Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-12

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:Cars 2 Premiere.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted at 01:09 on 10 September 2011 by Yann. The uploader of the file, EtouMei claimed to be the creator of the file and requested clarification on what needed to be done to prevent its deletion here, but Yann never bothered responding (see the archive here, with no response). As the photo was taken in public in the United States, there is no issue with copyright, and it may just be an issue of placing the correct license tags on the image (I don't know, since I can't see what was there due to not being an admin here, but it was tagged with "copyright issues", not "license issues" or similar). ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because the file is copyvio of images in this page. If uploader owns the site, (s)he should set the license to Commons-compatible one, or send OTRS email. — Revi 17:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ticket #2014102510013377[edit]

Three files should be restored from this OTRS ticket:

There was some confusion regarding the EXIF data. The sender claims that, as a representative of the university, she is able to grant permission for photos taken by other photographers for the university. Pining Green Giant, who originally handled the ticket. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last two files may require separate permission. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 01:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:False colour artifact.JPG [edit]

On the website it's written that all the content if for public usage and everybody can use and copy it for free. --Sh Hannes (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss files before they are deleted and this one was kept per DR .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zippering artifact.JPG [edit]

On the website it's written that all the content if for public usage and everybody can use and copy it for free. --Sh Hannes (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss files before they are deleted and this one was kept per DR .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Syone.png[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I hereby affirm that I represent SYONE, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of: File:Logo Syone.png

As you can also confirm through the international trademark: https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/010937878

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

--MarketingSyone (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Appointed representative of Syone 1st December, 2014.[reply]

  •  Oppose Since anyone can create an account with any username, we have no way of knowing if you actually have any connection to the company or not. Therefore, policy requires that an officer of the corporation send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. The e-mail must come from a domain traceable to the company, not g-mail or other anonymous addresses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Transfer bench.jpg [edit]

I downloaded this file from Flickr.com at this URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/83991392@N00/123984032/in/photolist-bXs8J-8pBSu2 It was taken by Roger Mommaerts, and is marked with a Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 2.0). I tried to indicate this information in the file original upload, but apparently, I don't know what I'm doing yet! :-P I'm also doing this from my iPad, since I am on able to use my computer temporarily. Please let me know if you need any more information. Thank you! --Gorthian (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Please be more careful in future. Any file that does not provide a value source, license or evidence of permission can be deleted quickly. Green Giant (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liv Opdal.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a file with an OTRS ticket. Do an ordinary delete request or give a proper explanation. In the mean time undelete the image. Jeblad (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The file was OTRS pending for more than thirty days and we cannot host such content indefinitely. See Category:OTRS pending for more details. I cannot find an email at OTRS about this file but if the permission comes through, the file can be restored. Green Giant (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is wrong. There is a Ticket#2014102310007913 — VS: Tillatelsesmail File:Liv_Opdal.jpg Jeblad (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the ticket. Please move the ticket to the permission queue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get a permission to the Norwegian queue, this is a ticket written in Norwegian. Jeblad (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Please move it to a permission (or prmission-commons) queue. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. In future please provide such information up front, even if it is in a different language. Green Giant (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the uploader provided all the necessary info "Jeg, Elisabeth Krey Jenssen, kommunikasjonsrådgiver ved Stavanger Symfoniorkester (SSO), har, på vegne av orkesteret alle rettigheter til denne filen: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liv_Opdal.jpg. Vi tillater at det lastes opp på Wikimedia Commons med fri lisens, cc-by-sa 3.0 Ved bruk skal fotograf krediteres med fullt navn: Emile Ashley"[1] --> Google translate "I, Elizabeth Krey Jenssen, Communications at Stavanger Symphony Orchestra (SSO), has, on behalf of the orchestra all rights to this file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liv_Opdal.jpg. We allow it uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with free license cc-by-sa 3.0 When in use, the photographer credited with the full name: Emile Ashley" . Kind regards nsaa Nsaa (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gertrude Maud Robinson.png to undelete[edit]

The file, Gertrude Maud Robinson.png, came from this website: http://www.mediahex.com/Robinson_Sir_Robert, which claims on the bottom that "Content is available under Creative Commons License". The specific license indicated (when you click on it) is Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution International and can be found here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en. --Sopcha (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a photo authored by the proprietors of that website, or an existing photo copied which they would not have rights to license? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not deleted yet, but DR created: More information is needed about the source and the author. Yann (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of Bohol and Samar churches[edit]

Hello,

I would like to request for undeletion of the following photos because they're original works of mine (albeit the sources were not indicated properly during upload). These photos were requested for use of WMF for the Storyteller blog entry about our chapter's project. I'll make sure the source will be indicated properly. Please let me know if the photo has been undeleted. Hope you can do this as soon as possible. Thank you.

Regards,

Joelaldor (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose If these are actually your work, you should upload them again at full camera resolution, as single images, not before and after on the same image. These are so small that they make us suspicious that you are not the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; they have been resized back in late 2013 when I made my presentation to the Diocese of Tagbilaran during a post-earthquake emergency meeting, and I just put them together on the fly. I would upload them later, but it seems to defeat the purpose of my requests for un-deletion of the photos since I'm uploading the original ones anyway. So is there any way you could accommodate me for this by just un-deleting them? Do you see the point I'm driving here? - Joelaldor (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As Bohol seems to be in the Philippines, you must show that the architects have been dead for at least 50 years. Churches are often old, no idea if this is the case with these churches. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan4, all of the churches in those pictures were built by the Jesuits and Augustininan Recollect fathers between the 18th century to early 20th century. The Philippines had a long Spanish colonial history. The architect-fathers were long dead. You can find more information here. Hope this would suffice for un-deletion. Thank you. - Joelaldor (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a church was build in the early 20th century, then the architect has not necessarily been dead for at least 50 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Undeleted, as per Jim. Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014-09-23&2143112012013-11-15&162201 Kölner Dom & Münzteleskop.Jpg[edit]

this originally overwritten file was deleted "per Commons:Deletion requests/File:2010-04-17 Dom-Dach-Besichtigung 027.JPG", but as noted there it had an other first image version, a different photo not showing the artist window in question, but a coin-operated telescope (German "Münzteleskop" in the filename). Please undelete this first version (license and other informations were ok). Holger1959 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You said at the DR:

"Comment: please keep the first (different) image version in File:2014-09-23&2143112012013-11-15&162201 Kölner Dom & Münzteleskop.Jpg, also see similar File:2013-11-15&1Hohenzollernbrücke 03.Jpg"

The cited file is not "similar" to the first version of the deleted file, it is identical. There is, therefore, no reason to restore the first version of the deleted file..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i can't check it myself, because the logs don't contain the size data, but as i remember they were not really identical, not in file size and image ratio (height/width), and i found the now deleted one was even the bit better one. maybe an other admin can check the question of "identity"? Holger1959 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. No reason to keep 2 copies of the same file -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RebaWhiteWilliams2.jpg [edit]

Hi: I have emailed confirmation of the copyright for this file. Thank you. --Emitchell62000 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that! OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Lake of Memory CD inside.jpg[edit]

Greetings, and thank you for the opportunity to explain why I believe this file could be undeleted.

The owner and author of the file, Mr. Daniel Jones of the band 7th Order, has authorized it's use. The exact image file itself is freely distributed in the band's press kits and is in use all over the internet, in countless articles and ads related to the 7th Order CD, "The Lake of Memory". His consent and the license for use can be easily confirmed, as stated in the "talk" log I created when I was notified there may be a problem with the file's use.

Much obliged...

Dljone9 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 12/1/14[reply]

These documents were published before, and therefore they need a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Dana Carson Bio and photos[edit]

I have submitted a biography of Dr. Dana Carson. I believe this submission meets your program scope because I have the adequate permission to submit this information. I am able to provided this information if prompted. This article was on Wikipedia before and met the full scope. Please reconsider your deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drasheed1971 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Wikimedia Commons is not the same as Wikipedia. The file looks to be a promotional brochure rather than a serious biography. If the article was on Wikipedia, what happened to it? Green Giant (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commons is not a means of personal promotion -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samuel Costa 2013.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image was uploaded by the person who was photograph. The image is a commom good and free of copyright. He's a friend of mine and a famous person in Brazil. It was from Google Images, but he has on his facebook the original image, Marcos.mondoni (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose because the copyright holder is usually the photographer unless copyright is transferred by contract or operation of law. You will need to ask the photographer to send a license statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the sample statement at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Missing evidence of permission which must be submitted via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SoftEther VPN.jpg [edit]

This picture is from the oficial site of the program. It is a free, open source program and i want to use this picture in a project/homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikospnGR (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - the software is free, but that doesn't translate into a free-for-reuse logo because the notice at the bottom of the source website says "Copyright © SoftEther Project", unless there is a license hidden somewhere. Why do you need the image to be on Commons for your homework? Green Giant (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal 1990.jpg [edit]

The file seems to have been deleted as there was a copyright question, a second file File:Mexicana de Aviacion-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal 1990.jpg was also uploaded as I believed I may have uploaded the prior file incorrectly, but that created a problem of duplicate files. Both files were deleted, but I supplied an extensive number of reference in the Wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border terminal including a Wall Street article, reference number 2 with link (Millman, Joe (August 1, 2001). "San Diego Airport May Cross Border". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 November 2014) in which the project and my work were featured. The image was both created and produced by me and I am the owner. I was not an employee of Mexicana de Aviacion, nor under contract to Mexicana or Malcolm and Associates, I was a partner to the latter and was not paid for this work. It was created in 1990 as a concept rendering for creating a cross-border terminal at the Tijuana airport and was part of a letter of intent between rnieders and Mexicana de Aviacion. It was used in the Wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border terminal to show the first design of the concept and its introduction in 1990 as part of Mexico's co-investment program. I do not want to upload the image and again create a duplicate problem. Thank you Rnieders (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bestand:Logo Podium.TV.png[edit]

Well first of all, I am one of the founders of Podium.TV and so this Logo is ours. So way does Wikipedia / Wikimedia did delete this one without warning ?

When I uploaded the picture/logo I did choose the savest option in my belive of all the possibilities...

Kind regards

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Romería de Cartaojal.jpg [edit]

File:Romería de Cartaojal.jpg

Solicito que este archivo sea restaurado ya que lo he registrado con licencia Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 como se desmuestra en el siguiente enlace: https://www.safecreative.org/work/1412022665966-romeria-de-cartaojal --Bandolerox (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: restaurada y macada como revisada. Nota: Categoriza la imagen y revisa la fecha que figura NaN-NaN-NaN. Alan (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samuel Costa em 2012.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original author and owner of the rights is printed on the photo on the right bottom corner of the pic, and the source too. You can check on Samuel Costa's Instagram account to see the source by yourself at http://instagram.com/p/cK1IaMRELF/ (detail on the description of image). The right was given by the author to the photographed. Please, I guarantee that the page with the photo is completely known by the photographed(Samuel Costa) and by the author of the photo. 

Marcos.mondoni (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nora Aunor and Ricky Lee at the 10th Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival.jpg[edit]

Good Morning, I would like to inform you that the picture used is the work of my friend who asked me to upload it in Nora Aunor's wikipedia page. I also provided the link and the sources and I followed every step to do it. As a fan of Nora Aunor we believe that we should update the details of her wikipedia so that fans around the world would know the developments happening to their idol. So please kindly put it back. Thanks!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gawad Plaridel Erickson Dela Cruz I photo.jpg[edit]

Please re upload the picture.

Reason: Yes, i uploaded 2 versions of this picture the other one was cropped out. However, the owner of the picture asked me to upload the whole picture so that the watermark would be seen. That is the reason why a re-uploaded it and this time with whole picture including the watermark. I am humbly appealing to you to grant me this request. The picture was uploaded in good faith and as a fan of Nora Aunor, we just want all the best for her. Thanks!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joe kraatz kayak 1.jpg File:Chris thomas kayak 1.jpg File:Joe hector kayak 2.jpg File:Extreme magazine 1.jpg File:Joe kayak fish 1.jpg[edit]

I, Joesph Hector am the owner of Extreme Kayak Fishing Tournament Inc and the extreme kayak fishing magazine. My username is EKFT which stands for Extreme kayak fishing tournament. I am the owner of all these images listed above. My website is http://www.extremekayakfishingtournament.org. Each image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. My terms and conditions page from my website is http://www.extremekayakfishingtournament.org/terms--conditions.html.

These images were deleted at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Ekft I would like these images undeleted and put back up. Please advise me if you need any more proof on my ownership of the company.


File:Chris thomas kayak 1.jpg File:Joe kraatz kayak 1.jpg File:Joe hector kayak 2.jpg File:Extreme magazine 1.jpg File:Joe kayak fish 1.jpg

Thank you, Joe Hector

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marlène-Samoun.jpg Picture of artist Marlène Samoun is mine... Yet has been deleted...[edit]

Hi,

The file "Marlène-Samoun-chanteuse.jpeg" I had uploaded was mine, but was suppressed unfortunately...

Then I uploaded it again. Was that the right behaviour ?

Please help and advise,

Best regards from France.

09/12/2014 Icomefromlondontown --Icomefromlondontown (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gap1.jpg and File:Gap2.jpg and File:Gap3.jpg [edit]

I believe these files were deleted because I entered the information incorrectly.

We are students at the University of Florida enrolled in a wildlife ecology class (wikipedia class name="Tropical Ecology"). Our project is on Treefall Gaps. I have obtained permission from our professor (Dr. John Blake) to use these photos that he took while doing research.

It would be very helpful if these could be undeleted, so I can enter the information correctly as to avoid copyright issues.

I believe the user who deleted them is "JuTa".

Thank you!

Cjkeen (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information you provided was fine, except that you did not include a license.
However, since you are not the photographer, in order for these to be restored to Commons, Professor Blake must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. The e-mail should cite the three file names above. Note that the e-mail must come directly from john.blake@ufl.edu. OTRS, like all of WMF, is all volunteers and is understaffed, so it may be two to three weeks before his e-mail will be acted on. At that time, if the license is satisfactory, the images will automatically be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please ask the copyright holder to read COM:L and send a license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, using the sample at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tamindir_Logo.png [edit]

This file used for [[2]] article.

Trademarked logo. Source and logo file: http://www.tamindir.com/hakkimizda/ (bottom section of the page) Licese: Non-free use rationale logo

--Bleemcnt (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use and non-free use rationales are not allowed on Commons. In order for the logo to be restored here, the owner of the copyright on the logo must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Alternately, you could upload the logo to WP:EN and use it there if you add an appropriate fair use rationale. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use material. Green Giant (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spark Plugs.JPG[edit]

Hello

This is my own personal image that I took and is free to be used. What can I do to prove it.--SMHank (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)--SMHank (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMHank

@SMHank: You will have to send an e-mail according to the instructions on this page. If it was published on another website before, please make sure you send the message from an address that can be associated with the site (for example, an address listed on a contact page, or one that matches the website address after the "@"). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:28, 4 December 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 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FIP 4363.jpg [edit]

Este archivo es propiedad del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, y su autor ha permitido su uso

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papa small.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014102210022729). --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benn Northover.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Explicit declaration of consent from copyright owner was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to publish above-mentioned content under the free License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Ado64 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Received at OTRS ticket #2014120410004011. I will respond once the file is restored (and someone else does not do so before me). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NickTalbot-Gravenhurst by SteveDrew.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, Steven Drew, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:NickTalbot-Gravenhurst_by_SteveDrew.jpg (request for undeletion pending).

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


Steven Drew

Photographer and Copyright Holder

December 5, 2014

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 06:36, 5 December 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:Herman Richir[edit]

Hi, Painter died 1942, these are in the public domain in Belgium. URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia doesn't make policy. If you disagree, start a new RfC. Yann (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia didn't attempt to make policy, he quoted policy. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Only his interpretation of policy. Yann (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Review of Precautionary principle is very clear: Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA is rejected in its entirety, and "at this time there is no community agreement to host files affected by the URAA." See also User talk:Odder#Clarification where the administrator who closed Commons:Review of Precautionary principle explained what the closure of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle means. Put simply, there is currently no policy allowing Commons to host any of the files you listed above. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support As I stated her, The Precautionary Principles policy is a general policy for the cases where we don't have specific rules. The new URAA policy is a specific policy that non of the changes of Precautionary Principles policy can deny.
When this decision accepted all the users were aware to the Precautionary principle but still choose to vote as they do. this vote was an attempt to change the Precautionary Principle policy (just check the proposal). that suggestion failed, therefore there is no influence regarding to the original decision. The understanding that the outcome of this discussion her by User:Odder was simply wrong. The last decision only rejected the attempt to change the Precautionary principle.
Now if we want to reverse the decision, it have to be by a new vote with the name "reverse the decision ..." or something like that. And it have to include the involvement of all the parties that may infected, with a note in the village pump of all wikipedia that may be affected. I was disappointed to discover that part of users mentioned that there are problems with the way in which the URAA discussion was closed. Why? may be because many users from he.wiki voted? Well, just remind all. Every user that join to one of wikimedia projects is automatically part of commons. And we have to take this opportunity and show our good face. make more explanations if necessary. -- Geagea (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fastily_and_Russavia_starting_again too. This is a controversial case and need community wide discussion and gathering of legal opinion if necessary (as Nick stated there.). There is not a single penny of common sense in believing a small discussion started with a different topic is overturning a discussion with clear topic and more participation. So please stop pushing the personal POV by a few admins and colleagues. It is foolish to see one admin closing a request as "undeleted" and other as "not done" for the same matter. (I'm happy to start a new community wide discussion and make notices on all WM project Village pumps, if necessary. ) Jee 07:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10[edit]

This category was created by someone who doesn't seem able to communicate in English. Even though some of their actions seem like vandalism, this contributor seems well intentioned and energetic, and I hope someone who speaks their native language, whatever it is, can help them comply with our policies and guidelines.

