Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-04

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:Beverley De-Gale Orin lewis.jpg[edit]

Hi there,

The photo I have used on a page I am setting up has been removed.. File:Beverley De-Gale Orin lewis.jpg I am writing to ask that it is undeleted. I work for the man and woman in the photo, Beverley De-Gale and Orin Lewis. They have asked me to make this wikipedia page on their behalf for our charity, ACLT. Since they are the subjects of the photo they should be able to use these images however they see fit, and I have been given permission and told to do a job in making this page for them. Would it be possible for the photo to be undeleted? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. --TiaACLT (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are a variety of problems here. First is the fact that the author shown in the file description is Trudy Simpson. You are, presumably, not Trudy Simpson and neither are De-Gale or Lewis. Only the copyright holder, which is almost always the author, can license an image for use on Commons and WP:EN. Therefore, in order to restore the image here, we will need a free license from Simpson sent to OTRS.
You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. WP:EN forbids people from doing what you are doing and anything you do there is possibly subject to deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Don Vaccaro.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I posted a file called Don Vaccaro.jpg on 3/25 and it was deleted the same day for copyright violations.

This file came from Don Vaccaro himself (the copyright holder) and is approved to be put into the commons. Why was this deleted? What proof do you need that this is available for the commons? I am new to wikipedia, so sorry if I posted it wrong or something, but there is not a copyright problem here.

Thanks, JM JonathanMist (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Although you said in the file description that you were the photographer, I assume from what you say above that that is not correct. It is very unlikely that the subject of the photograph is the copyright holder. That right almost always stays with the photographer. The image appears at http://www.donvaccaro.org/ with an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kutikuppala Surya Rao.jpg[edit]

Sir,I have permission from the person-Dr.Kutikuppala Surya Rao in posting his photograph in the wikipedia page.Moreover I sourced it from his website directly to avoid any problem.If you want any kind of validation from the person in question-Mr.Kutikuppala Surya Rao,i will definitely get it.Please consider my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargav 123 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 31 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

You're going to get the same answer here and on Commons:Upload help#wikimedia commons image deleted that you posted 11 minutes apart:
Please follow the procedure described at Commons:OTRS to obtain proper permission. Do note that "permission to the photo" is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons (this site) to host it. What's needed is a permission from the copyright holder (usually the photographer rather than the subject of a photo) to publish the photo under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Niigata montage2.jpg[edit]

削除画像は全て私が撮影したものであるため、著作権の侵害はない。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATLAS POWER (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canal268.png[edit]

Canal268.png

Reason: Photo obtained and approved for use through Charles B. Wang Community Health Center. Picture is from the Graphical Designer's personal photo album.

Please undelete this picture.

Ddmmen (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ddmmen: The owner of the copyright in the image needs to submit permission for the licensing to OTRS by email. See Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F, and Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries for the email template that can be used. Revent (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LorenaSimpsonHausOfPop.jpg[edit]

Me chamo Deyverson e sou responsável pelo Fã Clube da cantora Lorena Simpson e tenho a autorização de divulgar os conteúdos que aqui estão. Deyverson Madureira (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Deyverson de Oliveira Alcantara Madureira[reply]

 Oppose The images appear at http://ego.globo.com/musica/noticia/2015/03/conheca-lorena-simpson-cantora-que-promove-o-eletronico-brasileiro.html with an explicit copyright notice. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holders send free licenses to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Danny+Mac+Arrivals+Inside+Soap+Awards+I5S1RPgq01-l.jpg[edit]

This is an image of myself and a public file to which i have an original copy. Please can you allow. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetotype (talk • contribs)

 Oppose While you may own a copy of the image, it is very unlikely that you own the copyright to it. That almost always belongs to the photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gaurav Chopra 0315.jpg[edit]

This picture has been taken during public event and does not break or violate any copyright issue. The current picture of this actor is 4 year old and it is an attempt to replace it with the most current picture. Please help me to undelete this picture. Thanks so much--Jazz.291 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all images have copyrights. The fact that this was taken at a public event is completely irrelevant. There is no evidence that you have the right to freely license this image taken from a Facebook page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Farhad.21.jpg[edit]

Also:File:Farhad.22.jpg

I copyright holder of this photo. I took this photo and shared in my blog. This link is my blog and you can see this photo in down of my blog. http://kolbedel.persianblog.ir/page/other--Saman hakimi (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As you say, these images appear elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Identity theft is common here, both by vandals and by fans, so we don't actually know who Saman hakimi is. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jack-jack-radiodisney.jpg[edit]

I would like to request undeletion of the file found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack-jack-radiodisney.jpg

It was originally deleted as the license did not permit it under the Creative Commons license on Flickr, since then I have spoken to the creator of the photograph who has changed the original license so it is now available for use on Wikipedia Commons (the source file is found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93544335@N04/16311614524/in/set-72157651162382798 ). I would like for it to be undeleted so it is available for use on the Jack & Jack Wikipedia article.

--Jackslullaby (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christus Koning kazuifel detail 1960.ti[edit]

I request to deblock the File:Christus Koning kazuifel detail 1960.tif. reason: after searching my archive it appears to be my own photograph, in fact it is a detail of a photograph I took in the period 2003-2012. I don't remember the exact date. --Lugtigheid&textiel (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to re-upload the file if there is a Commons-compatiable license for it -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christus aan het kruis 1958.tif[edit]

request to undelete the following files: File:Christus aan het kruis 1958.tif and File:Nijmeegse model 1968.tif the reason is that the autor has licenced the photographs for publication as it was stated the moment the photographs were commissioned.

I, René Lugtigheid, am acting as the representative of B. Stadelmaier, the owner of the licence. I can present a copy of the licence if requested. The licence is dated march 5 2015.

The licence is conform Creative Common Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivatives (BY-NC-ND).

--Lugtigheid&textiel (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wandtapijt 1850 jarig stadsjubileum Nijmegen 1955.jpg[edit]

I request to undelete the file: File:Wandtapijt 1850 jarig stadsjubileum Nijmegen 1955.jpg. I represent the copyright holder of this image, B. Stadelmaier. If required I can present a written statement by the author of the image. --Lugtigheid&textiel (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC) april 1, 2015[reply]

 Oppose The copyright for the image itself is probably not a problem, as the work appears to be flat art. The copyright to the artwork that is shown in the image is the problem here. If this is a work created by Stadelmaier Nijmegen BV, then according to the linked article, the copyright to this work is now owned by one of the Belgian companies Slabbinck and Arte Grosse. In any case, the actual copyright holder will need to send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you appear to be using two different names here:
Using more than one name is generally not a good idea and it is forbidden to use one name to upload an image and then a different name to discuss it. Please pick one name or the other for all future Commons work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Estadiomunicipalpedroucos.jpg[edit]

This image is available on the web for use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leugim1994 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source site, http://www.zerozero.pt/, has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom of every page. There is no evidence that you have the right to freely license its images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alw-portrait-2014.jpg[edit]

Please undelete and insert {{OTRS|2015032410027161}}. Please, can you see other pictures from this same user. He sent me an email about the deleted files, but I closed the ticket days ago and I truly don't remember if I did ask for the undeletion. I'm confused. Ta. Willy Weazley 17:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WHE-portrait-2015.jpg[edit]

