Freedom of panorama is generally about buildings and sculptures. The image can only be restored if the copyright holder issues a license. Green Giant (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:W.W Beling painting.jpg[edit]

This File belongs to me so I see no reason why it should have been deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deutrom88 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PIXPHONE-002.jpg [edit]

It has been allow by the owner form petpositive.org

--Unknownppl (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:راینهارد_راوبال.jpg [edit]

ناطق (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) چرا این عکس رو حذف کردی ؟ لطفا برش گردونید[reply]

  • As it says in the edit summary, it was deleted because it appears in five other places on the Web with different authors. In order to restore it here, the actual photographer will need to send a license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PCAGlobalGenetic.gif[edit]

Author Doug MacDonald at illinois.edu emailed permissions 6 days ago. Copyright was applied then the file was deleted. 211.168.4.7 13:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Also File:3dGlobalGeneticPCA.gif 211.168.4.7 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS, like all WMF projects, is all volunteers and is understaffed. Its backlog has been running several weeks, maybe even a month. Please be patient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: I would note that this file was uploaded by a cross-wiki sockmaster: User:Peasant in Suit/User:FrankDickworthy. I wonder how many active socks he has here? INeverCry 20:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Requester is not here to contribute constructively. -FASTILY 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Microsoft Windows XP Logo 2.svg[edit]

Hi, This was deleted for being about the ToO, but it is very similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg, where there is a consensus to keep it. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, in dubio a new DR should be filed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo sot.jpg [edit]

This file was nominated for deletion by Ubcule, indicating there are insufficient permissions, and then deleted by Jameslwoodward in October 23, without further summary. But, the copyright holder of the file is the Gendarmerie of Chile, and therefore, these kind of files are covered under the {{PD-Chile}}.

The (non-chilean) user is still in doubt. Therefore, I requested the correspondient information to the INAPI, according to the Law 20285, and there are up to 20 days to get an answer. In the October 21 I recived the answer from the INAPI, indicating this entity is unable to answer, and therefore, the request of information has been derived to the DIBAM.

There is the correspondient answers from the INAPI (in spanish). (According to the Law 20.285, this information is public):

I will contact to OTRS once DIBAM confirmed the information. So, is necessary to keep the file publicly available in order to the DIBAM see the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's not appropriate to indefinitely host a [potentially] problematic file if it's going to take an undetermined amount of time to receive OTRS permission. Here's a copy for reference though: [3], [4] -FASTILY 18:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dawn of the Anthropocene, New York City.png to undelete[edit]

Hi,

This image was from LigoranoReese's Flickr account which is cc.

Please undelete.

Thanks, Vero — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeroOvid1 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The Flickr license is CC-BY-NC-ND. Neither NC nor ND are permitted on Commons. In the future, please cite the actual Flickr page in file descriptions so your colleagues don't have to search for the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim's comment. Green Giant (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slmgbox2.PNG [edit]

This image is public and work to probe the existance of the products mentioned in the wikipedia article.

187.153.116.29 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.== File:Пам'ятник Матері-героїні О. А. Деревській, вигляд збоку.JPG ==

Hello,I do not understand why my work File:Пам'ятник Матері-героїні О. А. Деревській, вигляд збоку.JPG has been nominated for deletion, by the way interesting and on my other works File:Могила корифея українського театру Г. П. Затиркевич-Карпинської, пам'ятник на могилі.jpg,File:Братська могила радянських воїнів, вигляд.JPG ? Explain please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Альона Юсова (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. The files have not been deleted so this discussion does not belong here. You may discuss this at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Пам'ятник Матері-героїні О. А. Деревській, вигляд збоку.JPG and the other two Deletion Requests.

The three have been nominated for deletion because the sculptures are copyrighted and your photographs infringe on the rights of the sculptors. The images cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the sculptors. See COM:FOP for more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hundert_Blumen-von_1973.jpg [edit]

Es gibt für mich keinerlei nachvollziehbare Gründe für die Löschung des von mir – https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Shoshone – gemachten Fotos! Es zeigt mehrere Ausgaben der Zeitschrift "Hundert Blumen", auf einem Sessel ausgelegt.

Was soll daran löschungswürdig sein?