About a month after starting the category, and after other contributors, like myself, had added about one hundred images to it, that original contributor manually moved all those images to a different but similar category -- based on the notion that two different models of camera were "identical" -- under the hood.

I took several steps to initiate discussion over the future of this category, in messages on the nominator's talk page, and through changing their speedy deletion request to a full discussion.

The original nominator didn't reply -- instead they repeatedly reverted the tag directing people's attention to the full discussion to their original speedy deletion tag.

Next thing I know an administrator deleted the category, on the grounds it was empty. I know some administrators routinely delete empty categories, without taking any of the simple steps to check to see whether the categories emptiness was due to obvious vandalism, or newbie error, but, at a bare minimum, surely even the hastiest administrator should click on the "what links here" button, to see whether it was the subject of an active discussion?

I wrote to the administrator in question, and pointed out to them that they had deleted a category that was empty because it had been manually emptied, out of process, and that was the subject of an active discussion. Rather than provide a meaningful answer to my questions this administrator closed the discussion. This is a problem for a couple of reasons:

  1. I think it was improper for them to close the discussion, when they had already speedily deleted the category. An uninvolved administrator should have closed the discussion.
  2. The deletion justification the administrator offered was "Author requested deletion of unused and empty category." This was a bullshit justification. As I had already pointed out, the category had held over one hundred images, before the newbie had moved them to a related category -- so not "unused".

I owned a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10, and I took almost 20,000 images with it, before I broke it a few months ago. I am still uploading some of those images. I uploaded several dozen yesterdsay. So far as I am concerned, if we are going to place images in categories based on what kind of camera they were taken with, then those categories should be based on the camera name the camera's software embedded in the image's exif data.

A couple of weeks later someone else, a fourth contributor, recreated Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10. And the original nominator nominated the category for deletion -- without however informing anyone. Our discussions are supposed to be consensus based, in so far as possible. I suggest it is not a genuine consensus if the nominator does not advise the people they know would voice counter-arguments of the discussion.

The administrator who first improperly deleted the category the first time, the administrator who improperly closed the first discussion, closed the second discussion, which I regard as another instance of bad judgment.

Subsequent to this second deletion the original nominator took it upon themselves to create Category:User:Geo Swan/Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10, and Category:Photos by Geo Swan using a Samsung GT-S7560M. Personally, I am unfamiliar with categories like Category:User:Geo Swan/Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 and Category:Photos by Geo Swan using a Samsung GT-S7560M. I don't know if they are policy compliant. If they aren't, or even if they are questionable, I don't like that their creation could make it appear I was responsible.

As I wrote in Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 if the community were to decide we should ignore the model-names embedded in images' exif data, and merge Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 and Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20, then the also-ran should redirect to the preferred name. If the community were to make that decision I have argued elsewhere, and I repeat here, neither category should have been deleted, as preserving the contribution history would be important in order to comply with everyone's intellectual property rights.

If the community's decision is to overturn the original improper deletion, could someone with a bot arrange to move the 1359 images the newbie placed in Category:User:Geo Swan/Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 back to Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10?

Could some other parties, who can communicate in some European languages, contact User:Allo002, and try to get them to harness their considerable helpful energy in ways that comply with policy -- in a language they can understand? Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, from what I can say after a quick web search, the DMC-TZ20 and DMC-ZS10 indeed seem to be completely identical, with ZS10 being the name used for the Northamerican market and TZ20 being used for the rest of the world ([3], [4], [5]). In the similar case of the w:Pentax K-m, we have different categories for both models (Category:Pentax K-m and Category:Pentax K2000, connected with a "see also"), but only one "taken with" category (Category:Taken with Pentax K-m) as a subcategory of both model categories. I think it makes sense not to distinguish between pictures taken by the same camera model. However, people from Northamerica owning a ZS10 who don't know about the different names (and I think most of them won't) will think the category is missing and re-create it over and over again. So it would make a lot of sense to me to undelete Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 and turn it into a redirect to Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20. --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Geo Swan, I think this is easier than you make it. First, User cats, such as [:Category:User:Geo Swan/Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10]] are entirely OK, see Commons:User categories, so the choice of whether to keep the two user cats or not is up to you.
As for the question of one or two cats for the camera, I strongly favor having two. While it may be true that the two cameras are identical under the hood, many users will not know that and confusion will arise again. El Grafo would have a redirect, but which way should the redirect go? We do not, after all, combine Dodge and Plymouth cars, even though they were made on the same assembly line with the same parts except for the labels front and back.
Actual implementation is fairly easy -- recreate the cat that you want to use and use HotCat to move or copy the new cat onto the images in the user cat, depending on whether you choose to keep the user cat or not. While that will take seven HotCat operations, it will be much easier than getting a bot to do it. VFC should also work, but a bug prevents its use on categories that begin with the word "User". It would be appropriate to ask an Admin to protect the new categories -- I'd be happy to do it.
And, by the way, when you go on at great length about an Admin's actions without naming him, you may be sure that some of us will check your contributions to see who you are talking about, so there was little point in not saying who it was. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored Category is not empty, so no reason to delete it. Yann (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Front Cover Page of The High Fantasy of Lyra Book 1.jpg[edit]

Permission seems to have been granted through OTRS (#2014112210001106) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That is probably true, although since the e-mail comes from a Yahoo account, it does not meet our standards which require a verifiable e-mail address. More important, however, is the fact that the book does not meet the WP:EN standards for notability, so its use here can only violate COM:ADVERT -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The High Fantasy of Lyra. Also note that the book does not appear at Amazon.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will respond to that effect. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied as described; I believe this request may be closed. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 08:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lease Purchase Agreement.pdf[edit]

Permission for this file seems to have been granted through OTRS (#2014112610000029) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julia Wyszynska Profil.png [edit]

I do own the image.

Thanks

Patrycja Jackiewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrycja Jackiewicz (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose because the file appears to be a derivative of a photo in the subject's Facebook gallery, which suggests that Anna Jaształ would be the copyright holder in the first instance. Green Giant (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 20:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:6º Conde de S. Vicente.jpg[edit]

This is a snapshot of an old painting (unsigned and unknown author) that is more than 200 years old. I know the owner of the painting and can take more photos. Photos of the same painting have been used on the cover of magazine (Portuguese Navy Magazine) as well as genealogic sites. Below some examples. http://geneall.net/pt/nome/43669/manuel-carlos-da-cunha-e-tavora-6-conde-de-sao-vicente/ http://www.myheritage.com/search-records?lang=ES&action=person&siteId=203345231&indId=1000534&origin=album http://aps-ruasdelisboacomhistria.blogspot.com.es/2009_03_01_archive.html Since this is public domain (more than 200 yrs old) it should be accepted. Can also be considered “fair use” or accepted cover of magazine.Otripeiro (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is signed Machado and dated '83. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Yann -FASTILY 20:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dark-writer.jpg [edit]

This picture was taken for an interview of a friend o'mine, and he allowed me to post it on Commons so he could use it on his Wikipedia page. I also include the website where the picture was posted for the first time, and it's all over the internet. He is an author who is going to be published in the UK next year, by the same editor as J.K. Rowling, Barry Cunningham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VitorHugoDM (talk • contribs)

 Comment Since it was published before, a formal written permission is needed. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Yann (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 20:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:הכותל הקטן.JPG[edit]

This file deleted by User:Fastily after {{Copyvio}} note. But the files are not the same. The admin didn't check it properly. -- Geagea (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gorenkov.jpg[edit]

Yuriy Gorenkov. Its my own foto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor 1313 (talk • contribs)

This is small image without EXIF data. You wrote that you don't know the source or the author. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No credible reason given to suggest that the uploader is the copyright holder -FASTILY 20:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tianqiao Chen.jpg[edit]

这个图片的确来自于中国财经网，照片中的人是时任盛大网络CEO陈天桥先生。 然而按照《中华人民共和国民法通则》[[6]]第一百条规定：“公民享有肖像权，未经本人同意，不得以营利为目的使用公民的肖像。”这张图片不是以盈利为目的而使用的,也没有恶意丑化。[[7]]第二十二条同时规定：“第二十二条　在下列情况下使用作品，可以不经著作权人许可，不向其支付报酬，但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称，并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利： （一）为个人学习、研究或者欣赏，使用他人已经发表的作品； （二）为介绍、评论某一作品或者说明某一问题，在作品中适当引用他人已经发表的作品； （三）为报道时事新闻，在报纸、期刊、广播电台、电视台等媒体中不可避免地再现或者引用已经发表的作品；” 此照片来源于中国财经网，但该网站刊登的照片本身未经陈天桥先生本人同意，依照以上法律不算侵权。同理在维基百科使用该图片也不算侵权，请恢复图片。

This Photo comes from Chinese Caijing，the person it shows is Mr.Tianqiao Chen. the “General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China” have the rule of it, the article 100th said：“Citizens shall enjoy the right of portrait.The use of a citizen's portrait for profit without his consent shall be prohibited.” which means if it's not for profit, it's okay.And the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) ，the article 22nd said:Article 22 In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon:

(1) use of a published work for the purposes of the user's own private study, research or self-entertainment; (2) appropriate quotation from a published work in one's own work for the purposes of introduction of, or comment on, a work, or demonstration of a point; (3) inevitable reappearance or citation of a published work in newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations or other media for the purpose of reporting current events; his photo comes from Chinese Caijing, but the photo they used didn't get Mr.Tianqiao Chen's permission, but it's not illegal in China, so it's allowed to shows in Wikipedia. I hope this photo can have a undeletion, thanks.

  •  Oppose Unfortunately, while you state the Chinese law correctly, you do not understand the rules here -- Commons and WP:EN do not accept images that are not free for all use, including commercial use. The reason for this is simple -- there are really very few uses that qualify as non-commercial. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:L. Alan (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:National Anthem of North Korea.ogg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This should not have been removed as even if the copyright tag was wrong it should have been under fair use as a national anthem. I don't believe the anthem is under copyright anyway 71.7.185.7 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose — Commons does not accept fair use files. The uploader did not provide any evidence that the anthem's composition, performance, and recording are in the public domain (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Anthem of North Korea.ogg).—RP88 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:FU. Alan (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alvaro Veliz 2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this photo is from his facebook, taken by him Ksc951 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Alan (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alvaro Veliz 2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i have permission from him, the picture is from his facebook Ksc951 (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Read and follow COM:OTRS. Alan (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CDHomeAltar.jpg [edit]

Hi, This photo belong the community of Cao Đài believers. We are free to use it. Please help undelete it, or let me know how. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppn vn (talk • contribs) 06:00, 7 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

That's not how copyright law works. The copyright belongs to the author, and only the author can decide who may use his or her work and how it may be used. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX -FASTILY 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erwin Keeve High-Tech-Champions-Award 2014 [edit]

The Photo has been made by Thomas Mayer, who took this photo - like other - by contract for the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft at the occasion of the High-Tech-Champions-Ceremony at the Industrie Club Düsseldorf. As one of the awarded Champions I have been granted permission to use this Foto "zur freien Verfügung" by notice of the Copyright Name Thomas Mazer by the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft.

Please undelete the file stated above.

If zu do need further approval, please let me know.

Erwin Keeve

OTRS permission is required to restore the image -FASTILY 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ubuntu Touch Nexus 7.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the owner of Ubuntulife.co.za and published this image on my website first, before uploading it to Wikimedia today. Vinodh Moodley (talk) 10:27, 7 December 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 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maximus Johnity Ongkili World Economic Forum 2013.jpg[edit]

Also File:Maximus Johnity Ongkili World Economic Forum 2013 crop.jpg, derivative of this image.

The image was licensed CC-BY-SA at Flickr when it was uploaded. The original file (File:Maximus Johnity Ongkili World Economic Forum 2013.jpg) has a licence review confirming this, there are also OTRS tickets to back this up as noted at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/03#Bad news (the World Economic Forum changed their licensing policy around March 2013, after this was uploaded). I have not had a response from the deleting administrator (see User talk:Benoit Rochon#File:Maximus Johnity Ongkili World Economic Forum 2013.jpg). January (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see them as I don't have access but this may have been covered in the OTRS tickets referenced in the discussion on the change of licence. That's possibly why two previous DRs closed as keep despite it being highlighted that the photos were taken by swiss-image.ch photographers, Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Soros - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2010.jpg (closing rationale: "The World Economic Forum has all necessary contracts to release this under cc-by-sa") and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maria Bartiromo.jpg. January (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cyphastrea ocelina.jpg [edit]

No entiendo porqué se dice que la foto en cuestión no cumple las reglas de Commons. La foto se ha marcado como obra del Gobierno Federal de Estados Unidos, pertenece a una página pública educativa de NOAA.

I don't understand why this picture has been marked as a possible copyright violation, because she's labeled like (Public Domain), from the USA Federal Government, the URL is a NOAA's public educational web. --Josuevg (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esa marca se ha quitado de la página.
The mark has been removed from the page.
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - file has not been deleted -FASTILY 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-Freunde-der-Naturvölker-eV.jpg [edit]

In the english Wikipedia there is the file Fpcn-fdn logo.PNG (section) with the header „Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free logo for Friends of Peoples Close to Nature“. Is it possible to upload this logo in commons or better to undelete the german logo i posted with this information? 

|Source            = http://www.naturvoelker.de/
|Used for          = 
|Owner             = Freunde der Naturvölker e.V. / :en:Friends of Peoples Close to Nature
|Website           = http://www.naturvoelker.de/  and  http://www.fpcn-global.org/
|History           = 
|Commentary        = 
|Description       = 
|Portion           = 
|Low_resolution    = 
|Purpose           = identfication of an organization
|Replaceability    = 
|other_information =

--Ökologix (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)
@Ökologix: No, Commons only accepts free content. You would have to keep it on the German Wikipedia if it allows such images. Anon126 (✉ ⚒)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GALVANOPROJECT_FONDAZIONE_W.W.W.A.I._world_wide_web_artificial_intelligence_(_Calogero_Galvano_)._RESET.jpg ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GALVANOPROJECT_FONDAZIONE_W.W.W.A.I._world_wide_web_artificial_intelligence_(_Calogero_Galvano_)._RESET.jpg

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana Cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted for the following reason "the nomination: Technical images, photos and schema for a Tijuana airport development plan. No indication that uploader holds copyright to any of these images, probable COM:COPYVIO." I am the copyright holder. I created, produced and own the image from its inception in 1990. It was part of a letter of intent sent by me to Mexicana de Aviacion for the acquisition of a property (Martinez Ranch) for the building of the Tijuana cross-border terminal. My involvement in the creation of the Tijuana cross-border terminal is supported by the Wall Street Journal, San Diego Airport May Cross Border, August 1, 2001 by Joel Millman which featured the project and quoted Mexico's border Czar Ernesto Ruffo who made a specific reference to my project (the Tijuana cross-border terminal) and is linked here ["California Aviation Alliance">"[8].

The Wikipedia Tijuana Cross-border terminal article also contains a large number of references. The image was previously (August, 2014) uploaded INCORRECTLY under fair use. I was made aware of that fact by Stefan2, your records should indicated that I requested that the image I uploaded incorrectly under fair use be deleted. It was then uploaded onto commons (Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg. In both cases (fair use and commons), I stated I was the owner of the image. When it was re-uploaded under commons, I received no objection from Stefan2 and I notified the editor of the page (Keizers) what I had done and asked for his assistance since I had never written an article nor uploaded images to Wikipedia and was not sure of the process. I also contacted Wikipedia copyright media for clarification on other images to try to avoid future mistakes. The Wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border Terminal with the images I uploaded and own, was then nominated for DYK and no objection emerged to the images in the nomination process and was viewed by about 5000. Months later, I noticed that the image in the reference section was highlight in red and I could not access it, so I uploaded the file under a new file name File:Mexicana de Aviacion-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg and a duplicate warning emerged. I tried to get that clarified and have the duplicate file removed, but now neither exists. I am requesting that the original file File:Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana Cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg be undeleted.