OTRS:2015032510034099. Thanks.Willy Weazley 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 18:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012710019552 received from the subject's son claiming copyright is verbally transferred to him from the photographers who are colleagues of his father. He used the word "formally"; but as he can't recall their names I assume it is verbally. Unable to verify the email address; so collected a signed document. Subject deceased on 2002. Jee 15:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't like it. Copyright cannot be transferred verbally -- it requires a written agreement, and, since he does not know the names of the photographers, obviously he does not have a written agreement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
I restored these files. Jim, I think that's a bit too much unnecessary bureaucracy. However, I am not sure that the permission can apply to File:Dr Ernest Mercier nomination Lennoxville.jpg. {{PD-Canada}} applies to File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The man has a memory that three different copyright holders transferred copyright to him or his father more than 13 years ago. One of the three images is a newspaper clip from 1952. Quite aside from the fact that copyright law requires written transfers, can we really accept his assertion on any of them? I think this is a case where the son is willing to say anything to get his father's picture on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK fine. I deleted 2 files. Yann (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jameslwoodward: you're quite right in asserting that we are trying to get those pictures on the encyclopedia. Now, we're doing our best to be honest as we fully believe in Wikimedia's mandate of respecting copyright laws and acting conservatively when ownership is contentious. I agree with you on the picture of the newspaper clipping. However, we do believe that the picture File:Dr Ernest Mercier Cuba.jpg was taken at the request of the subject and probably using his own photographic equipment. It is also very much possible that it was taken by a Cuban person (I'm not sure how they handle copyright under communist rule). Regardless, if there is a copyright holder, it is no longer feasible to find them. They are most likely long deceased or simply untraceable. Could you suggest any course of action? Thanks Tinss (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then the file is probably not ok for Commons. See COM:PCP. In most cases, just because you are unable to discern a copyright holder of a creative work does not in fact mean that a copyright does not exist for said work -FASTILY 08:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cuban copyright law is much the same as other signatories to the Berne Convention. Unfortunately, as Fastily suggests, "probably" and "most likely" are not good words here -- policy requires that you prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is freely licensed and without a written document from the photographer or a license from his heirs, that cannot be. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries have quite different rules than others, specially in Latin America. We don't have anything for Cuba in Commons:Copyright rules by territory, but the law is available here: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the current possessor of the picture to give me a snapshot of the back of the photo to see if it will provide any clues as to its origin. That being said, I've taken a look a the cuban copyright laws as outlined by the text Yann linked to and it appears that copyright is valid for 25 years after the death of the author unless explicitly transferred to its heirs. However, the following will most likely be of interest to you guys:
Capitulo VII: de las limitacions del derecho de autor, Seccion I: de la utilizacion de une obra sin consentimiento del autor y sin renumeracion, Articulo 38: reproducir une obra por un procedimiento fortogràfico otro analogo, cuando la reproduciòn la realice une biblioteca, un centro de documentacion, una institucion cientifica o un establecimiento de ensenanza, y siempre que se haga con caracter non lucrativo y que la cantidad de ejemplares se limite estrictamente a las necessidades de una actividad especifica.
In English, it says that copyrighted works can be used in an educational context without the consent of the author. This sort of qualifies as fair use in my opinion, which is not permitted on commons, but could be of use to individual wikies.
Tinss (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would be most useful is: What is the term for anonymous works? Are there special conditions for photographs? (often different than for other works). Regards, Yann (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to [2], for photographic work, the copyright period is 10 years following the use of the work. Yann (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article 42 states that the right to use copyrighted works from Cuba by aliens has to be formally granted by a government authority. That's an issue. However, Article 3 states that copyright protection are subordinated to the superior interests of the diffusion of science, education and culture. Article 16 states that copyright on works by an unknown author can be claimed by anyone who comes out publicly first while the real identity of the author has not been legally asserted. Lastly, Article 22 stipulates that copyright on photographic works can only be asserted if each copy of the original (we're in pre-internet days here) is duly identified according to the norms in place. Tinss (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of uncertainties here. The man was a Canadian, and the source is "family photo". We don;t know if this was first published in Cuba, in Canada, or, most likely never before it appeared here. If it can be shown that it was first published in Cuba, then the ten years that Yann mentions would apply. If first in Canada, then Canadian law would apply; if never before, then US law governs. In either of those cases it will be under copyright for 70 years after the death of the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to go ahead and close this as  Not done per COM:PCP, because the remaining two files are missing clear evidence of permission. As Jim says, "there are a lot of uncertainties here", and as such, it would appear that we've hit a dead end. -FASTILY 08:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Justin Forsett.jpg and File:Justin forsett.jpg[edit]

PLEASE NOTE: there is a different file that has been uploaded at File:Justin Forsett.jpg in the time since the original was deleted. My request is in regards to the original file and it can be moved to a different name like File:Justin Forsett (Cal).jpg so as to not conflict with the file currently at that name and uses thereof.

There is a valid OTRS ticket at 2007083110001056 authenticating the license for this image. Though it was transferred to Commons by someone else, :en admins can view en:Special:Undelete/File:Justin_Forsett.jpg to confirm that this ticket is applicable to the image. I'm slightly dismayed that the cropped version, which I had uploaded, was deleted without notifying me. Had I been notified, I could have clarified the validity of the license.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Justin forsett.jpg, where the original contributor / copyright holder had asked that his real name not be used. At File:Justin forsett.jpg, we had done a history purge so obviously we want to restore only those revisions since the contributor's name was purged.

Thank you, --UserB (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are three images involved in this filename's history, the current one, an image of him in the end zone, and an image of him midfield, with two players in red shirts on either side of a hole that he is about to go through. Which one do you want undeleted? The OTRS ticket does not describe the image. How do we tie the OTRS license to the correct image? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: The correct revision is this one:
01:49, 23 December 2008 UserB (talk | contribs) uploaded File:Justin Forsett.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=en transfer}} |Source=en transfer |Author=en transfer |Date= |Permission= |other_versions= }} <!--{{ImageUpload|full}}-->)
If you are an admin on :en, you can look at [3] and the image uploaded there is the correct one, was uploaded by the copyright holder himself, and tagged with the OTRS permission tag. If you cannot see the :en version, It is a 400x275 image, 133,856 bytes, showing #20 juking while carrying a football. #52 in red is pursuing him from behind and #25 in red is in front of him. (The copyright holder had previously asked that his real name NOT be used to attribute the image and the version I uploaded in December 2008 was our effort to comply with his request - Rlevse deleted the old version and I re-uploaded it without his name being used.) --UserB (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we need a WP:EN Admin/Commons Admin/OTRS volunteer to close this out. Magog, will you take alook at this, please. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete File:KRSC_logo.jpeg[edit]

Dear Support,

This is OUR image. It is uploaded by us in the KR Security Council to our new article Kurdistan Region Security Council. This is our emblem taken from our official twitter account - http://www.twitter.com/KRSCPress

The image I uploaded is named KRSC_Logo.jpeg. It was removed from our page and the photo was deleted.

Can you please undelete this photo and add it back to the wikipedia page?

Thank you. --The7thalchemist (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 April 2015

I've uploaded a version locally to enwiki for now under a claim of fair use. To get the file restored here, please see this page. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo de Ganze.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been given in ticket:2015040110013823. Mbch331 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose does not appear to come from one of their official addresses, rather a webmail account. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the person mailing is the same as the treasurer ("penningmeester") and his lastname matches the accountname of the user that uploaded the file and is creating the article about the club on the Dutch Wikipedia. It is very well possible that the mentioned mailaddress is a forwarding address and if you don't know how to setup your mailclient it's impossible to send an e-mail from that address. Mbch331 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a message to the official address of the treasurer requesting confirmation. If he can't send from the official address, but only from the gmail, the confirmation will come from that address, if it's fake (what I don't expect), he'll let us know he knows nothing about it. Mbch331 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply from the Gmail address for the message I sent to the official address. That means both mail addresses are linked and the request is valid. As I expected the official address is a forwarding only address used because not they don't want their private mailaddresses on their website. So please undelete the file as the mentioned objection has been dealt with. Mbch331 (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Invisible Bird.svg[edit]

This picture was deleted as Vandalism. Although it was used to vandalize the Wikipedia page Invisible rail, it is not inherently vandalism. Now that April Fools' Day is over we would like to have this image, to live on in the collective Wikipedian memory. I'd like to be able to use it on Wikipedia:April_Fools/Invisible_Bird. The image can be found with DuckDuckGo image search. Please undelete the image, or re-upload it. Thank you --Naytz (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment: “Funny” that at File:Invisible Bird.svg there’s no link to a deletion request, only a link to COM:V. Now vandalism in Wikimedia Commons is reason enough to undo an edit or an upload, or to delete a “gallery” or even a category, but hardly to delete a file, especially without discussion. (Pinging User:David Levy.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The image was tagged for speedy deletion – rightly so, as it "was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism".
    Regarding this undeletion request, the English Wikipedia's tradition is to celebrate project-space April Fools' Day jokes and deny recognition of those performed in the article namespace, which are considered vandalism. Naytz, while well-intentioned, has created an inappropriate tribute to an act of vandalism. —David Levy 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Friday Night Fever.jpg[edit]

I want my photo File:Friday Night Fever.jpg undeleted because.....