My foto has been deleted for unknown reasons. I think it's inacceptable. I took this foto, showing 4 issues of the "Hundert Blumen" mag layed out on a armchair in my apt. Please give me the reasons! --84.190.78.15 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The magazines are copyrighted and your image infringes on that copyright. The image cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the publisher of the magazine. The copyright will be in effect until the year 2043 at the very earliest, and probably many years after that. I also note that image is very poor quality, so I doubt that it passes our requirement that an image be useful, see COM:SCOPE. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hoarding-2-Distributor.jpg[edit]

This file has been created to list all features offered by milkalert and it's our own creation. To list about milkalert was just similar other page on wiki Milk watcher'... which list many options available for avoiding overflow. kindly please inform any details required. if this particular image will not be appropriate then kindly delete same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaxoenterprises (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file has not (yet) been deleted, so there is nothing to undelete. The correct place to discuss for now (as explained on the file description page and your user talk page) is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hoarding-2-Distributor.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File has not been deleted. -FASTILY 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clan Qr Code.png [edit]

Please dont'Delete this. You are the only way I can Share These things with the world. Please wikimedia commons member. Youre my only hope. --Daltonsky9 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the only way. There are plenty of free web hosts. Commons is not one of them. As you've been told, Commons has a specific purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX -FASTILY 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avery_Miller.jpg [edit]

I own the copyright for the picture that was taken down; I believe that the file name was Avery_Miller.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avery Miller (talk • contribs) 19:23, 28 October 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 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files to be undeleted[edit]

I don´t know, why someone is doing such things, but i know that he is not able to read, write or even speak arabic, otherwise he would know, that there is nothing like not-fop in the VAE or even in the whole arabic golf countries. I do not know why someone act like that, but i know that he has not a single evidence for his false assertions. It is some sort of vandalism if someone tries to delete work of other people in the face that he has not a tininess of evidence. As i already mentioned, he is not able to speak or read the arabic language but he claims that he´s knowing arabic language as if he was growing up with it and studied law in the VAE. But that is not the truth.

المصنف: كل تأليف مبتكر في مجال الآداب ، او الفنون ، او العلوم ، اياً كان نوعه او طريقة التعبير عنه ، او اهميته او الغرض منه AND الصور التوضيحية ، والخرائط الجغرافية ، والرسومات التخطيطية ، والمصنفات ثلاثية الابعاد المتعلقة بالجغرافيا او الطبوغرافيا او التصميمات المعمارية وغيرها stats that there is nothing like any sort of copyright on photos of public buildiungs, the Grand Moshee in Abu Dhabi is, in contrast to some people who might thing they have the right to rule or to interpret arabic laws, which they, couriously, do not know, free to fotograph an publish this photographs for commercial, or non commercial use.

Everyone who tries to delete this photograph should be able to point directly to the arabic law that prohibits the publishing of public buildings.

Ronald Ali-Khan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliban (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Building is probably protected by copyright -FASTILY 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AbuZayedAD140924 16.jpg was deleted probably because of racist background ?[edit]

I don´t know, why someone is doing such things, but i know that he is not able to read, write or even speak arabic, otherwise he would know, that there is nothing like not-fop in the VAE or even in the whole arabic golf countries. I do not know why someone act like that, but i know that he has not a single evidence for his false assertions. It is some sort of vandalism if someone tries to delete work of other people in the face that he has not a tininess of evidence. As i already mentioned, he is not able to speak or read the arabic language but he claims that he´s knowing arabic language as if he was growing up with it and studied law in the VAE. But that is not the truth.

المصنف: كل تأليف مبتكر في مجال الآداب ، او الفنون ، او العلوم ، اياً كان نوعه او طريقة التعبير عنه ، او اهميته او الغرض منه AND الصور التوضيحية ، والخرائط الجغرافية ، والرسومات التخطيطية ، والمصنفات ثلاثية الابعاد المتعلقة بالجغرافيا او الطبوغرافيا او التصميمات المعمارية وغيرها stats that there is nothing like any sort of copyright on photos of public buildiungs, the Grand Moshee in Abu Dhabi is, in contrast to some people who might thing they have the right to rule or to interpret arabic laws, which they, couriously, do not know, free to fotograph an publish this photographs for commercial, or non commercial use.

Everyone who tries to delete this photograph should be able to point directly to the arabic law that prohibits the publishing of public buildings.

The user, who has deleted this pictures, and many, many others of pictures of the same kind (arabic mosque) had given no reason for his deletion. Many others, from arabic and other, western, countries, who are familiar with the arabic language tried to convince him, that the is no non-fop in the law of the golf stats, especially in Abu Dhabi, but user Ymblanter, who can´t even speak (or read) arabian, could not be persuaded by any reasonable argument. ( so that the question comes up, if the deletion is not because of legal but of racism reasons?)

I think, there should be made up a hearing to investigate the real reasons behind the baseless deletion of pictures of an arabic mosque.