Thank you. Rnieders (talk) 04:39, 8 December 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 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EAR-SPLITTING TIMBRE.jpg

File:EAR-SPLITTING TIMBRE.jpg

File:SEE NOTHING, HEAR NOTHING, KNOW NOTHING.jpg

File:Preservation is life - Les sons de ma vie.jpg

File:When Joris Ivens meets Hraesvelgr.jpg


Hi,

I understand that you think there is a possible copyright violation.

But Bryan McCormack Himself gave me this pictures, and you can find on his website www.bryanmccormack.com

Please tell me how I can to prove it.


Best regards

--Polviak (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 08/12/2014[reply]

@Polviak: Mr. McCormack needs to send an e-mail according to the instructions at COM:CONSENT. He must grant permission not just for us, but for everyone to use, including for commercial purposes. If he is not willing to grant that permission, then these images cannot be stored here on Wikimedia Commons. (They may be used in limited cases on Wikipedia.) Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send a permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Then files could be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:File:Erwin Keeve High-Tech-Champions-Award 2014.jpg

The photographer Thomas Mayer gave permission to me to use it in social media and did send already a massage to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating the use this image in public be wikimedia commons.

May be your want to contact me by email keeve@mac.com if there are further requirements necessary.

Thank you in advance

Erwin Keeve

I found OTRS ticket #2014120810004852 and replied to the photographer. He needs to send more explicit permission according to the form letter at COM:CONSENT. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gotten a response. The photographer does not seem to be willing to grant such permission, so the photo cannot be restored here. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Villabé - Conservatoire Yves Henry - 2014-12-06 - IMG 7368.jpg and 7 files more

Hi,

could you please restore the following files:

which have been deleted within a batch request (30 files from category Inauguration du conservatoire de Villabé) but these 8 files should not have been deleted (see discussion here). --Poudou99 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ansel Adams Manzanar - Nursery, orphan infants - LC-DIG-ppprs-00170.jpg and 1 other

Several images I uploaded were deleted recently, and while most of them can't be restored since they're not licensed for commercial use (my bad - didn't read the COM:L carefully enough), I believe these two do fall under PD-USGov since they're from Ansel Adams' Library of Congress collection. I think I used the wrong template my first go round, but a lot of photos from this collection are already on Commons under public domain. (See the "Photographs by Ansel Adams of Manzanar War Relocation Center" category.)

Thanks, MartinaDee (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There may be complexities which I do not understand, but just because the LoC owns an image does not mean that it is free of copyright -- in fact it is likely just the opposite, since a deposit of a copy with the LoC is a prerequisite to copyright registration. As far as I know, Adams was never a Federal employee, so none of his work is covered by PD-USGov. The fact the similar images exist on Commons does not at all speak to the question of whether they are OK for Commons or not. We have more than 24 million images and my best guess is that more than 1% of them -- a quarter of a million images -- should be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "complexities which I do not understand".  Support .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these are not PD-USGov. However, these two photos are from the Ansel Adams's Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar collection at the Library of Congress. In particular, these two images are at DIG-ppprs-00170 and LC-DIG-ppprs-00362. The collection was donated by Adams to the LoC in 1965. The LoC says "There are no known restrictions on Ansel Adams' Manzanar War Relocation Center photographs. Privacy and publicity rights may apply. ... In giving this collection to the Library in the 1960s, Ansel Adams placed no restrictions on its use." [9]. —RP88 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ansel Adams did in fact produce one series of photographs for the U.S. Government and those photographs are indeed public domain as federal works. They are owned by NARA. These are different though; sounds like Adams gave the collection to the Library of Congress in the 1960s. According to the rights page, there are "No known restrictions", as Adams apparently placed no restrictions on the work. So... presumably a form of PD-author in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Preservation_Hall_Jazz_Band.png

Photo was released into use by Commons. Please indicate for me how it was determined otherwise. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This image was published here prior to being uploaded here in June 2014. In such case permission has to be given. Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nicky Whelan.jpg

این عکس کپی رایت ندارد This pic have not copyright. :) Polkash (بحث)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kim Namjoo at a fansigning at Lotte Cinema, 4 December 2014 03.jpg

Please look at the source page of the file (http://demical.tistory.com/131): under the last photo, on the right, there's the Commons license icon. --Chiyako92 (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiyako92: While the information says that the license allows commerical use and modifications, it is not specific enough. There are two broad types of Creative Commons licenses that allow this: Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike. Both require credit, but Attribution-ShareAlike also requires that any changes be released under the same license. Within these broad types there are also different versions (3.0, 2.5, and so on).
If you are the owner of this website, please consider adding a link to the specific license. If you don't care about versions, just choose one of the latest 4.0 licenses (Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the HTML source for page, that CC icon includes an RDF license annotation which links to "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-fr/2.0/kr/". Unfortunately that isn't a valid link, it's probably an attempt to link to "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/kr/". So this is probably {{Cc-by-2.0-kr}}, There is a bit of discussion related to this issue at Commons:사랑방#티스토리에서 올려진 사진들의 CCL 버전에 대한 의문. I recall -revi looking into this a bit at User_talk:-revi/Archive/2014#The_license_version_of_Tistory_Creative_Commons_images. Maybe a native Korean speaker would be of some help here. —RP88 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that URL, too, but I wasn't sure if "fr" was significant. I was not aware that this issue had come up before, so I will defer to those who are more familiar with this. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 02:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting because I was pinged. See User talk:-revi/Archive/2014#LR question part 2's License review question part 2 section by INeverCry. (I'm phone now, so hard to get exact section link.) I asked their sysadmin to link it correctly, but they are apparently lazy. I don't see any problem on undeleting, but I will be generally unavailable this week (exam). Other admins could undelete, imo. — Revi 03:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link added by — Revi (Alt) (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody did so, I undeleted. — Revi 09:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sneha at IIM.jpg

You should have received an email at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from author of the file to release rights. Please check it and restore the file. -- IMDJ2 9:29 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed at OTRS ticket #2014080410012064. The license is CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{Gfdl}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So when the file will be restored? -- IMDJ2 9:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robotik-OP Charite Keeve 13-12-13 red

I do have full permission to use this image in my own name granted from photographer Franz Hafner who is a coworker of mine at Charite and I do submit this image to wikimedia commons to be used in public.

Erwin Keeve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeve (talk • contribs)

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 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Distribución de las corrientes marinas.png

Esta imagen lo saque de un blog del que cualquiera puede usar su contenido como quiera (es libre).-- Ansemolu (Usemos la valiente lógica). 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansemolu: El contenido del blog necesita estar disponible bajo una licencia libre, la que permite las modificaciones y el uso comercial. ¿Cuál es la dirección de ese blog? Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Шурик1.jpg File:Шурик 1.jpg

This file has photo from my library. I did the picture by myself. What kind of license I can provide?

Thank you. Yanna --Yannag (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the actual photographer of the original photograph, then you must put your username or your real name in the "Author" line and "Own work" as the source. If it is an image that you have found in a photo album, belonging to you, as you say, ("личный фотоальбом" = "personal photo album") then we need permission from the actual photographer, see OTRS. In either case, you need to pick a license, see COM:L.
I note on inspection at high magnification that the image has evenly spaced very fine horizontal black lines. They look like television scan lines except that there are far too many of them. How was the image produced?
Film camera, and paper print, scanned?
Digital camera?
Scanned from a book, magazine, or newspaper?
Something else?
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 9 December 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 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rezitskii doska.JPG and 45 files more

Hi, could you please restore the following files:

...for transfer (for a few days) in the Russian Wiki under a restrictive license. Thanks. --IgorEK II (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the uploader (of at least a few of these), why don't you just upload them to WP:RU yourself? Restoring and then deleting them here is a slow process. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CamrenBicondovabyRichClark.jpg

File:CamrenBicondovabyRichClark.jpg has been used on Bicondova's official website, as well as on IMDB. Clearly there is permission with the photo owner for usage, with credit which was provided in the image description. What else is needed? Could the photo be undeleted from page Camren Bicondova? Assistance would be appreciated.

Wikigirl2003 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

© 2013-2014 Camren Bicondova
All images copyrighted. All rights reserved.
If you can get the photographer to provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS, then it can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

(File:I Woulnd't Wish the Eighties On Anyone! Movie Poster.jpg)

Hello,

the above image was deleted because of copyright permissions. I am the sole owner and author of the material. the photo is mine and all additional alterations to the image have ben done by me. Additionally I have performance release forms for both the actors seen in the image. I can send them to you if you need them? --Craigrford (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigrford: We would need an e-mail according to the instructions on this page. Unfortunately, we cannot simply take users' words that they are the creators. Please understand that you would need to provide pemission for commercial use as well; the page I linked explains that. If you are not willing to provide this permission, then:
  • It can only be uploaded to the English Wikipedia (not here on Wikimedia Commons).
  • It must be uploaded at a low resolution.
  • It can only be uploaded after your sandbox draft is accepted.
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see at IMDB that Craig Ford is the Writer and Director of the film, but, unfortunately, we get many imposters/fans here who claim to be people they are not. We cannot know that User:Craigrford is Craig Ford, the Director, so in order to restore the image, policy requires that the Director Craig Ford send a free license from an identifiable address to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 9 December 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 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Die Urheberschaft dieses Bildes liegt bei mir!!!

Hallo, mein Bild wurde gelöscht, weil es angeblich Urheberecht verletzt. Das Bild wurde von mir erstellt und hochgeladen. Die Urheberrechte liegen eindeutig und ausschließlich bei mir. Jeder Anspruch einer anderen Person auf die Urheberrechte dieses Bildes wird per Anwalt verfolgt.Tattva Viveka (talk) 18:36, 9 December 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 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:XI Juegos Bolivarianos.jpg

File:XI Juegos Bolivarianos.jpg

Es un articulo de el universal y fue asi senalado

(Alyzu (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done Que sea un artículo del "El universal" no implica que sea libre. Los derechos de autor siempre son del autor y si este no indica de forma clara una licencia libre no es permisible en Commons. Ver pie de página: El Universal - Todos los derechos reservados 2014 . --Alan (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacob Noel-Storr.jpg

How do I properly explain I have permission from the owner of the image to post it here? The image is uploaded on Flickr with a seemingly appropriate license, and it was linked when I was making the image... what am I doing wrong here?? The flickr page is at https://www.flickr.com/photos/43574358@N00/15361123493/ -Kruchone (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is the same person who is in the picture. Is that right? In that case, we need a letter from the copyright owner confirming that he owns the license and is willing to release it under a free license. See COM:OTRS --Sreejith K (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs permission sent to COM:OTRS by the copyright holder in order to be restored -FASTILY 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Walther Benser, Buchtitel "Mein Leben mit der Leica" 1990 to undelete.jpg

Hallo,

ich konnte mich kaum umdrehen, da war die Datei "File:Walther Benser, Buchtitel "Mein Leben mit der Leica" 1990.jpg" schon gelöscht. Die Begründung: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing.

Schön und Gut, kann ich verstehen, da es um das Copyright eines Buch-Titels geht.

War soeben dabei eine Zusammenfassung Begründung zu erstellen, wie folgend: "Copyrighted book cover: copyright © 1990 Walther Benser and with this to his heirs, copyright violation is not mind. It should be {{PD-heirs}} "

Buchtitels Foto Abbildung Walther Benser, Umschlaggestaltung Miriam Lambert (meine Schwester), Author des Buches Walther Benser copyright © 1990 Walther Benser und Lindemanns Verlag, welchen es in der Form von 1990 nicht mehr gibt.

Ergo dachte ich PD-heirs und Cc-by-sa-3.0-de wären korrekt. Dazu kam es nicht mehr.

Aber vielleicht liege ich hier als Greenhorn vollkommen falsch und bin immer gerne Lernbereit um weiterhin mit Freude Wiki Commons zu unterstützen.

Über eine Wiederherstellung würde ich mich sehr freuen.

Mit allerbesten Grüßen Jula2812 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done non-free content is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Epesi Dashboard.png

Other files deleted by Michael Barera

I received the following notification:

File:Epesi Dashboard.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

I am the CEO of Telaxus LLC, intelectual property owner of epesi CRM and framework. The screenshot published was done by me or one of my coworkers.

Looks like Michael Barera has nothing to do?

Here are links to validate: http://epe.si/ http://epe.si/credits

--Jtylek (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stirling Colgate Portrait at blackboard.png

I was a close friend of Stirling's. I got this picture from him. My understanding was that I was free to use it or make it public domain, but there is no written documentation of this and Stirling is deceased. If you undelete the picture temporarily, I can probably get an e-mail from one of Stirling's heirs. Temporary undeletion would make that easier.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stirling in conversation.png

This is one of two pictures for which I am requesting temporary undeletion so that I can get written permission from the heirs of the deceased. Stirling Colgate was a friend and personally gave me this picture, but with no written documentation. His legacy is diminished by the dearth of public domain images of him (except for some truly awful ones ...)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:אברהם הפנר.jpg

The file uploaded by User:Hativa1 in October 2009. User:Fastily deleted it after User:Dman41689 added no permission tag. I believe that the only reason that this file nomination was this site which uploaded the file to there site in 09.2014. I checked this file because the user uploded it to he.wiki and nominated there from the same reson but the user keep claimed that the file in the other site taken from Commons. I don't see reason to reject his claim (the file with EXIF from 2009). -- Geagea (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I do understand why this file is deleted and on first sight this looks suspicous but the nom should not have used the no permission tagg. Taking Gagea's explenation into account makes me belelieve that this file okay. We really should not use the no permission tagg for old uploads. Natuur12 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Otto Sohn-Rethel.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam, I hereby affirm that I, Julia Lambert, represent Otto Sohn-Rethel, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Otto Sohn-Rethel.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Great-grandniece, Copyright holder and Appointed representative of Otto Sohn-Rethel.

Permission is requested Ticket:2014121110006915

With kind regards Jula2812 (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fanta, Ouagadougou, Burkina Fasso 2014.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission recieved cf: Template:OTRS ticket Linedwell (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Linedwell: This permission is invalid. The ticket don't include a license. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Steinsplitter - invalid ticket -FASTILY 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mixed Berry Chewy Spree.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was taken with a camera and I stated that I was the copyright holder of the image. It was not copyright violation. Cletus28 (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Franco2014.jpg

This image is of my personal work. Why is it removed?

  • Because of the very small size (425x313 pixels), we doubt that it is you own work. If it actually is your own work, then please first explain why it belongs on Commons -- "FRANCO 2014" does not tell us why these people are notable -- and then upload it at full camera resolution using the same file name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS(and probably out of COM:SCOPE --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Equipo 2014.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: La imagen fue sacada de un periódico local (fue escaneda por mi) y fueron bien colocados los datos del peródico en cuestión, junto con el nombre del fotografo JoseIGColon (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose That fact that you own a copy of a newspaper does not give you any right to license it any more than you can make copies of a copyrighted book and sell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)

 Not done per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Doña Manuela Funes de Cullen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the copyright data in this image are specified correctly: the name of the newspaper where he was taken and the name of the photographer. I do not understand what the problem JoseIGColon (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done please read COM:L --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Primer Ascenso De Colón. 1965.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this image was scanned by me from a magazine in my collection. The data in this magazine are well placed. I do not understand where the error is JoseIGColon (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mayor Movilización De Hinchas del Interior.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the copyright data were well placed (author of the photo and web from which it was taken). It was not copyright violation JoseIGColon (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg

Dear Wikipedia,

I own with the artist the right to these images we uploaded. We are the creators of this work.

--Reynolds.levaron (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reynold D. Levaron December 11, 2014[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pardis Parker - Comedy for a Cause.jpg

Received explicit permission from photographer.

--Rajoclock (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion requests of old files/maps by User:Kirk

Please undelete:

I shall take care of inserting the correct licenses, which should be {{PD-old-70-1923}} in most cases. Copyright notices of the original file hosters are irrelevant in case of public domain material (copyfraud), watermarks will be removed. Thank you.--Ratzer (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the old maps. Other files are color pictures, so {{PD-old-70-1923}} does not apply. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Yann. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anna Seidel.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I represent 24passion GbRT — company, which operates management of Anna Seidel and owe the image of Anna Seidel. Please, restore the following image due to no violation takes place in this case. Dimafinic (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done please email our OTRS team to get the file restored. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:100violons2015.jpg

My company A.A. Organisation is producing in France, Luxembourg and Belgium the Budapest Gypsy Symphony Orchestre (aka 100 Violons Tziganes) We have all rights on this artwork, created by our grafts, and pictures from a professional photographer working with the orchestra.