1. I only posted a few days ago
2. I am using the photo for a reason
3. Another user cannot assume it was copyright while you go along with it. The user did not have proof of anything. I did make that picture in Photoshop all by myself so basically what the user said about it being a copyright photo or being "copied" from someone or something else is plain irrelevance.
4. If the person said it was copyrighted and did not have any proof or evidence, The staff of Wikipedia/Wikimedia should do something about it. This is not YouTube where you can say whatever and get away with it. THIS IS WIKIMEDIA!!!! You should at least be more responsible before jumping to conclusions about things!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay12344 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Points (1) and (2) are irrelevant. As for points (3) and (4), on Commons, the burden of proof is on the uploader to show that the image is freely licensed or PD. If you actually created the image yourself, including being the photographer, then this can be reconsidered, but diatribes will get you nowhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:PS. Commons is not a personal photo album -FASTILY 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zelda majoras mask pin badge.jpg[edit]

This was a Picture of the Zelda Pin Badge taken by myself... no Copyright violation... Maybe it looks to clear...... Please restore it :)

It's a copy of someone else's artwork. Therefore it's copyright infringement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about this Image? I'm confused. This isn't a artwork?!? --Laserlicht (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is -- it has a copyright as sculpture. That would be true in any country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:М Ишмаметов.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015020610007709). --Mdann52talk to me! 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Böszörményi Zoltán.jpg[edit]

Această poza a fost fotografiat de noi, la cererea persoanei de pe poza, chiar cu camera foto persoanei. Fotografia a fost editată (crop) pentru a scoate in evidenta doar te person. Poza este facuta in Budapesta in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyJ (talk • contribs) 09:35, 3 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

From the author of the photo, so we can give to our editorial use right place for this photo. Photography is used even in our http://www.irodalmijelen.hu/contact and many other sites where shown editor in chief: Zoltán Böszörményi. If necessary I will send an email to the editorial explicitly expresses the wish that this picture still be used by anyone without any restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyJ (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I said above, in order to restore this image, the actual copyright holder, whoever that may be, must send a free license. The procedure is explained in detail at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alesso profile.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014120810020067). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EditoraGenteConvidaLivrariaVila04122013.jpg[edit]

This file was design by myself for a public usage. There is no copyright involved. We are from DWQ Dream World Quest organization responsable for Expeditions Projects, Books and Editorial contents. This file was made to support the "Estrada para os sonhos" book´s launch and communication. Please confirm at www.dwq.com.br — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContatoDWQ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose With limited exceptions which do not apply here, all created works have copyrights, so "There is no copyright involved" is not a correct statement. The web site you mention, www.dwq.com.br, has a clear copyright notice on every page.
Your statement:
"This file was made to support the "Estrada para os sonhos" book´s launch and communication."
suggests strongly that this file violates COM:ADVERT. Commons is not a place to launch a book. Entirely aside from the copyright issue, I think this probably violates Commons rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Picture of the Author.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015020210016797). Please also rename file to "Photo of Uri Norwich.jpg" Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 17:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done @ File:Photo of Uri Norwich.jpg -FASTILY 07:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IvonneAlvarez.jpg[edit]

This file contains relevant images of a fraudulet politician. The image was lent by Multimedios with no restriction. Several similar images are found in the internet.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kistofer Schipper Gangshan1966.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted in ticket:2015032010048173, but user forgot to mention it on the page. (And didn't tell OTRS team about the upload) Mbch331 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Top 10 demographic immigrant groups.jpg[edit]

This graph was sourced from Statistics Denmark {{Statistics Denmark}}, which means it is a part of free, public domain. Statistics Denmark allows visitors to their site to create their own graphs of existing national data and publish them. This graph describes the top 10 countries of origin for immigrant populations in Denmark as of 2014. As an image from public domain, I would appreciate this image being restored to the Wikimedia Commons. Please direct any further questions about this image or its source to me. Rloftis5672 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is correct, the deletion was an indeed (understandable) error... I suspect a lack of proper attribution, though as a non-admin I can not ofc see the deleted file. If the description given above is correct, then I would support undeletion with a fix to the file page immediately forthcoming (i.e. undelete and tag with something like {{Nsd}} for redeletion if not fixed. Revent (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged by Krdbot as 'Copyvio, external source, no license'. I guess you did not insert the license, and INeverCry presumed this is a copyvio and deleted it. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is quite that easy. At http://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1536, the web site says the following. I have highlighted my concerns.

"It is part of Statistics Denmark’s mission to make official statistics available free of charge to every user, and all citizens are welcome to use and reproduce data from dst.dk, StatBank Denmark and publications from Statistics Denmark intended for school tasks, research, media products, etc.
The contents from dst.dk and the database StatBank Denmark may freely be reproduced, provided that Statistics Denmark is cited as source. The source reference must, as far as possible, indicate/link to the place in question on dst.dk or the the database StatBank Denmark, where the figures can be viewed in their full context by the user.
You are welcome to reproduce our graphic figures or make your own graphic figures on the basis of our data. Statistics Denmark must also in this context be cited as source.
If you subject our data to further processing; this must be clearly stated. This can be done, e.g. by writing: ”Source” Own calculations based on data from Statistics Denmark."
If you are a journalist or editor, you can obtain further details about the usage of Statistics Denmark’s data in the media from Statistics Denmark’s media pages.
Please note that passing on data of the full contents from Statistics Denmark’s publications or newsletters must only take place for commercial purposes after having obtained written permission from Statistics Denmark.

The vast majority of potential users of this material are not citizens of Denmark, so it is not at all clear that the first paragraph permission applies to us. The third paragraph is not ND, but it requires special handling of derivatives. And it's not clear what the last paragraph means -- is it a blanket prohibition on commercial use of anything, or only a prohibition on certain things. It is entirely possible that the Danish version of this page is clearer and less restrictive, but I don't think this file should be restored without clarification.

If it is restored, the license cannot be PD, as stated above. {{Attribution}} is required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(nods) I can't see it currently, but I assume the info given on the file page was wrong, I didn't mean the deleting admin made an 'error', but that it seems like the end result worked out that way. The last paragraph seems to only apply to a reproduction of a 'complete' publication, and not to the reuse of particular data. Of course a reading of the source language version would be better, but the {{Statistics Denmark}} template addresses the requirement for attribution (and does not make a PD claim). Revent (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement to indicate if the data has been subjected to further processing by the reuser is directly equivalent to the requirement in 3.0 and 4.0 CC licenses that modifications must be indicated, so seems fine. Revent (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you as far as you go, but what about
"...and all citizens are welcome to use and reproduce data..."
as most Commons users are not citizens of Denmark. Perhaps it is a bad translation, but it is the site's official English translation.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a valid point, if that is intended as an actual restriction or not isn't explicitly clear... Google translates the Dutch text there as 'everyone', but it really needs to be looked at by a fluent speaker (or someone needs to contact them and ask). Revent (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak fluent Danish, but I do speak native Swedish, which is pretty damn close. In the official Danish text it says "[...] og alle er meget velkomne til at bruge og gengive data [...]" which translates to "[...] and all is very welcome to use and reproduce data [...]". Josve05a (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I may have translated the "very" wrongly. da:meget >> sv:mycket >> en:much) Josve05a (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read more carefully: '[...] alle er meget velkomne til at bruge og gengive data fra dst.dk, statistikbanken og publikationer fra Danmarks Statistik til skoleopgaver, forskning, medieprodukter eller lignende.' = '[...] everyone is very welcome to use and reproduce data from dst.dk, statistikbanken and publications from Danmarks Statistik for school essays, research, media products or similar. So you might not be able to use the material for other purposes. Specifically: 'Bemærk venligst; videreformidling af det fulde indhold af publikationer eller nyhedsbreve må kun finde sted i kommercielt øjemed efter skriftlig tilladelse fra Danmarks Statistik.' = 'Please note; redistribution of the complete contents of publications or newsletters may only be done for a commercial purpose after written permission from Danmarks Statistik.' I can't find the word 'statsborger' (citizen) anywhere in the text, but there may be problems with commercial use. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stefan. I think several of us agreed above that the commercial use restriction applied only to taking "the complete contents of publications or newsletters" -- that it did not create a problem for Commons hosting of individual images or graphs. I think that answers all of the questions here, so I  Support restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per above, and because the NC restrictions don't seem to be applicable here -FASTILY 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julio Conde.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015020610006504). --Mdann52talk to me! 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: Here is a other mail address. Looks dubious. Can you ask if he really holds the right of this pics? Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: Will do - I note that I can't see who the photographer is quoted as on the original upload, this would help a lot but seems like no easy way to get this. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CO2-emissions-regulations-LV1.gif [edit]