R. Ali-Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliban (talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The charge of racism is utter nonsense -- it is a beautiful building and it is too bad that we cannot keep images of it on Commons, but, as I explained above, the image infringes on the rights of the architect. The legal threat in the last sentence is unacceptable and I suggest that an uninvolved Admin consider blocking this user. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of photographs of the Abi Dhabi mosque in the internet, a simple google search will give your thousands of pictures. If there would be a reasonable non-fop. there would be very few if none pictures of the mosque and photographs would be forbidden. The reason ist simple, ist seems as there is a fop in UAE, not only for the mosque, but as well as for all other buildings. Imagine there where a fop, for example, no photographs for example of the burj khalif would ever be seen in public. This is ridiculous. Ali-Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliban (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Caliban, you need to learn to sign your comments. The instructions are immediately above the text area where you enter your comments. Please read them.
Most of the Internet is not a general purpose repository of educational free media. Commons is. Most of the rest of the Internet can rely on fair use provisions. We can't. It could also be that other sites don't really care about the finer points of copyright law. In fact, many don't care at all. Less widely understood concepts like freedom of panorama aside, it's not exactly hard to find blatant copyright violations on the Internet. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. -FASTILY 23:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Number 0923 on vehicles[edit]

I am requesting the restoration of Category:Number 0923 on vehicles. It had been tagged for speedy deletion. I didn't think this was a good idea, so, as per the instructions a speedy tag instantiation provides, I changed the speedy tag to a full discussion tag, initiating, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Number 0923 on vehicles, which referred people to Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Number 0721 on vehicles.

There is no point to telling contributors they can challenge the speedy deletion of a category, by changing the discussion to a full discussion, if administrators are going to ignore the fact the category is the subject of a discussion, and delete it simply because it is empty, anyway.

User:Fastily, the administrator who deleted this category, has previously deleted categories because they were empty, even when someone had gone to the effort of initiating a discussion as to whether there was or wasn't a place for them in the category hierarchy. With Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 Fastily deleted it as empty, in spite of Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10. When I pointed out he had deleted a category that was currently under discussion he "solved" that by closing the discussion himself, even though he could no longer consider himself an uninvolved party. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Go nuts 🌰 -FASTILY 01:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by JuTa[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo is an official poster of the film "Life in a Day". It was used for the Ukrainian version of the article devoted to this documentary. Юлія Гунько (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are no photos here at all. Except for the last one, these are all empty galleries, which are outside of Commons scope, see COM:Galleries. The last one is an empty category which is also not permitted. Even if any of them were "an official poster of the film "Life in a Day", they would not per permitted on Commons, because such posters have copyrights and cannot be kept here without permission from the movie company. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim and El Grafo. If you are the copyright holder of the poster, please read COM:OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:141026 KAS Shield.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture shows school crest of King Alfred School, Plön. This is an electronic copy of an original drawing by Peter Smith, a Wyvern Club member, for the Wyvern Club, the association of former staff and pupils of King Alfred School (www.kingalfredschool.com). The Wyvern Club control the copyright of this image. They also authorise it to illustrate the Draft Wiki-Submission - King Alfred School under the Wikipedia terms and conditions. I do not understand why it is considered unacceptable. Wyvern4859 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

HISTORIAS_DE_BILBAO_EN_FIESTAS.png [edit]

Dear Ellin:

I write you again in name of Plaza Nueva Idazleak (ALPNI). I am the secretary of this association of writers sited in Bilbao. ALPNI has organised the "Certamen internacional Bilbao Aste Nagusia de Relato" since 2013 and the file you deleted belongs to the cover of "Historias de Bilbao en fiestas", book edited by our association with the best storys presented at the event. The cover is designed by us yearly, so we are the owners of this design. ALPNI has the copyright of this book, contents and cover. For us is a pride this image file over the «Certamen Internacional Bilbao Aste Nagusia de Relato Corto» Wikipedia article, so we request you about the undeletion of this file.

Sorry one more time for my bad English. I hope that my explain will you understand the mean of this image and ensure the origin.

Thanks in advance: --JIM BILBAO (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Jim Bilbao (Wikipedia user).2014 /10 /29[reply]

 Not done @JIM BILBAO: El cartel que aparece en la imagen está bajo copyright. Y no solo la composición, entiendo que se ha hecho un collage con imágenes del ayto y de la Marijaia de otros autores por lo que es una obra derivada. Recomiendo leer COM:OTRS y si se respetan las licencias proceder a enviar el email desde una cuenta oficial. Alan (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Sutton Valence pre 1918.jpg [edit]

I fear that we may have lost this significant historical picture forever. Could it be put back for a few days so that it can be copied so that more research can be done with local museums to see if its origin can be more precisely established.

ukiws 21:35 29 October 2014 (UK)

✓ Done. ukiws, the file has been temporarily restored, so you can copy it. Let me know when you are done with it. Green Giant (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ricardo Puentes Melo.jpg[edit]

Tengo autorización del dueño de la Fotografía para publicarla en este sitio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estebanbethencourt (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Por favor, pregunte el titular de los derechos de autor para enviar una licencia para OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ehninger Bank.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this picture.

I have permission of "Ehninger Bank eG" to post it.

Tell me how to prove if necessary.

 Not done: Please have the copyright holder contact OTRS to verify permission. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. INeverCry 07:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-10&oldid=138242302"