 Not done please email our OTRS team to get the file restored. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isa Genzken Galerie Buchholz Berlin.jpg

This photo was taken by the gallery and we own the copyrights.

 Not done please email our OTRS team to get the file restored. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erika Seywald, Landschaft, Oelfarbe Graphit auf Transparentpapier, 2011.jpg

Erika Seywald, Landschaft, Ölfarbe Grafit auf Transparentpapier, 2011

 Not done bitte Freigabe an COM:OTRS senden. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erika Seywald, Erwartung, Oel auf Leinwand, 2006.jpg

Erika Seywald, Erwartung, Öl auf Leinwand, 2006

 Not done bitte Freigabe an COM:OTRS senden. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erika Seywald, Garten der Erinnerung, Oel auf Leinwand, 2012.jpg

Erika Seywald, Garten der Erinnerung, Öl auf Leinwand, 2012

 Not done bitte Freigabe an COM:OTRS senden. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Pharaoh Pro Wrestler.jpeg

File:The Pharaoh Pro Wrestler.jpeg and File:The Pharaoh Pro Wrestler.jpeg

For File:ThePharaoh.jpg.jpeg This file was uploaded from Riccabrothers and was deleted. They gave me permission to use the file as well as other files to use. The information for deletion was not accurate at all. It's uploaded again from me under the above mentioned File:The Pharaoh Pro Wrestler.jpeg. The source of the photo was taken at a practice session. The wrestlers and others had their own camera's at that time. The photo was taken for The Pharaoh from his own camera.

Please Undelete and remove current requests for deletion. If additional information is needed please let me know. If you need an email regarding the copyright, what needs to be written in it so this can be resolved. Thank you Georgivac (talk) 18:28, 12 December 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 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vila Bancária.png

Ora, se a imagem pode ser vista por todo o público na internet, porque não pode ser vista como ficheiro na pagina do bairro Vila Bancária.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FABIANO LUCIANO BASSETTI (talk • contribs)

 Oppose google screenshot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hiuolfg.png

File:Hiuolfg.png is an official logo of Azad Jammu Kashmir Medical College. You can check this logo at official site www.ajkmc.edu.pk . Info Box of every educational university contains its official logo at top. I have just placed official logo of Azad Jammu Kashmir Medical College at its info box. So this is not a copyright violation. This file should not be deleted.

 Not done please read COM:L. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aswaq magazines.jpg

According to the corresponding image page on en.wikipedia, permission for these covers is now available as OTRS ticket:2013120710002974. Thank you for your time. —Mr. Granger (talk  · contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((support San Diego Airport May Cross Border]". Error: journal= not stated. The cited OTRS ticket is from the publisher of the magazine and covers both the image itself and the copyright on the two covers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Copie d'écran de la page d'accueil de Banc De Binary, août 2013.png [edit]

According to the corresponding image page on en.wikipedia and this en.wikipedia discussion, permission for this file is now available as OTRS ticket:2013081110001911. Thank you. —Mr. Granger (talk  · contribs) 22:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, ping for -revi -FASTILY 08:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. — Revi 08:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belfast Olympic Handball Club logo.png [edit]

According to the corresponding image page on Wikipedia, permission for this file is now available as OTRS ticket:2014102210010331. Thank you. —Mr. Granger (talk  · contribs) 15:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cunninghams laws.jpg.png[edit]

Image sourced from XKCD which is creative commons plus someone on Reddit whom I asked and was granted explicit permission to use Deku-shrub (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://xkcd.com/ is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 license. Please read Commons:Licensing again (at least the box at the top). Your homework is to answer the question: Does Wikimedia Commons accept media published under licenses restricted to non-commercial uses? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eudontomyzon danfordi. Romania, River Iza.jpg [edit]

In fishbase is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License. - Danvasilis (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Danvasilis: CC licenses with "NC" (NonCommercial) or "ND" (NoDerivs) licenses are not allowed here. All content hosted on this site must allow commercial use and modifications. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ten letters to obama by dennis adonis cover.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was appropriately obtained to use the image freely, and on Wikimedia commons. Consultation with the uploader should have been made before deletion.

Process was arbitrarily effected. Webwatchergy (talk) 02:11, 15 December 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 05:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:THIERRY.jpg [edit]

dear sir, i humbly submit this letter for your consideration in other to tell you to not delete my file name "THIERRY.jpg", because that picture include me and my good partner in my daily life. additionally she feels well when we are together whenever i go, even on facebook we are together. she thinks when we do like that, everybody will know that we are one and that none can separate us. so i believe in her and she believes in me.

my information is true.

MBARAGA THIERRY AND MY FRIEND NYIRABATEMBEREZI CLAUDETTE.--Mbaraga thierry (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File is not deleted,  Not done. — Revi 11:14, 15 December 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 Carlosdnobrega[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014032610011989). --Mdann52talk to me! 11:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some files are deleted because out of scope. Restoring? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - the uploader is clearly trying to promote himself, however there is an article about him at es-wiki: Carlos Nóbrega. Some of the photographs where actually in use before they where deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: File:Carlos_Nóbrega.jpg has muntiple uploads, can you look into it? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: the old revisions are duplicated by the other uploads - the old revisions can probably been deleted if needed. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MeirGoldberg.jpg[edit]

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014120110012525). Hanay (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done sure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1-day-old newt egg.jpg[edit]

Hi, I request the following files to be undeleted :

Reason: I am the one and only owner of the pictures. I also posted them on http://www.lesdragonsdasgard.com/t44503-developpement-neurergus-kaiseri-cdc and I have just sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to allow the free use of these pictures.

Fenchurch38 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2012 Seal.png[edit]

I work in the Hamilton College publications office and uploaded the updated version of our College seal to replace the outdated version. We do own the rights to this image; should I choose a different license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esenajj (talk • contribs)

Please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:39, 15 December 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 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images from Bobby Rizzo[edit]

THESE PICTURES ARE ALL MINE, BOBBY RIZZO, PLEASE UNDELETE THEM AND PUT THEM BACK UP, I DO NOT KNOW WHY THEY WERE DELETED IN THE FIRST PLACE.


BOBBY RIZZO 15 DEC 2014

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Rizzo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BurnsideBums!, both their copyright status and their usefulness on Commons is questionable. They are small images -- one so small as to be useless and all smaller than we like to see. If you are actually the photographer of all of them, why didn't you upload much larger ones at camera resolution?
There is also the question of whether they fall inside of Commons:Scope. Unless the gang can be shown to be notable for some reason, they are probably not useful for an educational purpose, which is a requirement for keeping them here.
Finally, there is the fact that User:Bobby Rizzo is a sockpuppet of User:BurnsideBums!. Using multiple accounts to discuss the same images on Commons is a serious violation of our rules, even in cases like this where you make it obvious by using one name to upload images and then the second name to claim them as yours. (Note to all -- I have run a CU and confirmed this). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is that these should remain deleted, then we should tag the last four images at Special:ListFiles/Bobby Rizzo for deletion as they are similar. I would keep File:Burnside button.jpg . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable scope, and uploaded by a sock puppet. User doesn't seem to be here to help the project -FASTILY 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AlexSarcoph Alexander A fullsize.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These photographs had been taken by me. I am the owner of all equivalent rights. I do not understand why you are deleting these files! Stiftung Archaeologie (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are copies of images available on the Internet. If you are the author, please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 16 December 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 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:cheongye_kwan_logo.jpg [edit]

The Cheongye Kwan logo has a Fair Use licence and I have an emailed authorisation to upload it to Wiki.

 Not done fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GoodbyePromise.jpg[edit]

File:GoodbyePromise.jpg

Hello - if there's any confusion with the title of the jpg in question (or I've incorrectly written the exact name) it's for the theatrical poster for the recently added article Goodbye Promise. It was deleted a few days ago despite the article itself being approved. David Branin and Gregor Collins (which is me, in the flesh) created, made, and own this film, with our own funds generated by us, which was completed in 2012. The poster has been on the internet, in public domain since 2012 (see Facebook page, Twitter page, etc), and therefore because of its independent nature (separate from any formal film studio) the image is completely welcomed for display, including Wikipedia. The project will be represented most truthfully if it appears with the already approved film article. Thank you for considering further.

(Gregorcollins (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luke Evans photo.jpg[edit]

Esta imagen es de dominio público.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kevin_Cope.jpg[edit]

We own the rights to this photo and it is open for anyone to use. It was deleted without good reason. --Rmc883 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 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 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RedOne.jpg [edit]

Hello, I'll tweet to RedOne for approval. If he approves, I hope you do the same. Thanks! Regards,

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SHOOTERBookI_CoverArt.jpg [edit]

I have received permission from the illustrator and author himself to use the photo on this site the way I had presented it. There is no copyright infringement due to my usage of the photo. I am not claiming the photo to be my own but rather owned by the author and illustrator himself. I am simply using the photo for biographical reasons and nothing more. No bias was stated in the information about the photo and I myself simply stated that the photo was the Cover Art of the author's novel SHOOTER Book I: The Heart of Defense Breeds the Freedom of Offense. In the article that has been under review about Amir Royale, there is a link to the actual book. --User:StageSceneMag 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fimatic talk image.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello! I'm wondering why the file was deleted; it was just an image to put at the top of some of my userpages across WMF wikis. The file was my work, so I'm wondering why it was tagged - what was the problem with it? Fimatic (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I have an idea of what may have been wrong; I used a font that was marked as free for personal use. I'll go remake it with another font that's 100% free, this request can be ignored :) Fimatic (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -FASTILY 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SHOOTER_Photoshoot.jpg [edit]

I have received permission from the photographer Liam LaGuerre and author Amir Royale himself to use the photo on this site the way I had presented it. There is no copyright infringement due to my usage of the photo. I am not claiming the photo to be my own but rather owned by the author and the photographer as well. I am simply using the photo for biographical reasons and nothing more. No bias was stated in the information about the photo and I myself simply stated that the photo was from a photoshoot for the author's novel SHOOTER Book I: The Heart of Defense Breeds the Freedom of Offense. -- User: StageSceneMag 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crovvncorduroy_Thorns.jpg [edit]

I have received permission from the photographer Amir Royale himself to use the photo on this site the way I had presented it. There is no copyright infringement due to my usage of the photo. I am not claiming the photo to be my own but rather owned by the photographer himself. I am simply using the photo for biographical reasons and nothing more. No bias was stated in the information about the photo and I myself simply stated that the photo was from the photographers blog and that it was entitled "Thorns". In the actual article about Amir Royale, I referenced a link to his blog where the photo can be found. --User: StageSceneMag 19:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Junior in a friendly match against Chelsea FC.jpg[edit]

the picture was given to us, a family when Junior was playing friendly against Chelsea FC in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2013. We would appreciate if we could use this pic to his enwiki. Thank you Deliciouspye (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)deliciouspyeDeliciouspye (talk) 08:22, 17 December 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 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Digitally modified image of a bobcat.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Jim deleted the image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobcat (5414278106).jpg, over the objection of myself after I gave a very clear scope for the image. Discussion at User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Bobcat_.285414278106.29.jpg is going absolutely nowhere, and is only showing me that Jim has a grave misunderstanding of what the admin role in DRs is.

The file is clearly in scope of Wikimedia Commons, and should undeleted. I'm not going to rehash the scope argument here, it's already written in two places. For info, this is the image in question. russavia (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore. (if the background image is also free Confirmed below) I agree with Jim that DRs are not just votes; closing admin need not compelled to follow consensus. (Controversial subjects attracts a lot of participation and many votes in them are just for pushing their POV.)
But, I disagree with the OP's rational (fake photograph, may be misleading) in that DR. WE have templates like {{Retouched}} to mention every modification from the original work. COM:IG states "Extensive manipulations must be clearly described in the image text, for example by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Unmentioned or misrepresented manipulations, or manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable." (That guideline is intended only for quality images; but applicable for any casual review to check whether a work is in COM:SCOPE.) So, if all modifications (flipping, masking, etc.) are properly mentioned on the file page using proper templates, I think the modified work is also in scope and useful in articles like Image editing and Photo manipulation. Jee 03:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) The background image also must be "own work" or has a compatible free license. Better we see a link of it.) Jee 04:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: https://www.flickr.com/photos/snowpeak/5414278106/in/photostream/ Revent (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: It is the modified picture. He didn't mentioned there that the background picture used is also his work. We can assume so; but better clarifying it. Jee 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: Valid point, and I misunderstood what you were asking for. The foreground is definitely his, but the background might be copyrighted. Searching google for the "xmp.did" of the background image (taken from the EXIF data) didn't give any hits, though. I think the question of the copyright on the background image is a better question than what was raised at the DR. Revent (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John has confirmed that the image used in the background is also one of his photos, so that part is now moot. russavia (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Russavia and Jkadavoor's points are valid. While I'm not going to get into the argument at his talk, this is legitimately useful as an example of an 'in progress' photoshopping attempt, and skimming Category:Photoshopped images I don't seem any other examples of images the show the 'defects' that the contributor acknowledges. As long as it is clearly explained that is a photomontage (which is obvious) I think it should be restored under Russavia's changed filename. Revent (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree with Jim here. I don't see how this could be useful. And I am an inclusionist. ;oD Regards, Yann (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - I'm with Jim on this one. No need to keep files this bad when there are better alternatives. Natuur12 (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Natuur12 please show me a better alternative that will demonstrate that when photoshopping images, one needs to add shadows, etc and where the subject appears to be floating just off the ground as a result. russavia (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose On the basic question, I think policy is clear. Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use clearly states that we do not keep bad images to illustrate "bad images". We all know that we have far too many of those as it is.
On the more fundamental accusation, that I closed this DR against consensus, Russavia has not explained why it is wrong for me to close a tie vote (the nom vs Russavia) as a delete. For some reason he thinks I should have either recused myself from the DR because I had an opinion or closed it against my own opinion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment from my talk page bears on this discussion:
"For what it's worth, I agree that the image in question is out of scope... Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use does not say that we need to delete bad images. It says that we don't need to keep all bad images; therein lies the difference. Floating subjects is a common mistake in photoshopping, and is sometimes notable (unfortunately those are not available under a free licence). I can't find any examples on Commons of "floating" photoshops; except for this one. Hence, it would have educational scope for someone wanting to write a how-to guide for photoshop. I did note in the DR that under normal circumstances that I would delete such images, but in this case I can see clear scope for the image. russavia (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disappointed to see calling this image a "bad image" which is a bit disrespectful to the author. We can state the issues like "masking artifacts" are clearly visible, subject is not blend with the environment, the posture is very unnatural and scientifically impossible as the paws must be partially under snow due to cat's weight. But calling someone's work a "bad work", "poor/terrible quality" is not much fair. The main "issue" I see is the lack of snow on it's body as here. But anyway we are not going to use this image to describe the subject in natural habitat. :) Jee 02:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per above. Jim is not the one with a grave misunderstanding. Эlcobbola talk 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I remain unconvinced that this image is in scope. I reviewed the articles cited by Jkadavoor. I think an image illustrating a specific problem or aspect encountered in compositing images may have an educational purpose. I think this one is not, because it is not simply a matter of adding shadows. Rather it is a list of issues, as Jkadavoor notes above, that make it a poor illustration of any of those issues. Moreover the problem that the cat standing on a flat surface is composited with a sloping snow surface is unfixable. Jkadavoor's point that it is possible to be pleasant when discussing the work of others is a good one. I thank him/her. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. There doesn't appear to be any consensus to restore at this time -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joko Widodo official.jpg[edit]

Hi, the Government of Indonesia has recently issued a new Copyright Law No. 28 of 2014 (replacing the Copyright Law No. 19 of 2002) in which it specifically addresses this matter. Article 43 item e states that "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: (e) duplication, announcement, and/or distribution of the portraits of president, vice president, former presidents, former vice presidents, national heroes, leaders of state agencies, leaders of ministries/non-ministerial government agencies, and/or heads of regions with respect to dignity and fairness in accordance with the applicable laws."

Considering that, I would request to restore this official portrait of President Joko Widodo.