Undelete, please. Ticket:2015032710008908. Willy Weazley 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC) File:2014-Global-Turbo-Forecast.png File:Honeywell Automated Demand Response (ADR) Diagram.jpg File:VNT Vanes Open.jpg[reply]

Oppose not actually covered by ticket, ticket only covers the logo. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same source and copyrights holder. If you disagree unlock the ticket and handle yourself. Willy Weazley 18:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we don't have a statement of permission for them - that's like saying "the photographer gave permission for one of their photo's, that means we can use them all!". 81.170.93.45 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this as  Not done because it seems the permission in the ticket is insufficient -FASTILY 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:klm744.png[edit]

این عکس دارای مجوز بود — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saamirkarimi (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Google translates the request as "Wayne reversal Darai Mjos iPod", which is not very helpful. However, the image has "Photo Copyright (C) Peter Vercruijsse" as a watermark, and appears at http://www.airliners.net/photo/0064022 with an explicit warning, "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission", so, in order to restore it, we will need a free license from Peter Vercruijsse using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Niels Korte.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snapshot of Steam with Store Selected.PNG[edit]

I do not understand why it was deleted. All it was, was a screenshot of Steam (software). How is this a copyright violation? I want to help and add content to Wikipedia. I will do whatever I can to clean up this mess. I've seen other screenshots not be removed for a copyright violation. Please, explain to me. --Emil Sayahi (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose All of the photographs and the logo on the page have copyrights. The page itself has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom -- below your screenshot. Any screenshots that are kept on Commons that are not either licensed or PD should be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images[edit]


Solicito que se deshaga el borrado de las imagenes, ya que cuento con la autorización previa para usarlas. Provienen de fuentes como Facebook, páginas web(http://www.hermandaddejesuscautivoarequipa.blogspot.com) En el anterior link, puede apreciar que las imagenes que yo usé son de licencia libre, además de que se muestra esta cita "Estimado Hermano(a): Si vas a utilizar alguna foto y/o información del presente Blog te agradeceremos citar la fuente y colocar el link de la página. Que Dios te bendiga", coloqué la dirección URL al final de la página tal como lo especifica la frase, cumpliendo con lo que dice tal. En cuanto a las fotos que saqué de redes sociales, me he comunicado con los distintos autores de las imagenes: al Sr. Cesar Chicata y las diferentes Hermandades, ellos aceptaron mi pedido. Si bien reconozco que, cuando subía las fotos, en el paso donde me piden citar al autor yo escribia acrónimos como "hjsca" (no me acuerdo bien), ocurrió porque no me di el tiempo de colocar la verdadera fuente, quizá porque estaba ansioso de ver lista la página de Wikipedia que había creado.

Así que, con su anticipada comprensión y pidiendo mis más sinceras disculpas, reitero el pedido de deshacer el borrado de las imagenes y me comprometo a darme el tiempo para rectificar quienes son los verdaderos autores y las fuentes.

--MarCáceresCampos (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Facebook is copyrighted. The blog you cite, http://www.hermandaddejesuscautivoarequipa.blogspot.com, does not have a free license. As you point out, it does say

" Si vas a utilizar alguna foto y/o información del presente Blog te agradeceremos citar la fuente y colocar el link de la página.
"If you use any photos and / or information in this Blog appreciate you cite the source and place the link on the page."
translator: Google
That does not say that anyone may use the images, just that attribution would be appreciated it anyone does. I also doubt very much that the blogger actually owns the copyright to all of them -- several of them come up on other web sites that have copyright notices.
The only way that these can be restored is if, in each case, the actual copyright holder of the image sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kanabiz.jpg[edit]

This picture have not copyright, is a free use image,and i have the complete photography session on my Canon S5 IS PowerShot camera.

4- april - 2015

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, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Presa el Rejón.jpg[edit]

I am the crator of the image, and can't understand why has it been removed --Fercoss (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2015 (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, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mammoth Mammoth live show shot.jpg[edit]

To Whom It May Concern, This file was submitted with permissions emailed to the correct email address with the copyright holder giving me permission to upload their images as he was not aware of how to do it. In the email, the creator/copyright holder signed and dated it, nominating a license and listing me as being the person to upload the work to Wikicommons. We can re-send these documents should they be needed. Can this image be reinstated once we re-send all documents pertaining to copyright? MissSoot (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 10:29, 5 April 2015 (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! 13:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Nick (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:عبدالغفور ویاند.jpg was copied from facebook, but with permission of its owner[edit]

the file File:عبدالغفور ویاند.jpg was copied by me from facebook (one of my friends) who own this photo. so firstly i requested him abut the topic which he writen abut the same photo. he allowed me to copy the article as well as the photo for pashto wiki.

so my request is to plz undelete the photo which is removed from wikimedia.

regards

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image has appeared on Facebook, therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder -- almost certainly the photographer, not you or your friend -- must send a free license to OTRS. Please note that permission for "the article as well as the photo for pashto wiki" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for all use everywhere by anyone, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:Jaap Rus 1945.jpg[edit]