Thank you. -iNu- (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support —If this copyright law is effective now.--Y.haruo (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think so. "with respect to dignity and fairness" tells me that parody is not permitted and we require that images be free for all uses, including derivative works, which includes making fun of elected officials. You can't parody someone and respect their dignity while doing it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Partly as a matter of procedure: this is not really the appropriate forum for analysis of changes to Indonesian law related to certain (presumably governmental) works. Further, I share Jim's concern above and note that "duplication, announcement, and/or distribution" does not include "alteration," (i.e., creation of derivatives, parody or otherwise) which is something that must be explicitly allowed per COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim and elcobbola -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pablo Peón.png [edit]

Imagen capturada por mi, de mi propiedad. Dario.soloTC2000 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ADN Nuudle.jpg[edit]

Tengo derechos sobre la marca, ya que la compré y soy el distribuidor único y oficial en Ecuador. Y Magic Nuudles® me permitió hacer uso de todos sus recursos que le pertenezcan, así que por favor dejen de borrar mis imágenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic Nuudles Ecuador (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Image appears here and elsewhere with no free license. Trademarks ("derechos sobre la marca") are not the same as copyrights and, even if you are authorized to license the former, you must provide evidence of the same using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done what elcobbola said -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colt 1880.jpg[edit]

I think "Deletion of content added by Kaido il re degli Animali" is not a reason fore deleting.--Sanandros (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As an admin, Sanandros, I expect you can see the deleted file was sourced to this page which has no free license (to the contrary: "Copyright 1996 - 2014 © iCollector Technologies Inc."). It used a bogus {{PD-Italia}} license; regardless of when the pistol was made, the photograph thereof is clearly contemporary. Unambiguous copyvio. Эlcobbola talk 19:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agreed. It is disappointing, Sanandros, to have an Admin request undeletion of an image that is so completely obviously a copyright violation. That's particularly true because this is an upload of a blocked sockpuppet and any such upload must be suspect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sry I mixed it with this one and just checked text and not the file, any way the correct reason for deleting should be "Copyright viloation from http://www.icollector.com/The-Finest-Known-Documented-1880-Production-Colt-Cavalry-Model-Single-Action-Revolver_i12220297 " --Sanandros (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hot for Food images[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014112710002767) for these images under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{Gfdl}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Interstellar_film_-_Endurance_spacecraft.jpg[edit]

سفینه فضایی استفاده شده در فیلم interstellar

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DuTreat Series Rooftop big.jpg[edit]

The picture was added to depict a technology that is very pertinent to the topic of the article itself. By the Fair Use doctrine, adding this picture does not interfere with the owner's rights or impede their right to do with the work as they wish. I have also received permission from the marketing director Susanne Sanchez of Advantix Systems to use this picture.

The email I received is here as well as her contact information: http://imgur.com/ejGGf5d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchanhee (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. The fair use doctrine depends on context and therefore does not permit hosting of content as part of a general-purpose media repository such as Commons. That's stated very clearly at the top of Commons:Fair use. The permission you quote is not based on our standard consent declaration and does not meet our licensing requirements at all. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose "You have permission from the Advantix Systems Marketing Department to republish this photo" is far short of Commons requirements. It gives you no rights at all to license the image for any purpose, let alone commercial use. Also, it is entirely probable that the sender does not have authority to license IP -- in most corporations that is reserved for corporate officers (President, Vice President, etc.) and a "Director of Marketing" is rarely an officer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 02:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wenheadtoo2.png[edit]

Original License Request was in error; intended release to public domain approved by creator:

"All the globe/headphone based Making Waves images are my designs :-) and you are of course most welcome to use them.

ATB Steve T ---

Steve Thomas
Making Waves Audio Ltd.
T - +44 (0) 1264 810108"

Katharsistoo (talk) ... Katharsistoo (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Steve Thomas Making Waves Audio Ltd. T - +44 (0) 1264 810108[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Racing Club de France 92 Mondial Pupilles 1999.jpg[edit]

I tink i made a mistake in creative commons, this photo is a free content and we can publish the file. It's not a photo with a licence. It's been taken by a friend and a member of Racing Club de France 92 (Colombes). and we can find it on Facebook on this group Racing Club de France Football 92 (Anciens joueurs): https://www.facebook.com/groups/104078030075/ --Benzinho92 (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my English but I think I have not explained it very well just before. I made a mistake in creative commons, I'm a member of Racing Club de France 92 too! this photo is a free content taken by a friend. It's not a photo with a licence and we happy to share it! We can find it on Facebook on this group "Racing Club de France Football 92 (Anciens joueurs)"(it's a group about all person who played football for this club) and I'm a member of this group too. And We proud to share this photo to prove that Raïs M'bohli has starded playing football for Racing Club de France Football 92. So you can restore this photo.

Best Regards --Benzinho92 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is just fine -- far better than my French. Your explanation was OK, but I think that I was not clear enough.
As I said above, every photo has a copyright. That is automatic and happens at the instant you take the picture. There is no such thing as a "free photo" unless and until the photographer declares it so in writing. The image has appeared on Facebook and also you are not the photographer. Therefore, in order to restore it here, Commons policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license to the copyright using the method described at OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is understaffed, so they have a backlog of several weeks. It may be as much as a month after the photographer sends the license before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lichtskulptur Gelmeroda-LS 01-06-wikipedia.jpeg [edit]

Hi, we have a permission via ticket:2014121110012721 so this file can be undeleted. --Emha (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The license seems to be CC BY-SA 3.0 DE ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - ping for Anon126 -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zoetryonrainforest.jpeg[edit]

Hi this image is owned by me and is of me and I would to put it up on my page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunkinua (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The image was uploaded by User:Emc25 as his or her own work, is said to be of a person named Zoe Tryon, but you say that it is of you and owned by you. Would you please sort out the players here? It is obviously not a selfie, so it is unlikely that you can be both the subject and the copyright owner.
If you are also Emc25, then the User:Tsunkinua account is a sockpuppet, which is a serious violation of Commons rules (I can't check because Emc25's last edit was more than 90 days ago).
Also, of course, the image has not been deleted and has no tag on it indicating a problem, so that, strictly speaking, this is not the place for disucssion. However, without a satisfactory answer to the question above, it will be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - file has not been deleted as of now -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Goldtattoos.jpg [edit]

I would like to request this file for undertook as I was given permission from a member of this band to use this picture on Wikipedia.--MCRTheUsedFan (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) 12/19/2014[reply]

  •  Oppose This fails on two counts. First "a member of the band" is not sufficient authority -- bands, like all organizations, have hierarchies and we can accept a license only from an authorized official of the organization which owns the copyright. Second, "to use this picture on Wikipedia" is nowhere near sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use by anybody, including commercial use and derivative works. Both of these can be solved by an authorized member of the organization that owns the copyright sending a free license, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nalstoxic.png [edit]

This image is free for anyone to use it, for I am myself the author of the image. File:Nalstoxic.png I do not see why delete it, I would ask earnestly to retrieve the image. Psy24horas (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit comments, the image appears at http://f1.bcbits.com/img/0003323642_10.jpg. Policy therefore requires that the photographer send a free license to OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and understaffed and it may be several weeks before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Racing Club de France 92 Mondial Pupilles 1999.jpg[edit]

Sorry for my English but I think I have not explained it very well just before. I made a mistake in creative commons, I'm a member of Racing Club de France 92 too! this photo is a free content taken by a friend. It's not a photo with a licence and we happy to share it! We can find it on Facebook on this group "Racing Club de France Football 92 (Anciens joueurs)"(it's a group about all person who played football for this club) and I'm a member of this group too. And We proud to share this photo to prove that Raïs M'bohli has starded playing football for Racing Club de France Football 92. So you can restore this photo. Best Regards --Benzinho92 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Levante UD files[edit]

Please, restore: File:Juan Ignacio Martínez - presentació 2.jpg, File:Juan Ignacio Martínez - presentació.jpg, File:Quico Catalán - Presentació JIM.jpg and File:Quico Catalán (tallada).jpg, which are all a derivative work of this file, which was originally released under CC.--Coentor (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Coentor: Restauradas y marcadas con revisión de licencia. Alan (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bill-J-Bonnstetter.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014112710005531). --Mdann52talk to me! 21:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Please, close otrs ticket and categorize image. Alan (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARPS.png [edit]

Hello,

I request you to undelete the above files mentioned in the subject/headline. These images come from an open source document:

Barjatya, Aroh. "Block matching algorithms for motion estimation." IEEE Transactions Evolution Computation 8.3 (2004): 225-239.

obtained from a link : http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8761-block-matching-algorithms-for-motion-estimation

with the following license:

Copyright (c) 2005, Aroh Barjatya All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 

   * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
   * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
     the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

I believe this implies that the source is not copyrighted. So please restore my files.

Thanks, Pragya Agrawal agpragya@umich.edu

 Support — The Zip file uploaded to Mathworks at Block Matching Algorithms for Motion Estimation does indeed contain a PDF by the Mathworks uploader (Aroh Barjatya) along with code and a license file indicting that the contents are covered by the {{MIT}} license. I am inclined to believe that these images on Commons are acceptable, so long as: (a) these images were indeed extracted from that PDF (which I can't verify myself), (b) the authorship is correctly attributed to Aroh Barjatya, and (c) the files are tagged with the {{MIT}} license tag. —RP88 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The document is by no means "open source" and "not copyrighted" as asserted above. It is very explicitly "Copyright (c) 2005, Aroh Barjatya All rights reserved."
The license given above, which is not a standard license, requires that all uses include the text shown above. That is impractical for web use and impossible for print use. In fact, the uploads here on Commons did not include it, so they were clearly in violation of the license. That could be fixed here but does not change the fact that requiring the inclusion of two large blocks of text in the caption of a simple illustration makes these works unusable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a standard license, that is the exact text of the two-clause {{BSD}} license, which Commons does indeed accept as a valid license for Commons. The BSD license does indeed start with "Copyright (c) .. All rights reserved" before specifying the terms. I accidentally thought it was the {{MIT}} license, which is very similar. It is no more burdensome than the {{GFDL-1.2}} license, which also requires that a complete copy of the license be included with any reuse. —RP88 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jim. If this is meant to be a BSD license: 1) BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) applies to software, not necessarily to images in a PDF file that happens to be in a .zip file with software and 2) that there exists a {{BSD}} template does not necessarily mean it is "accept[ed] as a valid license for Commons." On the Commons (or any Wikimedia project to which anyone may contribute), anyone can create a template; bogus/incorrect license templates are not uncommon, and are not always promptly detected. The reservation of all rights, for example, is contrary to freeness and why would we accept licenses that are silent on commercial usage and derivatives? Frankly, it seems we should be putting {{BSD}} through a DR instead of invoking it to restore files. Эlcobbola talk 22:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have thousands of BSD-licensed images going back to 2005 and it has been on Commons:Copyright tags since 2005 as well; I think it is safe to say that Commons does not object to this license. With regards to the "All rights reserved" I think you have a misunderstanding regarding the significance of this statement. It has its origin as the equivalent of the "©" symbol for signatories to the Buenos Aires Convention, which required copyright notices to have a statement of reservation of rights (the treaty didn't recognize © or the word "copyright" as a valid notice). Before these countries joined either the UCC treaty (which permits ©) or the Berne treaty (which doesn't require any notice), copyrighted works, even copyrighted works with a free content license, had to contain such a statement to be eligible for copyright protection. Because at the time the US required the copyright symbol (or word), authors who wanted protection in both the U.S. and the Buenos Aires Convention countries had to include both © and that phrase. —RP88 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've seen thousands of images of models, images from the CAP, images claiming MN-Gov, images promoted as featured images, etc., some from 2005 as well, deleted because no one paid attention until recently. Why is an OTHERSTUFF argument supposed to be persuasive? Does BSD speak to derivatives and commercial works or does it not? All rights reserved means all rights reserved. Эlcobbola talk 23:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the significance of the phrase, it is not a restriction of rights, it is a reservation of rights which is then followed by a license. The BSD license is one of the oldest of the free licenses and lawyers at both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative have vetted the two-clause BSD license and consider it to be a free content license that permits both derivatives and commercial use. —RP88 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Эlcobbola talk 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [10] and [11]. —RP88 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a repeat of the above text, with no comment about commercial use or derivatives. The second explicitly says "non-copyleft" (see copyleft) and, again, provides no comment about commercial use or derivatives. Where is a source that this has been "vetted" to allow commercial use and derivatives? Эlcobbola talk 23:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD it says that {{BSD}} is compatible with {{GPL}}. As far as I know, no unfree licence is compatible with {{GPL}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The linked OSI page has a big "Approved License" logo on it. All such approved licenses go through the OSI approval process to insure compliance with their Open Source Definition (which requires that licenses must allow modifications, derived works, and can't discriminate against any fields of endeavor (such as commercial uses)). You can find a list of the approved OSI licenses here. The linked FSF page says the BSD two-clause license is a "non-copyleft free software license". The top of that section of the page says the licenses in that list qualify as free software licenses, are compatible with the GNU GPL, and are in compliance with their Free Software Definition (which requires that licenses allow modification and "must be available for commercial use"). —RP88 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would being non-copyleft (explicitly or otherwise) be a problem? I don't see how that's relevant at all. We accept non-copyleft licenses, Creative Commons Attribution without the Share-Alike clause being the most prominent example. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification" = modification allowed. 2. Commercial use. In fact no CC deeds (other than NC) explicitly mention commercial use. Only deed (which has no legal value) talks about it. 3. As LX mentioned below, non copylefts are acceptable here. They are more free for reuse. 4. "All rights reserved" is just an explanation of ©. Public licenses are applicable if rights reserved/owned by the holder. Jee 08:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think that User:RP88 is probably correct with respect to "All Rights Reserved" -- that it merely points out that the copyright holder reserves all rights just as does (C) -- I still think that the license is so impractical for any real use of an image that we should not accept it, notwithstanding its previous use here. Again I point out that our uploader did not fulfill its terms with the uploads here.
Finally, I think our uploader, User:Agpragya should understand that in order to legally put these images back on WP:EN (from which they were deleted at Block-matching algorithm , he must put the full license (the five paragraphs above) in the caption of each image. The usual attribution by link does not fulfill the terms of the license. Such a caption is not only unwieldy, but violates the rules at WP:EN, so even restoration here will not allow their use on WP:EN. He might be able to solve that by uploading them on WP:EN as fair use, but taking nine images from the same source may not be possible under fair use there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The license reproduction clause doesn't require the license to be in the caption, it only requires the license be reproduced in "the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution". A complete copy of the license on the image description page should satisfy this requirement (which is presumably why the {{BSD}} template displays a complete verbatim copy of the BSD license). I am, however, very sympathetic to the idea that licenses that include license reproduction clauses are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of Commons. To be clear though, the {{GFDL-1.2}} license also has a nearly identical license reproduction clause and is, in all ways, even more onerous than the {{BSD}} license. Indeed, that clause in GFDL-1.2 was one of the two reasons the WMF pursued the licensing update of 2009. However, even that resolution permitted contributors of images licensed under the GFDL-1.2 to opt-out and did not forbid the contribution of additional GFDL-1.2 images (although this was discouraged). If you'd like to propose an RFC suggesting that Commons reject any further contributions that are contingent on a license reproduction clause, I would support you. All that being said, as I can't see the deleted files, I don't know if they are actually in compliance, I just think it is unfair to single out this contributors images using the {{BSD}} license while we host, without objection, upwards of 200,000 other images licensed with a license reproduction clause. —RP88 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An "other stuff exists" argument doesn't interest me. We always have to start somewhere. I note that GFDL, for better or worse, is included at COM:L in the list of well known licenses that are acceptable. BSD is not. Even GFDL has the note
"The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example."
At best we can say that the GFDL is deprecated and BSD not listed as a permitted license.
As for the location of the boiler plate, the section you quote applies to binary distribution. This is a source distribution, which requires:
"Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."
That says to me that the boilerplate must be in the caption, not a link away.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is the license retention clause, it requires you to retain the license anywhere it appears, i.e. it prohibits you from removing any existing copy of the license from the distribution. For example, if the original image had a copy of the license visible or embedded as EXIF metadata, that clause prohibits you from removing the license. It is the license reproduction clause that requires you to put a copy of the license in the documentation and/or other materials provided with any distribution. With regards to COM:L, the official policy header of that page says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Note that for "freely licensed" it links to freedomdefined.org to define what constitutes freely licensed and BSD is on their list. The "Acceptable licenses" section also links to freedomdefined.org. —RP88 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the reliance upon freedomdefined.org's definition of what constitutes a free license appears to have originated with the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. —RP88 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, COM:L is not the place where free licenses are listed. It is at Commons:Copyright tags. Jee 02:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, COM:L is policy. Commons:Copyright tags is merely a list of templates which, as someone pointed out above, can be created by anyone and simply added to the list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I agree that the BSD license is not really suited for media files, and I would support a general vote puting that into the policy. But like RP88, I think it is unfair to single out these files now. That's discriminatory, and the wrong process. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that having the five paragraphs above that are supposed to be with the licensed material instead two links away (if used on WP:EN) or one link away (if used on Commons) is inconsistent with the license, but I am only one voice. This is not the first time a number of us have agreed that these software licenses (GFDL, etc.) are not suitable for images. Let us, at least, finally get them outlawed for new uploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; many of us tried hard for a change; but no consensus for it so far, unfortunately. I agree with Yann; we should not impose our POV without community consensus. Jee 02:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Jee, thanks for the link to that RFC. I would have supported it if I had come across it when it was originally proposed. It was fascinating. There was a lot more opposition to the idea of rejecting new uploads that used unsuitable (but nonetheless "free" licenses) than I would have anticipated. I particularly like Colin's summary. —RP88 (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Support That looks like the MIT license, which is a perfectly free license. The article was written and uploaded to the source site in 2005; most "free" licenses in those days just used the available source-code licenses for better or worse. Creative Commons existed but wasn't as known as it is now. The license easily satisfies the freedomdefined.org definition (and thus our Commons:Licensing guidelines) and I see no reason to disallow it. While not intended for images, and a minor bit cumbersome, it's nowhere near as cumbersome as (for example) the GFDL. While I would tend to discourage using this license for images initially uploaded to Commons, and don't like using the GFDL as a cumbersome hurdle against commercial use, works which exist under free licenses "in the wild" should be absolutely fine to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per Carl above. I think we already raised enough counter arguments against the opposing views. It seems Эlcobbola's earlier comments are from some misunderstanding (Copyleft, need for explicit mentioning of commercial use, etc.) and need to be re evaluated. Jee 02:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per above. Some might also be {{PD-ineligible}}, as they are very simple diagrams. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skyfall script.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleting admin did obviously not understand my reasoning at the upload and at the DR. We - of all people - must understand the reasons for and limits of copyright. Copyright always rest in creative works only if they meet the necessary threshold of originality.