I would like to request undeletion of this photograph on behave of the uploader. This work is created in 1944 and the images is created in the Netherlands. See here and here for previous discussion's about this image. This is a family photograph which has never been published before and according to art 37/39 of the Dutch copyright law the image should be in the public domain. Works which are published 70 years after their creation date are out of copyright according to article 39. There is a publication right and that term is 25 years according to article 45o. In my opinion we can believe the uploader when it comes to the details of the image like the creation date and the fact the this is an anonymous work according to article 38 section 1. There is no author mentioned and it is impossible to verify the creator without doubt. {{PD-EU-unpublished}} should be a match. This image should at least have a proper DR instead of a speedy deletion. The image title contains the year 1945 as a date but the uploader made a mistake with the date and didn't know how to correct it. Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... but then its U.S. copyright would be the earlier of 95 years from publication, and 120 years from creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who owns the US copyright in this case? Honest question. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this docuement " it is the publisher who exercises copyright in such works on behalf of the author". Since this work has never beeen published before according to the uploader and I see no reason not to believe him the uploader may exercise the copyright and he/she released this file onder a cc-license which covers the US-part. Am I correct or am I talking bullshit? Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeThe US copyright is owned by the photographer or his heirs. Since the photographer is unknown, it is an orphan work and we don't keep copyrighted works, even if they are orphans. I'm not sure that you can apply the Netherlands rule either. It requires the work to be anonymous and the fact that we do not know the author does not prove that. That is different from the rule in countries like the UK, where a diligent search can put the work in the category "unknown author". In the Netherlands, you must prove that the author actually intended to remain anonymous.
I also question whether this is actually unpublished. The image shows artifacts of some sort, that might come from scanning a halftone or rotogravure reproduction. If the image is simply scanned from a photographic print, then there should be no artifacts of the sort we are seeing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When something is an anonymous work is defined in article 38: "Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad." If there is no author mentioned it is anonymous. "Niet is aangeduid" can be roughly translates as not listed. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will also have to consider the Berne Convention and the w:Copyright Duration Directive, which the Netherlands is required to apply. Both state that a work is deanonymised if the author later reveals his identity. You also have to prove that the picture was created more than 120 years ago, as required by United States law. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After 70 years have passed after the work has been published for the first time it won't be deanonymised according the article 38 of the auteurwet. And according to article 39 copyright expires when a work isn't published 70 years after the creation date. I already figured that it won't be possible to prove that the work has been published more than 120 years ago after readig Jim and Carl's argument's ;). Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author or their heirs is probably the copyright owner. Although if there are specific laws in the source country in regards to copyright ownership, those would probably be followed even in the U.S. "Unknown" is not the same thing as "anonymous" unfortunately -- for the publisher to represent the author they would have to know who the author is, most likely. If they are publishing the work without explicit permission then they are committing copyright infringement themselves, technically -- that does not give them any rights over the copyright. It could very well be this falls in the ugly category of "orphan works", which are in a kind of limbo -- the authors are probably never identifiable, but rights still exist, and there is no law to specially limit them. The odds of a problem coming from actually using it are therefore very low, but it's not the same thing as "free". If it was a studio portrait and there was an implied transfer of copyright... then maybe the copyright owner changed, but I'm not sure that situation is implied (nowadays definitely not, but it was less clear in that era). If the photo was taken by a family member, and an heir is providing permission, I'd be inclined to accept that. But otherwise this sort of thing is hard. See this article, for example. (That article ignores the treatment of "published" at the time, so such photos were very possibly "published", if there was no explicit restriction on further distribution of the photos. But ownership is another issue, and it may have taken the negatives to also be given over for there to be an implied transfer of ownership.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think we should be less strict about this kind of material. However, as Jim mentioned, it seems to be a scan from some publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be very good if we adopted a freer policy on orphan works -- keeping them, appropriately tagged, unless someone complains. That would require a modification of PRP and, possibly a WMF vote. However, until we have such a policy, we're stuck with the fact that current policy is to reject copyrighted works that don't have a license, even if they are clearly orphans. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using works without permission is a crime, and you may be punished for doing so, even if no one, including the copyright holder, can identify the copyright holder. Commons can't host files which suggest that users should commit crimes. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a single case anywhere in the world of a person being even charged, much less found guilty, with a crime for using an orphan work without permission? I'd be very surprised to find one. While copyright infringement for financial gain is a crime in many jurisdictions, the vast majority of infringement cases are handled in civil court and without a complaining party, I'd be very surprised if any prosecutor would attempt to bring even civil penalties against infringement of orphan works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those orphaned works will probably quilify as fair use as well. While fair use is against our policy it doesn't change the legal state of the images. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that copyright infringement, regardless of circumstances, is a crime, is one I've seen many times, but it's an error, as Jim and Natuur12 have pointed out. If one is using an image for profit, caution is in order, but, in the U.S. at least (and thus the WMF servers are covered), reasonable response of a nonprofit to a w:DMCA take-down order is quite enough to protect the host and a good-faith uploader as well. Green Giant proposed, on meta, m:NonFreeWiki, which would host what is legal (until objection, at least) for usage on WMF wikis. What's obvious to me is that this would best be Commons, with non-free tags on anything not fully free, i.e, machine-readable so that WMF non-free policy is satisfied. In that case, if there is a debate here, it would be over a tag, not keep/delete, far less contentious. Clear copyvio would still be deleted. NC licenses would be allowed. Commons remains what it is, a repository for free images, but simply adds something else, clearly marked. And if there is a take-down order, the page is not ordinarily "deleted," but the takedown order is documented, perhaps with a thumbnail left visible, i.e., clearly fair use for a lawful purpose here, providing image information. Like Google.
With this expansion of the Commons mission, file uploads to the individual wikis could be disabled, leading to far better image curation. Individual wikis would still have authority over local Fair Use, assuming appropriate Commons policies. As far as I can see, everyone wins.
As to this image, the COM:PRP is sometimes misinterpreted to require removal upon any doubt whatever. It actually refers to "significant doubt," which is a judgment that the community may make. That would only apply, at best, to images being certified as fully free (i.e, what Commons currently hosts other than transiently or inadvertently). Even there, though, such principles, legally, do not extend into unreasonable doubt. We may imagine, here, that some hidden owner will appear, so many years later, but the probability of that is so low that this doubt could be considered unreasonable. Further, even if the owner appears, damage to that owner is extremely unlikely. Thus PRP is misapplied. Hence my choice will follow. --Abd (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  support undeletion for normal DR, if any user insists, per Natuur12. The matter deserves a more careful review. The deletion reason was: (No source since 18 March 2015: you may re-upload the file, but please cite the file's source). Given that re-upload was allowed, the file should clearly be undeleted, tagged as needing source information, and edited within a reasonable (renewed) time to show whatever source information is available, and then if anyone still objects, DR would be in order. --Abd (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Uploader said here that this picture was taken by the photographer De Zoomeren in the Papegaaistraat in Goes. This photographer could be identified as Fidelis Franciscus (Frans) De Soomer (Antwerp, 1888 - Goes, 1969). Gouwenaar (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this one withdrawn. The uploader left some important details out so I'm done assisting him/her. Natuur12 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom. Also there seem to still be some remaining issues with the copyright status that have yet to be resolved. -FASTILY 18:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mbau MFMA15.jpg[edit]

The image deleted was taken by Khanyi Mbau's personal photographer at the Metro FM Awards back in March. she herself requested that I make it her display image as she holds the rights to it. additionally I had credited the news website it appeared on but it still got deleted. Thank you. --KardashianSource (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what is said above, this user needs assistance in verifying image ownership through OTRS. The deletion was proper, but with OTRS verification, it will likely be undeleted. Nothing to do now. I will notify the user about OTRS. --Abd (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done User notified.[5] --Abd (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2015 (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 18:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eugeni Conxeta.jpg[edit]

Las fotografias que se han subido son propiedad de Eugeni Alemany, el cual me las cedió expresamente para que aparecieran en la página de la Wikipedia que hace referencia a su persona. Por este motivo pido que se reestauren.

--Caprones (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2015 (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 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arik Strauss in Tel Aviv Jazz Festival 2005.pdf[edit]

Hello, The file mentioned above is 2 pages from the 2005 Tel Aviv Jazz Festival program. I've already sent (on March 23) a written permission from the festival's producer to the mail: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org The letter I sent was written on the official letterhead of the Tel Aviv municipality producing the festival, but here is the content of the letter:

March 18 2015

To whom it may concern, I hereby give my consent to Mr. Arik Strauss, for the use of 2005 Jazz festival program material in Wikipedia

Sincerely,

Revital oz Producer Tel-aviv jazz festival

Please reconsider not to delete this file needed as a reference in Arik Strauss's Wikipedia entry. Thank youציפור שיר (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Delfinmzt.webm[edit]

El autor me dio permiso de usar su música en el video, aquí esta la prueba. exijo que lo restauren. ---- The author gave me permission to use their music in the video, here is the proof. I demand it restored.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comprobante3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williams Osuna (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you requested a Wikipedia-only permission and a permission limited to educational purposes. That is nowhere near sufficient for hosting on Commons. Everything here must be free for anyone to use, modify and redistribute anywhere for any purpose, including commercial purposes. I demand recommend that you read Commons:Project scope/Summary for information on what you can and cannot upload to Commons and Commons:OTRS for information on how to obtain an appropriate permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soanpapdi Poster.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a free content and this image can be used by anyone, for any purpose and I approve this as the owner of this work Editorwikiinfo (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This is a poster for a movie. The movie does not appear on IMDB or on Google, so it probably does not meet our standards of notability. Therefore, in order to have this image restored, you must first show that the movie is notable and then the person actually holding the copyright for the movie must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Магазин компанії Цифровичок у Львові.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I made this photo and posted on the site for free access http://www.cyfrovychok.ua/page/about-a-shop.html Rivnosim (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Знімок екрану головної сторінки сайту Цифровичок.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is my photo and my copyright Rivnosim (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is an image of the web page www.cyfrovychok.ua which has a clear and explicit copyright notice at the bottom. It is also an advertising page, which violated COM:ADVERT, so there are two reasons not to have it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mikkel Wrang.jpg[edit]

Jeg har kontaktet rettighedshaver, og billedet kan bruges frit uden restriktioner. --Baid2000 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Baid2000[reply]

In any event, because of the previous use on the Web, policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:S.155 1.jpg[edit]

Please undelete; I need to know what kind of files it is. Copyright's holders is related with <http://themamedia.com/>. Ticket#2015032410012061.Willy Weazley 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily?.Kr,Willy Weazley 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Willy Weazley: Done now, sorry for the delay. -FASTILY 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:University of Jaffna Crest.png[edit]

Dear All,

i am thileepan , working in university of Jaffna , Sri Lanka as a administrative staff. why should delete is my correction. logo was copyrighted but wrong color of the crest. recently i attached the logo of university of jaffna is corrected colors & filled of depth. earlier one is wrong color crew of the university of Jaffna. so please allow this File:University of Jaffna Crest.png for further correspondent.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thileep29 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Which "earlier one"? I don't think we have or have had another version of the logo hosted here on Wikimedia Commons. If I'm wrong, please provide the name of the file in question. If the "earlier one" that you refer to is the older revision of en:File:UoJ logo.png, that's locally hosted on English Wikipedia as non-free fair use content, which is not permitted there, but not here on Commons. If your intention is to publish the logo under a copyright license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, we will need verification via e-mail. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX -FASTILY 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Şevket Dağdeviren.jpg[edit]

This photo is in my family collection over 80 years. It was cleaned with photoshop by Mr. Guvener Gokce and placed in Mr. Sevket Dagdeviren's page. I would appreciate if you do not it.