Industry standard boiler plate does not meet that threshold. It has not one single author, but every author tweaks the preexisting wording a tiny little bit. None of these small modifications can claim copyright in itself.

Regarding Natuur12's demand to provide an "original" PD-text only shows his lach of understanding of a) nature of industry boiler plates and b) copyright. As nothing else in this title page can be subject to copyright, the file as such is ineligible. And I consider it a valuable piece of information, as it validates the story of Skyfall's production, with the huge amount of editing. h-stt !? 13:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There is no question that legal boilerplate can be copyrighted. There are many people and organizations that sell boilerplate forms for a wide variety of uses. In order to keep this, someone will have to prove beyond a significant doubt that this particular boilerplate is PD for some reason. It is not necessarily PD just because it is widely used -- there must be a good, proven reason to know that it is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Although the nomination rational is largely nonsense (if it were true that multiple authors contributing tiny tweaks precluded copyright eligibility in the resulting work, the full script itself–or even every Wikipedia article—would be ineligible for copyright), the ultimate position is probably correct. For example, Donald v. Zack Meyer's TV Sales and Service, 426 F. 2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1970) denied copyright on a boilerplate which "servilely imitat[ed] the already stereotyped language found [in preexisting forms]" and lacked a "significant addition to the standard conditional sales contract or chattel mortgage forms". While we cannot know the process that created this particular boilerplate, it clearly seems devoid of substance recognizably the author's own, which is the legal test (“While the ‘Agreement’ is not identical to any single existing form, the substance of each sentence can be found in an earlier form. Thus, […] [the ‘Agreement’] is nothing more than a mosaic of the existing forms, with no original piece added.”) This is not the (creative) expression intended to be protected by the Copyright Act. Эlcobbola talk 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly agree with elcobbola in principle, we have no evidence at all that the whole of this boilerplate was not created de novo without any reference to anything that might have come before. If it is, indeed, only a tweak over similar language on earlier scripts, then I agree that there's no copyright, but that is completely unproven and the burden of proof beyond a significant doubt lies with the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the issue is doubt is the aspect separating us. I agree there is doubt regarding the origin process, but I don't agree that it's at (or even, frankly, near) the required threshold of being significant. I am very hard pressed indeed to believe that a unique boilerplate was created especially for this script. For example: "This draft screenplay and all rights therein are owned exclusively by _______". I don't believe it reasonable to believe this is sufficiently novel and not a mere "servile imitation" of previous forms, as contemplated by Donald. I find each of the other four sentences equally servile; I've seen permutations of these sentences in NDAs and IP contracts for decades. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh... You're probably right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kathleen McEnery - Dream - Armory Show 1913.jpg [edit]

I uploaded the file File:Kathleen McEnery - Dream - Armory Show 1913.jpg using the commons image uploader tool. It was tagged for speedy deletion and taken down. As I noted on the talk page in response to the original deletion notice, I believe that as a painting created before 1923, by an American, and shown publicly at the Armory Show in New York in 1913, this image should be in the public domain in the United States. (This is the copyright option I indicated via the image uploader.) Since she's American, the US is the source country for the work. I've tried to change the default PD-Art license to reflect the information above.

If my understanding of the conditions required to release it is, flawed, I'd appreciate an explanation so that I don't make the same mistake again in future. Is it an image that can be released on English Wikipedia but not on Commons? If I haven't indicated the appropriate licensing template, information on which one to use would be appreciated. I'm happy to learn. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{done}} Looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment (reopened -- edit conflict) I'm not sure. Although it is clear that an American work published before 1923 is PD and therefore PD-Art would apply, I see two arguments against that:
First, if the original is in color (and it's an oil, so that's almost a certainty), then some might say that making a B&W image was creative -- there is substantial case law that colorizing B&W images is creative, but, as far as I know, none for Color >> B&W. On this argument, even if the painting is PD, the image is not.
Second, it's not clear that exhibition at a single show is "publication" even under the old US law. There is a variety of case law on the point, including a movie that was shown at a single theater for a week that was found to be unpublished after the week. Under the old law as I understand it, publication required that multiple copies or reproductions were sold. The only version I can find on the Web is B&W (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~museum/armory/galleryD/mcenery.4.html). The work is said to have been in the artist's hands until 1963. Both of these facts strongly suggest that it was not published (in the specific sense required under the old law) until at least 1963 and perhaps until the cited Web page was created. If that is true, then Fastily's closing comment (adding 70 years to McEnery's 1971 death) is correct.
It would be helpful if Carl Lindberg commented here.
It probably qualifies for Fair Use treatment on WP:EN, but we don't accept that here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, you should create a DR in this case. This is certainly not a speedy. Please note that we already have Category:Kathleen McEnery. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not substantial case law that colorizing B&W images is creative. The Copyright Office, when first asked to register colorized movies, had to have a referendum before they decided they were registrable and distinguished them from the case of a single picture that's been colorized that was not registrable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who's giving feedback. I really appreciate it. It sounds, then, like the main question may be whether public display in the armory show constituted "publication"? I looked up the painting in the print publication of the "1913 Armory Show 50th Anniversary Exhibition 1963" catalog, and was able to determine that there is a b&w image shown in the 1963 book, and that the painting is credited in that catalog as being lent by the artist, Mrs. Kathleen McEnery Cunningham, for the 1963 exhibition, if that helps to clarify the issue at all. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this catalog have a copyright notice? Is this copyright renewed? That would be another reason why it would be in the public domain. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! It was published copyright 1963, according to the LOC catalog and the title page, which would have required a copyright renewal. There's no copyright renewal in either Stanford's copyright renewal database or the Project Gutenberg renewals file. So the b&w illustrations from the 1963 catalog should be in the public domain, as published in the USA after 1923 and before 1964 and not renewed... Do you happen to know what the license template would be for that? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works that were first published in the United States from 1923 through the end of 1963 which did not have their copyright renewed can use the {{PD-US_not-renewed}} tag. With regards to whether public display in the 1913 Armory Show constituted publication, see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. If the Armory Show did not prohibit copying then that show constituted publication. You might also investigate the auction history of the painting. If, prior to 1978, a painting was offered for sale to the general public then the U.S. considered it to have been published (even if no one actually purchased it). —RP88 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there are any post 1978 entries in either Stanford or Gutenberg, but the USCO's database does not list a renewal, so we can be pretty sure that it is PD-US not renewed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A definite "maybe" -- if the publication in the 1963 book was done with the knowledge and consent of the copyright holder of the work -- that would almost certainly be McEnery since she was still alive then -- then, yes, the publication of a derivative work without notice would put the original in the PD. Without her consent, it would not. I think it is safe to assume that it was done with her consent if the 1963 book was a new work. However, if the 1963 work was a reproduction of a 1913 catalog, then the painting was published by inclusion in the catalog in 1913. The title is not clear -- whether it was a reprint of the 1913 catalog or a catalog created in 1963 of the 1913 exhibition.
So, in the one case it's PD by publication in the 1913 catalog, in the other case it is PD only if McEnery gave consent to the use in the 1963 book, which I'm willing to assume. Either way, we're OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Atlas.of.War.and.Tourism.jpeg[edit]

Dharmadhyaksha (who I notice is deleting a large number of files very quickly) deleted this as "Copyright violation". That's quite a surprise to me, because: (i) the image consists of a photograph plus very simple lettering, (ii) the photograph is by Rob Hornstra, (iii) borotov.com is indisputably the website of Rob Hornstra, (iv) somebody (presumably Hornstra) clearly announces on borotov.com/media/ that this image is among several "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license", (v) when uploading the file, I linked to borotov.com/media/. What is unsatisfactory about this file? And/or: What did I do wrongly? -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Everything you say appears to be correct. As a general rule, when you upload an image from a Web site that has a free license, you should ask an Admin or an image reviewer to verify the license and add a {{Licensereview}} tag to show that the off-site license has been reviewed by a third party. This protects you and Commons in case the source site changes the license or takes the image down. This can be done easily at COM:ANB. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the "support", and also for the advice. The advice comes as a bit of a surprise, as I was fairly careful to read what I was told while uploading (via some "wizard"), and don't remember being told this. Anyway, I've now posted a message here within COM:ANB. - Hoary (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS Now fixed by Russavia, I think and hope. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed request per above. Alan (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mirza Khair ud-din.jpg [edit]

This is the source of the image. This relates to history.

http://www.royalark.net/India4/delhi21.htm

 Not done Copyright violation: Copyright©Christopher Buyers, October 2003 - December 2014

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

File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg[edit]

This profile who requesting all my picture deleted is fake, and claiming fake deletation requests

Please check the proifle credibility before delteing my pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.77.183 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello six seven eight two seven seven one eight three. Since you're so concerned with credibility, you might want to sign into your account, so we know who we're talking to. Once you've done that, you might want to start addressing the reasons the file was deleted rather than attacking the people involved. For the record, Tokyogirl79 is not "fake" (whatever you mean by that in this context) and (with 45k edits across eight Wikimedia projects since 2006) has plenty of credibility.
A valid argument might have been that File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg could not have been copied from americanbazaaronline.com, because the file here on Commons was uploaded seven months before the American Bazaar story and had a resolution that was close to 32 times higher.
That said, it looks like the file in question was a crop of File:Bill Clinton and Deelip.jpg, of which you claim to be the author. However, it's clear that the real author of that photo is Beatrice Moritz, and presumably, you're not Beatrice Moritz.
And on that basis, I  Oppose undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image was deleted by Yann after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg. It was uploaded by User:Humanhorizon who is blocked indefinitely on WP:EN:

"Reason: Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia."
The image is all over the web and very unlikely "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Alan (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yashmith.jpg[edit]

Have permission for the same. And is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. --Creativediary (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Commons does not host content published under licenses restricted to noncommercial uses. Please read Commons:Licensing – or at least the box at the top. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX. See COM:L. Alan (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moacover.jpg [edit]

La banda Ankor (propietaria de la imagen borrada) concede los permisos para que esta imagen esté visible en esta entrada de wikipedia --Clansi12 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that for album covers, the actual copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS. Please note that "los permisos para que esta imagen esté visible en esta entrada de wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both WP and Commons require a license that is free for all uses by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Para restaurar la imagen y/o admitir imagenes en estas condiciones, se requiere un permiso por escrito enviado a COM:OTRS. Alan (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Venom Vnm.jpg[edit]

Hi,

the photo you are deleted is the "VENOM VNM.JPG" photo, and i really dont understand Why??

The files you deleated are a photo i take personnaly with my camera!!!! I can agree myself if i can use my own photo on a site!!

there are no copyright on it, so i don't know where the administrator see copyright somewhere because it is not! impossible!

Please let me use this photo, because there are no reason to delete it, i follow the rules of commons

--Venomb2n (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)venomb2n[reply]

OK, AGF. Yann (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Do you really want to do that, Yann? The image appears in more than a dozen places on the Web. I've just deleted three of his other uploads because they have watermark (C) with different names. His only other upload is a logo that is PD-text logo on which he claims "own work" even though it obviously isn't. Four out of five incorrect claims of "own work" blows AGF away for this one, I think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May be you are right. I moved it to DR. Feel free to delete it. I think that HR images with EXIF data should at least have a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this one needs a DR -- the others had clear (c) watermarks with other people's names on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venom Vnm.jpg

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

File:Orisha sound.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014120110001537). --Mdann52talk to me! 21:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Mdann52: please, categorize image and close OTRS ticket. Alan (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map of South Asia.svg [edit]

This file was deleted because "it is not correctly rendered by the software here". This is not a valid reason for deletion, or at least I don't find anything like that in the deletion policies. The file is in the scope of Commons because it contains vector map source for several bitmap maps used on Wikivoyage. We store all language versions in one svg file and later export png files in individual languages. This is made very explicit by mutual links between the png files (here and here) and the svg file (now deleted). The svg file must be restored because it is needed by the Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (обсуждение) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support — Without the contribution history of this SVG file, the derivative PNG files are potentially in violation of their CC-BY-SA licenses. In my opinion that is reason enough to undelete this file. —RP88 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am the deleting Admin. None of this was made clear in the DR. I freely admit that I don't understand the technicalities here -- only that this image is essentially invisible to the ordinary Commons user -- it shows only a portion of Alaska and Canada and nothing anywhere near South Asia.
It seems to me a violation of fundamental WMF principles for us to be storing images used on the project in a format that is not generally accessible. Wikivoyage is by no means the only project of WMF that requires maps in multiple languages -- how do other projects handle this? As for the opening sentence above, we delete such files whenever we see them -- there's no policy on the subject because it is obvious -- for a file to be kept on Commons it must be "freely usable" -- "freely" goes not only to the license but also to its actual usability. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the map shows Alaska, it may be useful as a map of Alaska, regardless of what the filename says. This is a simple argument beyond all technicalities and copyright issues already mentioned.
Wikivoyage (Wikitravel) is using multilingual svg - single-language png maps since 2003, which is, well, at least the same time period as locator and navigation maps developed on Wikipedia. I will not explain at length here why the mechanism used on Wikipedia is far from ideal for a travel guide, but, again, a simple argument is that hundreds of maps are created this way, and nobody will spend effort on changing them.
Finally, deletion of images is a very general issue that concerns all WMF projects. Therefore, deletion policies should be as clear and precise as possible, and they should be followed in a transparent manner. Something that is "obvious" for you is by far not obvious for me. --Alexander (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Alaska image which shows is not useful - it is only part of Alaska in solid blue and part of the Yukon in solid magenta with gray ocean at the edge of a map projection which distorts at the edges.
Your other arguments make sense though, particularly the "grandfathering" of this old system, but I still think we should not be storing images that are not visible here. I'll stay  Neutral on the question and see what our colleagues think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - this is useful to somebody, and no objections have been raised -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JeffreyVance2011.jpg [edit]

I have all the rights to this Image as I own it. I appreciate wikipedia for wanting to follow copywrite laws but in this case there is a mistake that was made. Please, communicate how you would like me to prove that this Image was indeed uploaded legally and within my rights. Thank you!

--Wool3linen (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I think the only mistake here is yours. At http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3029566720/nm1084708?ref_=nm_ov_ph%29 the image is shown as "Photo by Manoah Bowman - © 2011 Jeffrey Vance". Since you cannot be both Manoah Bowman and Jeffrey Vance, either the image is not "own work" as you claimed or you do not have the right to license it. Since the image has been posted previously on a copyrighted Web site, policy requires that the copyright owner send a free license to OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from a domain that is traceable to one or the other. GMail and similar anonymous e-mails will not be accepted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

All pictures were declared as free2use[edit]

The first three pictures are based on scans, that's right. But all of this pictures are originally part of the Collection H. Grün with a handover to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence. Rodener Notkirche.jpg is a scan from a photo given from the Rodener Pathfinders to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence too. After rescanning the copies and photoshopping, to use this images into a book publication/postcard, i uploaded the pictures to the commons too. --Okami-san (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. In the image description, you claimed these photographs were taken by you. That is obviously not the case. They were taken recently enough so that they are probably still under copyright. It is,of course, possible that the photographer donated the images and the copyrights to the Rodena Verein, but that would require a written agreement, not merely giving a copy of the photos. In any case, in order to restore them, we will need evidence that they are free to use -- either a web source that shows them that way, or an e-mail from the copyright owner, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fidel Leon Cadavid.jpg [edit]

el archivo Fidel Leon Cadavid no viola las normas no estoy robando derechos de autor por que especifique que era de otro creador

Jhonest001 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aloysius Pang Profile Picture.jpg[edit]

Request for undeletion.