Kind regards,

Cem Altınel

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, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Color Divided Moon Map.png[edit]

I noticed just now that I'm marked as violating rights:

I just took the original moon file from here: File:MoonVisibleLibration.jpg and added color to it.

Why is this a violation?

Anyway I don't really need the old version of the image, just the new one.

So as I said, the important thing is that I won't be marked as someone who violates rights.

Thank you!

Shavitco (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you happy... -FASTILY 08:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2015_April_08_06:00

it's still written that I was warned as voilating rights.

Is it possible to remove this message? because I was warned mistakenly as I exaplain above?

Shavitco (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La festa dei Fallas a Valencia.webm[edit]

PD per PD-Italy and FoP-Spain. Deleted without discussion, INeverCry just claimed to a theorical Copyright violation.--Coentor (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does a 1930's movie fit the {{PD-Italy}} template? Natuur12 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here.--Coentor (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: Natuur12 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Google translation of the cited discussion is pretty good, but I don't read Italian, so I may have missed something. First, there is a repeated reference to FOP_Spain. I don't see that that has any relevance to the copyright status of the movie itself. If the various copyrighted works in the film were on permanent public display, which they are not, if might apply to them. Both Italian and Spanish law is 70 pma for movies, so a 1930s work is almost certainly under copyright because the term begins with the death of the last "author", which usually includes four or five people -- director, producer, cameramen, writer, etc. So, I think we have a movie that is still under copyright which depicts various works that are also under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In fact, Spain states 80 years pma. --Discasto talk 10:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FoP has nothing to do with the Copyright of the film, but the possible copyright of the figures. Nobody taught that that could be a problem, so the "FoP" question become irrelevant. And the works were in permanent display its whole lifespan, as stated in the previous discussion linked, and works in permanent displat during its whole lifespan fall under FoP in Spain. Is because of misunderstaning of how FoP applies into this case that the repeated reference to FoP_Spain had to be made. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Spain and its application to Falles. Once clear that recording of falles cannot be claimed to copyright due the application of FoP in Spain, the only possible discussions is if the film of Luce giornale has its copyright expired (due 70 pma) or not. And it is an anonymous works published 85 years ago. -- Coentor (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Coentor, Jim Woodward is not wrong: I was talking about photographs which, in order to be considered PD, must: 1. Be non-artistic and have no explicit copyright notice (author written on the photograph, according the Italian law); 2. Be producted in Italy and 3. Be published first in Italy. Now in this situation we are not dealing with a photograph but with a screenshot, and we are not sure it was produced in Italy. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clin Per parts: The screenshots were filmed in Spain (were, obviously, were phisically located those fallas We know they were -at least the first one- made and burned in 1928). The film, was first published in Italy 1930 as the information of Luce says. Lets ignore for a while the particularities of the italian law. The FoP issue for Spain is clear, per previous discussions, so the only doubt is about the italian copyright. In most european countries, including both SP and IT, PD last 70-80 since death of author and/or publication if annonymous. The film was published without copyright mark (I don't know if thats rellevant for Italian law) and without quoting any author, as We can see by searchin "La festa dei Fallas a Valencia" at Archivio Luce. This is not photos (but a telegiornali) and some particularities of Italian-PD could not apply, and maybe has to have the "fly" (the eagle logo) to be blanked, but the PD-Old fits for an annonymous work of 85 years old. (And the fact of being filmed in Spain in 1928 changes little, if anything, due the FoP-Spain applying to non-permanent works, see previous discussion).--Coentor (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice too that Archivio Luce does quote the authors if available. For instance, by searching "Valencia y sus flores", it has a record card where Alfredo Fraile, Cifesa, Mestre Palau or Francesc Almela i Vives are quoted as authors of some of the pieces. here--Coentor (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FoP-Spain: As it is an Italian film, you would also need to prove that the files are permitted according to Italian law. Article 5 (2) says that you can only use the laws of the country where copyright is claimed. If copyright is claimed in Italy, you can therefore make no use of any {{FoP-Spain}} as you would then be using Spanish law instead of Italian law, which the Berne Convention prohibits. I don't know if there is anything in the film which would need to depend on any freedom of panorama provision; maybe all buildings shown there already are in the public domain anyway.
{{PD-Italy}}: The EU rule is that the copyright to films expires 70 years after the death of certain people (who are not necessarily the authors and who are not necessarily all authors). There is also another EU rule which says that the first EU rule doesn't have the effect that any copyright term is shortened, so you also need to check what the law said before the first EU rule was introduced. For example, the former Swedish law said that the copyright to a film expires 50 years after the death of the author, and 'the author' usually means a larger set of people than the set of people in the EU term. For a Swedish film, you would therefore need to check that all members of one set of people have been dead for at least 70 years, and that all members of a different set of people have been dead for at least 50 years. I don't know what Italian law says, but there might be something similar in Italian law which makes the copyright term of films very difficult to determine. However, there is another thing to consider. The EU copyright rules for films only protect those parts of the film which are above the threshold of originality. A single film frame of a 'photographic' film is usually below the Italian threshold of originality, and the copyright term of a photograph which is below the threshold of originality is just 20 years. The individual film frames would seem to be in the public domain in Italy as 'photographs below the threshold of originality'. The main question seems to be whether Italy is the source country (that is, the country of first publication).
User:Blackcat: What makes you suggest that the copyright term of 20 years from creation only applies to Italian photos within Italy? I'd have thought that all photographs which are below the threshold of originality of Italy get that term. That's how it works with photographs which are below the threshold of originality of Sweden: they get a copyright term of 50 years from creation, regardless of which country they come from. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You thought wrong, Stefan. "Originality" is not a requirement for the Italian law in matter of photography. Italian copyright law states that exclusive rights of an Italy-produced "non-artistic photos" end the 1st January of the 21st year following the first publishing of the photograph in Italy. Of course the photograph must be taken in Italy and must not have any copyright notice on it. As for "non-artistic photos" the Italian law means any subject not influenced by the photographer (i.e. a shot of a sports event, people who walks on the street, etc.: more broadly the law talks about "Aspects of everyday's life"). "Artistic photograph" is where the photograph influences the subject (i.e. the choice of lights for a model photoshot, a particular pose, etc. etc. etc.). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A 'non-artistic photo' is a photograph which doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Right, Italy might use a different name ('non-artistic'), but it still means the same thing. 'Simple photos' are handled in copyright law by setting one term for photos which meet the threshold of originality and another term for photos which do not meet the threshold of originality, and the threshold of originality is then typically set to be a lot higher than in most other countries.
Looking at article 87-92, I don't find any indication that Italy only applies this rule to Italian photos, but I may have missed something, and the text is difficult for me to read. Of course, Commons would only care about the Italian photo rules if Italy is the 'source country'. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan, I know what you mean but the distinction is not purely formal. I.e. the German law states that in order not to be "original" a work must have been substantially produced through an accidental pressure on the shot button of the camera, and that the simple act of pointing the camera and shooting establish "originality" (hence substancially stating that any usable German photograph is copyrighted), which is not the case for the Italian law. In Italy 'originality' is in the subject, not in the photographer's intention. That said, as for the country, the 20-year term exception applies only to photographs taken in Italy (which means also Italian East African colonies for the period in which they were Italian territory) and first published in Italy. If these photos have been produced until 1976 and first published in 1978 they match the criteria for being in the public domain also in the USA (which I don't understand why bother since 1996 to protect a non artistic work that in its home country is by now in public domain, btw) and can be uploaded on Commons. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just plain standard 'originality', which happens to be defined differently in each country. Look at one country section at COM:TOO and you'll find one definition. Look at another country section and you may find a completely different definition. Where does the restriction on 'Italy' come from?