For the above picture that I've uploaded, I'm the rightful image copyright ownner.

--Dasmond Koh (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you uploaded the image at 3744x5616px strongly suggests that you didn't just take it off the web, but since the image has appeared in many places, policy requires that the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jesuscariglinoreunion.jpg[edit]

Hello, well this picture wasn't just downloaded of the Internet, but given to me by the author, to extend an article I requested Mayor's office to provide me of photos, I have the contact details and info if an admin wants to know. Balthasar02 (talk)

 OpposePermission to use the image "to extend an article" is nowhere near sufficient for use on Commons or WP:EN. Both require that an image be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. Policy requires that third party permissions be sent directly to OTRS by the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GustavoFranciscoMonteiro2.jpg[edit]

About this file, I am the copyright owner, it's mine, it was taken originally in an interview in 2008, I am a reporter, I have taken many of the pictures of local politicians you can find on the Internet, the image was edited and used for different tasks since then, the white background is the first of these editions, thanks for your time. Balthasar02 (talk)

For images that have appeared elsewhere without a free license, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Siam Burma Death Railway Documentary Film.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have uploaded a image into Wikipedia for the below movie link. I am the owner of the image. But the image got deleted. Please help to undelete the image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siam%E2%80%93Burma_Death_Railway_(film)

Thanks and Regards, Rajsankar. PH : 6329 7381

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajsankar (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The name RAJSANKAR appears on the poster as an Associate Director. If User:Rajsankar is the Associate Director, that does not make him "owner of the image" -- the owner would be the movie company. In any case, policy requires that for images that have appeared elsewhere before being uploaded here, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roudaki Hall Opera.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undulation of this file: File:Roudaki Hall Opera.jpg I received this image from the FOUNDATION OF LES BALLETS PERSANS in order to illustrate my dance related article. The image is from the archive of the foundation but its copyright appears to has expired since the photography is taken before 1979. A declaration of consent has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by a representative of Les Ballets Persans (Taban teyhoo) from the email address of info@balletspersans.org. Mittimoe (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Photographs in Iran become PD at the earlier of 30 years after publication or fifty years after the death of the author, or if the author died between 1950 and 1980. A 1979 photograph is PD only if it was actually published before 1985 -- it is up to you to demonstrate that beyond a significant doubt. If the image is not PD by age, then in order to restore it here (but see the next paragraph), you will need to show how and why the FOUNDATION OF LES BALLETS PERSANS owns the copyright to the photograph and the Foundation will need to provide a free license for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use, not just one "to illustrate my dance related article".
More difficult is the fact that the building portrayed in the photo appears to be modern and is still under copyright unless its architect died before August 22, 1980. Unless the building itself is PD, the photograph infringes on the architect's copyright and the image cannot be restored without a license from the architect or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Memorial Stamp for Roudaki Hall Opera in Tehran.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undulation of this File:Memorial Stamp for Roudaki Hall Opera in Tehran.jpg I received this image from the FOUNDATION OF LES BALLETS PERSANS in order to illustrate my dance related article. The image is from the archive of the foundation but its copyright appears to has expired since the photography is taken before 1979. A declaration of consent has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by a representative of Les Ballets Persans (Taban Teyhoo) from the email address of info@balletspersans.org. Mittimoe (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose We do not have an entry for Iran at Commons:Stamps/Public_domain, so I can only assume that stamps follow the same rules as other works. If that is the case, then the stamp itself has a copyright which is still in force unless the author died before August 22 1980. It is up to the uploader to prove the date of death.
There is also the same problem as above -- the image on the stamp infringes on the architect's copyright for the building, so unless he died before August 22, 1980, we also need his permission or that of his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gebruiker gerelateerde concepten.png[edit]

I would like to copy this file to www.kizumba.nl. Timboliu (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: That's not a valid reason to undelete a file. If you want to copy the file, copy it from somewhere else that it is used, and then put the file on that site. DLindsley Need something? 01:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Happy days are back again.jpg[edit]

Concerning : User:IneverCry who deleted page File:Happy days are back again.jpg This user is no longer active on Wikimedia, and so is not able to contact Could you please tell me how to proceed? Many thanks Warning: A file by that name has been deleted or moved. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience: • 16:46, 5 November 2014 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Happy days are back again.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log) This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons. This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.

Permission to publish the files under a free license in Commons Wikimedia , Files uploaded by Onlysilence :

Erik Pevernagie, artist, Avenue A. Lancaster 118O Brussels

I am the copyright holder and creator Erik Pevernagie (email) and have given permission to publish the files under a free license in Commons Wikimedia , Files uploaded by Onlysilence My work is catagorized under category:Erik Pevernagie. Best regards Erik Pevernagie --Onlysilence (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onlysilence: Please send the permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RualdStrydom.jpg[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014112610016791) under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{Gfdl}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KhaledAlSabawiForbesCover.jpg [edit]

The file File:KhaledAlSabawiForbesCover.jpg has been used with permission from Forbes middle East. Thus, I confirm that that file have been used with permission is wikipedia.

--Mabuajamia (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Syone.png[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014120110008763) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). I also advise adding {{Trademarked}} Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GokhanTurkmen.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I, İnci Razaki, with the Wikipedia username "İncin", am the sole proprietor of this picture. I, myself, represent the company İnci Razaki Pr Danışmanlık Ltd. Şti. which is owned also by me and which owns this pictues copyrights. This picture is shot by our photographers in our studios. I uploaded this picture since the one which was live on your site was very old. I am kindly asking you to, please, restore my file and make it live. Thank you in advance. İncin (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:S2000 AP1 MY2000.JPG[edit]

I took this photograph of my own car. There is no copyright associated with this photograph. Thanks for undeleting my work.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FByeh.jpg [edit]

I have asked the agreement of the relevant units for this picture. File:FByeh.jpg --Matt Lin (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I am very sure that it is legal and does not infringe Intellectual Property Rights. Because the person just passed away three days ago, some of his students want to remember him and hope to put the picture on wiki.[reply]

You would need to get the owner of the copyright in the photo to send formal permission via our OTRS system, please. The copyright owner is likely to be the photographer or the photographer's employer.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:06, 26 December 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 05:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ShooterbookIcoverart.jpg[edit]

Why was this deleted? I have permission from the author himself to post this photo. Also, this is the digital copy of the SHOOTER Book I: The Heart of Defense Breeds the Freedom of Offense novelette. The book itself exists, if needed I can link to its page or show the ISBN. What was done wrong? I just need this to be better explained to me in terms of what was wrong with this upload so that I don't continuously make the mistake. I'm just simply confused. StageSceneMag (talk) 04:44, 26 December 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 05:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acrosanthes aizoaceae.jpg [edit]

Buenas, me gustaría la restauración de File:Acrosanthes aizoaceae.jpg por favor. Gracias. --Ocaloa (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LoganGuleff.png[edit]

File:LoganGuleff.png

The photo that has been deleted is owned by me. I am Logan Guleff's father, Tom Guleff. I give permission for the photo to be used on Logan Guleff wiki page. The photo is the property of ours, taken by us. The photo is not the property of FOX or MasterChef Junior.

Thank you,

Tom Guleff Memphis, TN 38104

--Tomguleff (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears to be a professional portrait, so I question the claim in the image description that you are the photographer. The Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper claims copyright. As a general rule, newspapers are fairly careful about giving credit for photographs and it would be unusual for them to explicitly claim copyright for an image that was not taken by one of their staff. However, since it has appeared on the Web, policy requires that the actual copyright holder provide a free license, see OTRS. Note that permission for use on a Wikipedia page is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for use anywhere by anyone for any purpose,including commercial use and derivative works.
Note also that both Commons and WP:EN have rules about people with a conflict of interest making edits. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. At a minimum, both of your user pages should disclose your relationship with Logan. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Walter Beyer.jpg [edit]

Das Foto ist einer Abbildung in der Tageszeitung (Nahe-Zeitung) und der Homepage der Gemeinde Gollenberg entnommen. Es ist zur Veröffentlichung freigegeben. --Wikifan51 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M[edit]

There are currently 179 images in Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560. Currently all 179 of those images were taken by me, on my Samsung GT-S7560M. On December 12th User:Allo002 manually moved all 179 of those images from the category appropriately named after the device they were taken by to Category:Taken_with_Samsung_GT-S7560 -- leaving the appropriately named category empty.

User:Allo002 didn't make any attempt to explain this series of confusing recategorization. They did however create Category:Photos by Geo Swan using a Samsung GT-S7560M, which was discussed at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-12#Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

I've tried to get Allo002 to meaningfully discuss their strongly held notion that we should ignore the model names that modern cameras and smart phones embed in the images they take, and amalgamate camera categories based on anecdotal reports that certain models of cameras are "identical". So far my efforts have met with almost zero success. I think some other contributors have agreed with me, that ignoring the model name embedded in images' exif data is a recipe for chaos. So I am very concerned that Allo002 doesn't seem to care that other contributors don't agree with their preferred approach.

I request restoration of the category, its history, and talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category is no longer empty -FASTILY 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert Loggia 1966.jpg [edit]

See discussion with the closing admin here and link to the original file here. The DR is basically an unsupported accusation of copyfraud by the Dutch national archive. There are hundreds of publicity shots of U.S. actors on their website, many with a solid evidence of being taken by a Dutch photographer in the Netherlands. The argument "Photographer Unknown / Anefo" is weak too because of the old age of the photograph. Materialscientist (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I don't see any reason not to believe the Dutch national archive. The accusation of copyright violation by them is ridiculous. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support A statement by an 'authoritative' source (who have access to the original object, and presumably more information than us) that an image can be licensed by them can be trusted unless there is evidence they are in error. It's hard to believe that their statement (or our reference to it) would not be considered a valid defense against a claim of copyright infringement by a court, even if it was a mistake on their part. Revent (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. This is a photo of a photo... I'm sure the actual photo was taken by them (or they have rights), but the underlying photo is almost certainly a U.S. publicity photo from 1966-1967 (when the TV show in question ran in the U.S.). It has not been 70 years since its publication, so it could not be PD as an anonymous work in Europe, and we would need to show it is PD in the U.S. as well. I do see an ebay auction of selling a negative of that photo here, and I do see a site selling posters of that picture, so it is in circulation. So... the only way it is PD in the Netherlands is if the original photo was PD-US-no_notice, and the Dutch archive is using the rule of the shorter term based on that. Unsure if they can even use the rule of the shorter term there (Berne Convention may not allow it, and U.S. copyright treaties with the Netherlands also might supersede that anyways) but for Commons, I think the U.S. status is all that really matters. Odds are very high there is no copyright notice (there is nothing on the front) as that was pretty common with publicity photos in that era. I would prefer to see the back (or evidence elsewhere on the net of the back) but maybe we could take the archives' PD claim as evidence there is none, as they would have access to it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per Yann and Clindberg, the source is reliable. Alan (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ludolf Backhuysen - Texel.jpg[edit]

Image was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludolf Backhuysen - Texel.jpg basically because it was redundant; no "problem"-related reasons (e.g. copyvio) were given. That's normally fine, of course, but it was in use at en:wp (for example, en:Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/July), so it was in scope, and it would help there if it were undeleted. Coming here because the deleting admin was INeverCry. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact version as this file. The original source was the same - www.rijksmuseum.nl. The file deleted as being exact duplicate. -- Geagea (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per geagea. Alan (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ministere affaires populaires.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I really do not understand the reason the file was deleted. If it were because it is unused an has been so for years, why not. If the band requested for its deletion, why not (debatable, but let be keen with music bands). But it seems that it is for permissions.

So let be clear: - I did take the photo myself, with my own private camera, during a live performance - the performance occurred was televised by ZaleaTV, which is a former French free speech TV. This means the band was performing in public, this is not a "paparazzi" private-life shot. - I was one of the administrators of this TV - the image is NOT a screen shot, it is NOT the property of ZaleaTV - and anyway as a free speech TV, any content produced by ZaleaTV is released under Creative Commons license : "Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike"

I am not trying to keep this photo by every possible mean. But I find somewhat strange that a photo that is free to use by anybody, as long as it is not commercial purpose, during a show on a TV who was fighting against commercial licences, to be deleted for permissions. There are billions files with copyrights used abusively every days. How can it be that files without copyrights can be deleted for permissions ? Com'on Wikimedia, aren't you fearing permissions slightly too much ? In case this is useful: I am the author of this photo, I own all rights on this photo, but my generosity is enormous, and I grant Wikimiedia, and anybody else in the world, to use this photo as long as they do not sell it. Is it OK ?

Regards Nick 81.57.247.32 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, our policy here is that all photos, videos, and sounds here must be free to use even for commercial purposes. This may seem strange, as this is a not-for-profit project, but one of our stated goals is to provide educational resources that are free to use for any purpose, and commercial use is a part of that. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't seem strange at all that we do not accept NC licenses -- there are actually very few non-commercial uses. In the educational world, any use in a textbook is commercial unless the book is distributed free and does not contain advertising. Any use in a school that charges tuition is commercial, as is any use on a web site that carries advertising. Virtually all print uses are commercial, again, unless the media is distributed free and does not carry advertising.

 Not done NC is an illegal clause in this project. Alan (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grays Almshouses plate.jpg [edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grays Almshouses plate.jpg, this was deleted because it's likely still under copyright in the source country. According to its caption at this revision of an en:wp article, it was published in 1910, making it PD-US; is there any reason to doubt this? If there's no reason to doubt this claim, please undelete it temporarily: it's used in several places at en:wp, and transferring it there and marking it with en:template:Do not move to Commons would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The file was taken from Old English houses of alms : a pictorial record with architectural and historical notes (direct) that published in London in 1910. The illustrator was Sidney Heath that born in 1872 but the date of his death is unknown. So source country was UK and not US. Therefore it is not free in UK and not free in UN. If you find that this file forst published in the US then it should restored. -- Geagea (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Azaña, Besteiro, Alcalá-Zamora y Sánchez-Guerra inaugurando un centro escolar.png & File:Largo Caballero votando en 1933.png[edit]

Sorry. My English is very poor. I prefer explain the point in Spanish.