The United States rule is that the photograph must have been published without compliance with United States copyright formalities (that is, no copyright notice if published before 1 March 1989, or no copyright renewal if published before 1 January 1964). Some photographs were probably published with a copyright notice, and those are not fine in the United States even if created before 1976. If the first publication was on 1 March 1989 or if there was no publication at all, then no formalities were required, so your only recourse is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Silly United States rules, I know. Also, photographs created in 1976 or later do not need to comply with any formalities due to the URAA rule.
You can compare this to the Swedish rule: because of the Phil Collins ruling, it is not permitted to discriminate EEA citizens, so {{PD-Italy}} is only valid in Sweden if the photographer is not a citizen of the European Economic Area, which more or less never happens. In other cases, the full Swedish term applies (normally 25 years if created before 1969, or 50 years if created thereafter). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. according to Instituto's Luce website, there are "Reserved reproduction" (reproduccione riservata) to Instituto Luce Cinecitta. So, the "copyright" is registered by Luce accordin to Luce's website. No director or anything is credited, so is an anoynymous work registered by Luce. It was recorded in 1928 (I know that because of the images from Valencia) and first published (what actually matters) in 1930, april. Even if the "short" non-artistic photographs Italian Copyright states the 20 years rule (What could be valid for screenshots of documentaries, and this one is a documentary), the "general" Copyright rule, that is valid under Italian law states that works fail into PD after 70 years of death of author or publitation, if anonymous. And according to the website of Luce (an official Italian Institute, this is not my grandma's farm) the copyright is registered to them, and they, the copyright owners (or claimers, at least) are not able of publishing the name of neither the director or anyone who worked on this film, Despite having done so in other films. I believe the PD-Anonymous/Old license fits to the film, independently of the "20 years for simple pictures/shot in Italy or not" issue Clin.--Coentor (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file does not meet the pd-italy requirements (this is not a single frame, full spot). Furthermore: it shows creativity and we have a copyright owner; we may ask to Istituto Luce if we don't know his/her name, but if you are unable to find it, it doesn't mean that the work is anonymous. Spanish FoP has nothing to do with this video, even it has been cited more than once by the uploader. There are other problems as well: the video shows the Luce trademark (if we consider the video in the PD, we have to delete the logo or at least mark it as PD-because-of-the thresold-of-originality, we cannot upload the video as it is). @Blackcat your description is not completely correct: the keypoint in the Italian law is the "inherent creativity of a work" not the "originality" of the subject nor the "artistic" value of the reproduction, please use the correct legal terms especially if you quote them (art. 1, L. 633/1941). :-) This legal opinion written by the lawyer C. Roggero talks about the only thing that matter in this case: copyright of Italian videos. And it confirms what has been said, this video appears still copyrighted (70 years after [...]). What Jim wrote above is a short and clean description of this case. --Lucas (msg) 06:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold a second. One thing is the PD-Italy of 20 years for frames and other thing are all the other cases. Otherwise, non-photographic works would never end in PD! (FoP has to do when people tried to state that not only the film but the works recorded and shown in the film were still under copyright too, which has been proved to be false. So, FoP has nothing to do to this video now, not at the moment that was under discussion). The possibility of having cleared/blanked the Luce logo has also been spoken in this very discussion, so there is no need to discuss that again: if We have to delete the logo, then We delete it and it's over. Abou the "originality", this video is basically a documentary showing inanimated works. I believe it fits quite good in the despiction of "not artistic" that Italian law makes. So, lets focus in the only thing that could be discussed: if this is an anonymous work or not (because if it's anonymous, then PD-Old fits because it was published 85 years ago and with 70 could be enough).
This film was made for "Luce", and in Luce website (which is an official organisation of Italian government, so, it is a reliable source, or at least We should consider it) the only information given is that they are the holders of the copyright. So, it's a Luce work of unindentified author. As We can see in the links previously linked, the very Luce website DOES IDENTIFY the authors of a cinematographical work IF AVAILABLE. And they Identify all the authors relevant for Italian copyright: not only the director but also the screen-maker and all stuff. So, the offcial italian organism that made that film 85 years ago DIDN'T IDENTIFIED the authors. If this will help us in anything, I'll write to Luce in order to get some light to this, but its not crazy to understand that this work was published anonymously. After all, they made it, they have published it, and they haven't been able to say Who (people) made it. Quite anonymous, everuthing.--Coentor (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It would be interesting to know whether FoP was explicitly allowed in the 1930's Spanish Intellectual Property Law (I guess it wasn't) and how would the provisos on FoP in the 1987 lay backwards apply. It would be also interesting to discuss how FoP in Spain applies to fallas (ephemeral by its own nature), as permanent display is required. --Discasto talk 10:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not forget that "unknown" is not the same thing as "anonymous". 85 years is a long time and much has happened in the interim. It is easy to imagine records being lost. It is very hard to imagine how a movie can be anonymous. With a still picture, it is is easy, but a movie takes several people to make (many more in those days than now) and once more than one person knows who made it, it is no longer anonymous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent". The falla is set in public "permanently" until being (intentionally) burnt (end of natural lifespan). We can talk a lot abot FoP, but as I said in previous messages, its application to here is a closed issue, unless We want to spin like in a wheel. About the "unknown-anonymous" issue, let's wait for an e-mail to Luce. And lets not forget that "Luce, offical cinematographical institution who claims to have the copyright says nothing about the author despite having that very same information in other files" is not exactly the same as "uknown". Which source should We consult to know the author? Probably Luce, and by the moment, at their website they give information about authors, but not in this file. Lets wait for the e-mail.--Coentor (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting and sensible, but I guess that commons discussions do not override Spanish Intellectual Property legislation. However, I admit that we don't have the means to know what the Spanish legislator thought when referring to "permanent exhibition". Best regards --Discasto talk 06:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the Spanish legislation never had a similar case to create an antecedent, then We can't say that the application of "permanent exhibition" or "whole lifespan" does apply or not in that way. And by the moment the intention of a Falla is to be located during its whole lifespan in public places, and the Spanish Law allows FoP to "things" placed in public places during its whole lifespan. By the way, e-mail sent to Luce, waiting for a response.--Coentor (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an e-mail. According to Luce, the author is not present in their cathalogation because they don't always have that information. But their newsreel was produced directly by them in their own cine operator. So the author is unknown by the own insitution who produced the film and copyrighted it. Thats seems a "PD-Old-70" clear to me. ¿Can You restore the file so I can send the e-mail to ORTS?--Coentor (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: and @Blackcat: (I believe that I have "pinged" all admins in the conversation) I already have a response from Luce. They don't have any information about the authorship of this file (because thay always give that information, if available) but they said to me that their newsreel was made by their own means in their own facillities. So, I believe We have enough information to get the conclusion the author is not just unknown but annonymous (If the "producer" doesn't knows the name of the people who made the file, then nobody could know that). Do I have to send the e-mail to OTRS? I'll wait for a response. Thanks.--Coentor (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support By the last argument provided by Coentor. --Discasto talk 08:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PING @Lucas: and @Jameslwoodward: who oposed to the restoration.--Coentor (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally closing this because this has become a matter for OTRS. Coentor, please forward the email to OTRS; if the permission described in the email is verified acceptable by an OTRS member, then the file will be restored accordingly. -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Valencià a Alacant.webm[edit]

Hi all, this file was uploaded by @Coentor: and deleted after a regular deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valencià a Alacant.webm). The arguments used and the rationale fro the deletion result seem to contradict our own policies. According to Commons:Multi-licensing:

Commons contributors can offer as many licenses for a file as they wish, as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses specified in the licensing policy. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use.
Copyright holders can release a file under additional licenses at any time, but cannot revoke licenses (Commons does not permit licenses which can be revoked - see Commons:License revocation). Commons tries to preserve mention on the file's file description page of all licenses that a file has been released under, as this can provide flexibility for re-users, and helps re-users show that they are respecting the relevant copyright.