En primer lugar, no entiendo por qué se ha procedido al borrado de estos dos archivos de forma tan rápida, sin ofrecer explicación alguna y sin permitir hacer alegaciones. Se trata de dos fotografías que bajé de Flickr en su día y que fueron comprobadas por otro usuario (no recuerdo si por un administrador; claro ¡como ha sido borrado el archivo y todo el historial!). Ambas están cedidas por un centro de enseñanza universitario que es el heredero de la escuela en la que las dos fotografías fueron tomadas. Por consiguiente, no veo motivo para que no tenga derechos sobre ellas y, por lo tanto, que pueda cederlos en Flickr. En todo caso, considero que lo correcto hubiera sido que quien considera que debían ser borradas hubiera explicado los motivos y hubiera permitido ofrecer alegaciones. Considero una brutal falta de respeto la forma sumarísima en que se ha procedido al borrado y requiero una explicación de este proceder.--Chamarasca (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Como ejemplo voy a poner la primera foto:
  • Fuente: Cuenta Flickr de la UNED.
  • Problema que existe: La UNED no es propietaria de los derechos, así que por mucho que la publiquen con una licencia libre jamás podrán imponerse al propietario. Concretamente son los herederos de Miguel Cortés Faure, quien falleció en 1960.
  • Revisión de licencia en su día: Mal hecha. La revisión se ciñó a comprobar en la fuente indicada la licencia sin pararse a mirar si el origen indicado era quien posee los derechos. A esto se le conoce como "Lavado de licencia" y es algo muy habitual, incluso con universidades por medio.
Con el resto pasa lo mismo.
En resumen: El borrado ha sido realizado de forma correcta y en cumplimiento tanto de la legislación española, la estadounidense y las normas de Commons y  no corresponde su restauración hasta 2040, fecha que entran en dominio público.
Un saludo. Alan (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Estimado Alan. Y ¿es mucho pedir que estas explicaciones se ofrezcan antes y no después del borrado? Porque, además, se han ofrecido solo porque las he solicitado. De lo contrario, dudo que las hubiese recibido. Me parece una grosería y una total falta de respeto proceder de este modo con un usuario que contribuye muy activamente al desarrollo de Commons.
Y pregunto también. ¿Este tipo de borrado rápido lo puede hacer cualquier usuario? ¿También yo puedo borrar los archivos subidos por Discasto como él ha borrado los que yo subí? Porque, si es así, me parece peligroso para la convivencia.--Chamarasca (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Por supuesto que puedes pedir el borrado rápido de cualquier violación de copyright obvia que detectes, sea mi caso o sea el del que sea. He tratado de ser cuidadoso, pero podría haber subido algún fichero antiguo del que podría aparecer nueva información de autoría que podría determinar que se trata de una violación de copyright. De hecho, estaría encantado de que lo hicieras, no quiero andar subiendo ficheros con copyright a un sitio que, por definición, no puede tenerlas. Otra cosa sería que yo (o que tú) utilizase ese procedimiento para imágenes que no fuesen una clara violación de copyright (si le echas un vistazo a Commons:Copyright violations, verás que dice claramente: The speedy deletion tag {{Copyvio}} is for obvious copyright violations. Use {{copyvio|1=Reason}} or {{copyvio|source=URL}} to explain why it's a copyright violation. Note that if a media file or article is a suspected but not clear copyright violation, it should be placed on Commons:Deletion requests), entonces si estaría (o estarías) violando las normas y eso sí que sería un problema para la convivencia. Algo tan sencillo como el sentido común y la buena fe son lo único necesario. In cordial saludo --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
La buena fe y el sentido común son de poca utilidad cuando no se demuestran ofreciendo una sencilla explicación por anticipado. En realidad, pienso que la actuación por la mera vía de los hechos consumados difícilmente puede ser percibida como una actuación hecha de buena fe. Puede serlo en la mente del autor, pero eso no es suficiente. Insisto en que la convivencia exige otro tipo de procedimientos más respetuosos.--Chamarasca (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Puedo entender tu percepción y, como ya te he dicho, te pido disculpas. Sin embargo, también te he aclarado que es así como funciona este sitio. Insistes, sin embargo, en atribuir malas intenciones a una mera aplicación de los procedimientos establecidos. Como ya te he dicho varias veces, nada más lejos de mi intención. Si aún así, lo sigues pensando, yo ya no puedo hacer nada más. Posiblemente el procedimiento no sea el más adecuado y he sugerido su modificación, prueba más que evidente de la falta de ninguna mala intención. Un saludo --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day. About 1,500 of them are deleted. Most of those deletions are done by fewer than 25 Administrators who work very fast. As explained above, when we see an obvious copyright violation, Commons policy requires immediate deletion. This may seem brutal to you, but with so few people doing so much work, it is the best we can do. Things might be different if we had twice as many active administrators, but our number is shrinking, not growing.
Please understand though, that fewer than 1% of the deletions are disputed and fewer than half of the disputes result in the image being restored. Most of the restorations are based on facts that the deleting Administrator did not know. That suggests that we make very few mistakes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)
Veamos, Commons tiene muchas normas pero creo que hay 2 básicas:
  • COM:L: Licencias que se admiten y que no.
  • COM:PRP: Principio de precaución, es decir, si no se demuestra que SI se tiene una licencia válida, se borra. Esto choca con la buena fe que se entiende en es.wikipedia. En este caso va a la contra, o se demuestra claramente que si o se borra por el procedimiento rápido como exista la más mínima duda.
La política de borrado rápido, y más concretamente lo aplicado a las violaciones de copyright, dice que: se borra de forma inmediata. Cualquier usuario marca la foto para borrado como ha explicado Discasto y los administradores tenemos la obligación de confirmar y borrar lo antes posible. ¿Explicaciones? Las que quieras, sin ningún problema. Pero si se ha detectado un problema de licencias se borra y curiosamente si hay alguna duda llegamos a donde estamos ahora. A veces nos confundimos, se restaura y ya está, pero la política de precaución dicta que primero se borra. Para restaurar siempre hay tiempo, para una demanda por Violacion de derechos de autor: No.
Espero que entiendas lo que quiero explicar. No es ue alguien tenga algo personal contra ti, son políticas aprobadas por la comunidad. Un saludo, Alan (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Estimado Jameslwoodward. ¿Es Discasto uno de esos escasos 25 administradores? Si no lo es, el argumento de que hay solo 25 personas haciendo esa labor cae por su peso. Tampoco es cierto que se cometan pocos errores. Es un error (It is a mistake) borrar un archivo que lleva meses en Commons (no fue subido ayer o anteayer) y que fue en su día revisado por otra persona, sin ofrecer explicación alguna al usuario que lo subió de buena fe. Entre otras cosas, porque no se le ofrece una explicación de por qué ha sido borrado y no puede aprender de su error. No le permite eliminarlo de los artículos de Wikipedia en los que está situado; no le permite sustituirlo por otra imagen adecuada. No permite hacer esto porque toda la información almacenada junto con el archivo ha desaparecido ya. Las soluciones de facto no suelen ser buenas, por muy bien intencionadas que estén. La buena fe no puede ser un escudo que nos permita prescindir de los buenos modales y de la cortesía imprescindible para que una organización funcione sin enfrentamientos. Si alguien no entiende esto, o pretende sustituirlo por una seca invocación a una norma, no veo cómo se lo puedo hacer comprender.--Chamarasca (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yo lo entiendo perfectamente, y por eso te he pedido disculpas. También te he explicado que pienso hacer para que, en adelante, cualquiera que suba una violación de copyright obtenga las explicaciones que pides para, tal como dices, poder aprender de su error y sustituirlo por otra imagen adecuada. Si una vez que se ha hecho todo eso, se te han ofrecido cumplidas explicaciones de las razones del borrado, se te ha explicado que una verificación de una licencia en flickr no implica que la imagen tenga la licencia correcta, se te ha indicado además la colección de flickr donde estaban las fotografías para que puedas consultar las borradas de nuevo si fuese preciso... entonces sí que te reconozco que ya he dejado de entender qué más precisas. Si lo que precisas es que también se cambién las normas para poder acomodar tu visión del asunto, entonces creo que esa es otra discusión que no es posible plantear aquí. Un saludo --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 00:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si has comprendido que esas explicaciones se deben proporcionar antes de proceder al borrado, cuando todavía está presente la imagen, el historial y el enlace con el origen; y no después, cuando todo esta información ha desaparecido, mi protesta no habrá caído en el vacío. Porque si el borrado hubiera tenido lugar cuando subí la imagen y (recuerdo a todos) fue revisada la corrección del hecho por otro usuario se supone que experto, hubiera sido completamente diferente de lo que ha sucedido ahora. ¿Es imposible entender esta diferencia?--Chamarasca (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chamarasca: Una pregunta, ¿Has leído mi última explicación? Porque explico exactamente esto que dices. Alan (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alan. He leído tu última intervención y no me parece que expliques lo que yo digo. Lo que tú dices es que según la política vigente, la imagen se borra de inmediato y sin dar explicación alguna cuando se comprueba que viola el copyright. Lo que yo digo es que, cuando la imagen ya fue supervisada y aprobada en el pasado, y cuando, además, lleva tiempo en Commons, debería ofrecerse una explicación antes de proceder al borrado. Creo que no hablamos de lo mismo.--Chamarasca (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Entonces lo que hablamos es de modificar una política, porque aunque haya sido verificado en un pasado, si se demuestra que viola el copyright va fuera de forma inmediata.
El asunto se escapa del alcance de esta sección, hablamos de modificar la política de borrado rápido y eso se debe hacer en COM:RFC.
Tal y como está actualmente el complejo sistema de políticas de este proyecto, la prioridad es el principio de precaución y esto va por encima de todo.
Y respecto a que ya estaba verificada, pues qué quieres que te diga. Esto sigue adelante por voluntarios y tanto Commons como Wikipedia avanzan con la ayuda desinteresada y en ratos libres de usuarios como tu y como yo. Si alguien en el pasado ha cometido un error, como seguro he cometido yo una o varias veces, no es precisamente por hacer daño y no marca Ley. Si a posterior cualquier usuario descubre el error de actúa de forma inmediata velando por la protección de los proyectos Wikimedia.
Discasto ya ha propuesto una modificación en los avisos, mira más arriba, y ahora es la comunidad quien tiene la última palabra.
Si no estás conforme con alguna norma vigente, se propone cambiar siguiendo el sistema y si el resto de usuarios lo ven correcto se aplica. No hay nada fijo.
Lo que no veo es que esta discusión aquí sirva para algo, el borrado se ajusta a las políticas vigentes por lo que no corresponde su restauración. Creo que hemos explicado de forma extensa todo. Si aún no crees que sea correcto el sistema, te invito a proponer su cambio en la ya mencionada página COM:RFC.
Un saludo, Alan (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alan. Precisamente es como tú dices. Commons y Wikipedia avanzan con la ayuda desinteresada de usuarios como tu y como yo. Ofenderles gratuitamente no es el mejor incentivo para que sigan colaborando. No he hecho ningún reproche al usuario que revisó en su día la corrección de la "subida" de las fotografías. Lo que digo es que, mientras en ese momento se hubiera entendido un borrado rápido, al cabo del tiempo y después de haber superado una primera revisión (mejor o peor), no procede actuar de esa forma tan brusca y cortante. Creo que es fácil de entender. En cuanto a proponer variaciones de políticas, lo dejo para los políticos. Yo no lo soy ni quiero serlo. Solo pido respeto, ya que no gratitud, para mi labor en Commons.--Chamarasca (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahora piensa a la contra: En las palizas que nos pegamos varios usuarios, seamos admin o no, en revisar las imágenes que se suben para evitar problemas que lo único que pueden generar demandas masivas (si, es así, la gente busca sacar pasta) por violar derechos de autor y haga que la Fundación Wikimedia tenga que desembolsar cantidades ingentes de dinero que hagan tambalearse a todos los proyectos.
El asunto no es tan sencillo. Lo admins de Commons sabemos perfectamente que nuestras acciones se salen de este proyecto y afectan de forma global, procuramos ser cuidadosos y ceñirnos a lo que la comunidad ha decidido y ha dictado la WMF.
Las políticas no las crean los políticos, las veamos todos y siempre se puede mejorar. Esto debes tenerlo presente, si cada usuario aporta un granito de arena esto llegara muy lejos.
Te invito a seguir en mi página de discusión o el la tuya, como prefieras, todo el tiempo y "líneas de tinta" que sean necesarias, per vamos a dejar de sobrecargar esta página que no está diseñada para este tipo de asuntos. Me avisas donde quieres, si es así, continuar. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Explicado de forma extensa. Violación de copyright. Alan (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lann sw portrait hoch credit deborah moses-sanks.jpg [edit]

Hello, this image was a gift by Prof. Hornscheidt. Unfortunately, I do not quite understand the complicate rules of deletion. Could you please re-activate the image? Greetings, Luise --Luisela (talk) 22:07, 28 December 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 00:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

HJ VoSS 01 6x9.jpg [edit]

Hello, this image was a gift by Prof. Voss himself. Could you please re-activate the content to publish on German Wikipedia? Greetings, Luise--Luisela (talk) 22:07, 28 December 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 00:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YehFB.png [edit]

Hi admin

I think this picture is legal. I have ask the copyright holder of this picture sent the declaration of consent to OTRS. His email ID is ju1009@thu.edu.tw Why does the picture deleted?

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 08:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The permission to use this picture was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on the 16th of December from a email address: karl.lilienberg@hotmail.com. I personally took this photo on the 4th of December in the Awards Ceremony using an iphone 6. Please undelete this photograph.


Karllilienberg (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Procedural close. Per above, OTRS ticket has been submitted. The volunteer who handles the ticket will restore the image if/when everything is in order. Patience is required; there is a backlog and volunteers are more limited than usual due to year end holidays. Эlcobbola talk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bendale SS Logo.svg [edit]

Hi, I have re-created the logo on Inkscape in July that was deleted days ago. Since I took the photo of this now-deleted file in my possession, can you please check the OTRS Ticket for this? Thank you. FreshCorp619 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 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 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alessandro Marverti.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the copyright holder of this file, that are in another web site.

Sincerly Gian Luca Barberi Gasgas3110 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 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 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dateline scotland promo.jpg[edit]

I am the creator and copyright owner of this image, I am happy to make it freely available, please undelete it. If you wish for further confirmation, you can email newsdesk@datelinescotland.com

Regards. Jack Foster

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 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personalities of Assam Honoured with Postage Stamps '2000s.jpg[edit]

There is no copyright violation to this at all. The image is a combination of postage stamps which were scanned and presented as a form of one collage. How could this be a possible copyright violation?

Postage stamps are purchased and are available freely in India, a scan image of collection of such stamps to represent a collage can never be a copyright violation, those are stamps and not photos!

Please undelete!

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. Furthermore, stamps from 1951 and later are covered under copyright in India -FASTILY 08:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Movimiento Nacional Socialista de Chile.png and File:Emblema Partido Agrario Laborista.png[edit]

There is no evidence of the authorship of the logo. Regarding the Chilean Copyright Law, the works with an anonymous author are protected 70 years since the date of its first publication (article 13). If this work was created in 1932 (year of founding of the Movimiento Nacional-Socialista de Chile), it entered into Public Domain in 2002. But the Chilean Law before 2003 said that the work of an anonymous author was protected 50 years since its creation, so it has fallen under Public Domain in 1982. Best, --Warko (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies for File:Emblema Partido Agrario Laborista.png. This work with an anonymous author was created in 1945, so, it is under Public Domain since 1995. --Warko (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some sources for these dates? They are different than the ones mentioned in the DRs. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the first logo, there is a pdf in Commons dated in 1932, that contains a book from the MNS party, and shows the logo in its cover. For the second one, there is a photo that shows the founding of PAL party, dated in 1945, and shows the logo in the backside. Best, --Warko (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I will restore these unless there is some objection. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Warko (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed than File:Bandera del Partido Agrario Laborista.png was deleted too, and could be restored for the same reasons than File:Emblema Partido Agrario Laborista.png. --Warko (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, you are correct. Chile's terms were 30pma, extended to 50pma in 1992, and extended to 70pma in 2003. I'm not sure any of those extensions were retroactive. Anonymous / corporate works would have expired that many years from publication. If that is correct, anonymous works published in 1932 or 1945 (without a copyright notice) would be fine in Chile today, and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. So, the 1932 PDF is fine. However... when it comes to graphic works, it really does need to be the exact version published in 1932 (or whenever). Looking at the Google cache for the first image mentioned, there are artistic differences between that and the one in the 1932 PDF. Those embellishments can have a copyright of their own, so it's not necessarily true that any and all versions of the emblem can be uploaded. I would hesitate to upload that. There are even differences between the 1932 version and the one here, for example. It doesn't take much to generate an additional copyright, so I would be careful in restoring those. Of course, anyone is free to extract the 1932 graphic and colorize/improve it and upload that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should ask to User:Sfs90 if he added the artistic differences from original logo. --Warko (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I did was to take the logo from the PDF file that Warko added, and colorize it, also guided by the image posted in [12], but it's not the same logo from the website (you can see the diferences, for example, on the mountains that appears in the background), therefore it's not a copy from a website logo, and by the reasons given above, this emblem actually should be restored. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, if they were your own embellishments, then no issue.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Per discussion. No objections. -- Geagea (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jenna Harrington 142.jpg [edit]

This photo I taked from the Jenna Harrington's Facebook profile, but I don't think that is illegal. Please, don't delete this photo, is all I want. --Júlia Ferreira da Silva (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Júlia Ferreira da Silva[reply]

 Oppose Facebook is copyrighted, but more to the point, the subject probably does not meet our requirement for notability -- the article Jenna Harrington will soon be deleted for that reason and Google has no hits for her on the first page except for the WP:EN soon to be deleted article. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per what Jim said. Here at Wikimedia Commons, we care about copyright, even when a copyright owner does not. DLindsley Need something? 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Alan (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carlos Nóbrega photo.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014032610011989). File has already been restored, then redeleted --Mdann52talk to me! 12:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already restored --Alan (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RebaWhiteWilliams2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014120110019064). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please, close OTRS ticket. Alan (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:50 Belgische Frank 1966 achter.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It a picture i made by editing a picture of wikipedia commons. Pictures used on wikipedia are free to use for own use and for editing and make new picture from it. Vdkdaan (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per COM:DW. INeverCry 22:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Koncert MoMo 2.jpg[edit]

Hi, I have the allowance from the band to upload their photos to Commons. They (band mates and management) gave me all rights to do so, so re-upload this photos again, please. Serecki (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please tell the band that Commons cares about copyright, even when a copyright owner does not, and that for this reason, we cannot keep the image here. DLindsley Need something? 21:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

thumb|Portrait photo of Jim Gelcer[edit]

Reason for request:

Have permission of copyright owner, Patrick Ross.

Email sent from Patrick Ross to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

from: Patrick Ross <patrick.ross@activeops.com> to: "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> cc: "jim@gelcer.com" <jim@gelcer.com> date: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:07 PM subject: Photo Use

To Whom it May Concern

I hereby affirm that I, Patrick Ross, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimgelcerportrait900x1500.jpg I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Patrick Ross

--Jimgelcer (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Once the OTRS email has been processed and the permission confirmed, the image can be restored. You can check on progress at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 22:05, 30 December 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 Artist Mohsen Attya[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS ticket received from author (including permission: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported), ticket no.: 2014120110017977 Ibrahim.ID ♒ 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 04:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-12&oldid=145724595"