If those principles are valid for Commons, I can't see any reason for them not to be also valid for material coming from third-party sites. I can acknowledge that YouTube does not provide other option than CC-BY to people wishing to upload material under a CC license. However, that flaw (or intentional feature) translate into uploaders to YouTube freely releasing videos under a free license, which cannot be revoked. Therefore, YouTube videos with dual license are fully acceptable according to Commons:Multi-licensing. Otherwise, we should create a policy for YouTube materials stated that for those files, multi-licensing is not acceptable (although I can't understand why not). Best regards --Discasto talk 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose – rationale at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Videos from YouTube with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) but with a different license in the actual video. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree per Discasto.--Coentor (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeI think it is appropriate to draw a distinction between multi-licensing as we expect to see it on Commons -- with both licenses side by side and clearly intended to be used in parallel as appropriate to the specific user and a case like this where the media file has an NC license embedded in it and then appears on YouTube without the NC. My first thought is that the appearance on YouTube was not authorized by the person making the film. This seems fairly likely since if the film maker had actually intended to put it on YouTube without the NC license, he or she could easily have simply removed the NC license from the file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film maker had an intention to upload it to Youtube, because in the description We can read that they have and e-mail created to get information and contact. (Ironically, three years after it seems that that account is unmantainded: I tried to write to them without response).--Coentor (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as  Not done mostly per Jim. There seems to be an incredible amount of speculation and uncertainty here, which is never acceptable when considering copyright. From what I can see, if this file is to be restored, it will require an COM:OTRS email from the producer/director of the film. Until then, the file is, at best, missing clear evidence of permission -FASTILY 08:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wimpy Fuentebella.jpg[edit]

the photo File:Wimpy Fuentebella.jpg is an original photo for the incumbent Congressman of the Fourth District of the Province of Camarines Sur. The photo is actually his photo captured during his campaign sortie for the 2013 Philippine elections. --Paoloplopenio (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Villafuerte.jpg[edit]

the photo in here is the former Representative of the Third District of the Province of Camarines Sur. This is one of the pictures presented on his media interviews so i wish for the photo to be restored. Thanks a lot! --Paoloplopenio (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC) 04/08/15[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CCC Site.jpg[edit]

this a perspective view of the current site of the Caramoan Community College and i don't see any violations about the licensing that it may be removed in a photo. so may i appease to restore my photo. Thanks!

 Not done If you personally created this drawing, then email COM:OTRS to get it restored. Otherwise the file is not acceptable for Commons -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arnulfo P. Fuentebella in Congress.jpg[edit]

the photo is the official photo released at every media interviews of this former Congressman of the Fourth District of the Province of Camarines Sur and i think that i haven't violated anything on my license regarding the said photo. So may i request to restore the photo. Thanks! 04/08/15--Paoloplopenio (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miss World Philippines Theme Song.ogg[edit]

the media file is the official song of the Miss World Philippines beauty pageant composed by Louie Ocampo for the pageant's start in 2011. This one is not the original one sang by Mark Bautista. This was sang by Julie Ann San Jose, Frencheska Farr and Maricris Garcia during the Miss World Philippines 2014. I have recorded the song from its pageant night so it's not violating anything about the licensing of this file. hoping that may you restore it. Thanks!

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miss u colombia 7.jpg[edit]

this is the official photo of reigning Miss Universe 2014 Paulina Vega of Colombia after the pageant night on January 25, 2015 on Doral, Miami. I have got it from a reliable source and i think i have not violated anything from my license about the photo. Thanks! 04/08/15--Paoloplopenio (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ArentWeevers.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission is granted in ticket:2015040810011009 Mbch331 (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Valentin Shayev.jpg[edit]

It's my photo as I'm the person who uploaded this photo also on official site of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus. How I can confirm this thus making the photo availible again? Can also upload it in other definition to back up my words --Kunabai (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (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 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escudo.PNG[edit]

The file is a photograph taken of the front apron of the way. No copyrighted. --Jesusbg89 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (left), Pakistani Researcher, TV Host and journalist, receiving CHDWO Award for journalism and literature from Social Welfare Officer Govt of Pakistan, Mr. Javed Ahmed (right)..jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sir, please restore this file, this is my own work, and i am granting permission for use in all wikis free of cost رحمت عزیز چترالی 18:31, 8 April 2015 (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 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iqraruddin Khisraw-khowar poet.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sir this is my own work, i am the owner of this image, please restore this image to its original position, Regards رحمت عزیز چترالی 18:35, 8 April 2015 (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 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Russell “Tad” Martin.jpg[edit]

Greetings. I would like to request this file be undeleted. I have a permissions email from Russell "Tad" Martin giving me permission to use the photo. Would someone please help? I emailed OTRS on March 23rd but have received no communication or acknowlgdement that the request is being considered.

Here is a copy of the permission email I received on March 23:

I hereby affirm that I, Russell Martin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russell_“Tad”_Martin.jpg#globalusage.

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.

Russell Martin

March 11, 2015 1114Penelope (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sue-Phillips.jpg[edit]

I request the undeletion of the file Sue-Phillips.jpg on 31 March 2015 i had permission to use this image from photographer; tried to tell you, hard through the byzantine system of image management i have a letter from photographer giving permission, let me know how I get this to you, seems to be no way at this point tried to upload a new version of image, but this did not work

--Stuartnharrison (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2015 (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 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kamal A Jamil-chitrali journalist.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sir, this image is my own work, i have no objection to be used this image in all wikis.please remove the deletion log- Regard رحمت عزیز چترالی 04:31, 9 April 2015 (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 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo_First_Strike_1.2.png[edit]

That Image is made by us, Team First Strike and we have all Rights on this Image, please undo this deletion. --Moritz Gerber (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2015 (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 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Andrea K. Dupree, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, at the cassegrain focus of the 4-m Mayall telescope of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Kitt Peak, AZ..jpeg[edit]

in addition, the change of license at
is not definitive. i.e. the blog published this photo in 2015 [6] when the photographer left government service in 2011.[7] you are in effect intrepretating the archivist, and you do not have a photographer release.
the use of Template:SIA-no known copyright restrictions was uncontroversial, with 371 uses.
these photos have exactly the same source information as flickr transfers using template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions such as:
  1. to be consistant, you need to allow the use of "SIA no known copyright", or delete all the other instances;
  2. you should be aware that the Smithsonian Institution Archives will not be uploading their material to this project;
  3. i have advised the Smithsonian Institution to upload to their flickr account, since they cannot trust their items to this project, in the future;
  4. in a spirit of good faith, you should be interacting with the Smithsonian Institution Archivist on their talk page, in a collaborative manner, rather than saying "claims to be an employee of the Smithsonian." Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 21:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Taking a single example here, File:Dr. Brandie Smith.jpeg, the entire description is:
{{Information
|description=
English: Dr. Brandie Smith is Senior Curator and Associate Director for Animal Care at the Smithsonian's :::National Zoo.
|date=2011-09-21 09:04:02
|source=Smithsonian's National Zoo
|author=Unknown
|permission=
|other versions=
{{Custom license marker}}
{{SIA-no known copyright restrictions}}
Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard
Category:Zoologists
[section heads removed. markup modified as required to show it here
While I understand that User:Digitaleffie is a Smithsonian employee and is authorized to act for the Institution, he or she must act within Commons rules. We do not accept recent photos from anyone without a provenance. The Smithsonian may believe that this image has no copyright restrictions, but in order to know that for a recent image, they must know who the photographer was. If they do not know who the photographer was, then they cannot say that it has no restrictions.
Similar problems exist with the other files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion if the original uploader supports undeletion (I will notify.) The requester here has made this matter very complex. In fact, the files were speedy deleted for lack of source information, on the face of it, and since re-upload was explicitly allowed, undeletion should also be allowed, particularly if the uploader agrees to provide source information. "Source information" does not necessarily mean "photographer name." That may be missing in some cases where ownership remains clear beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, source information is simply provenance, the word that Jim uses correctly. As an example, suppose an institution has a large collection of photos that were taken over many years -- or even recently -- by photographers employed by the institution. The names may have been lost, yet the prima-facie ownership is with the institution, not the photographers. A professional archivist, we might assume, would understand these issues. We should very much avoid butting heads with such. Certainly Commons policies should be followed, but there is also room for interpretation and discretion. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Digitaleffie notified. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i doubt she's coming back this year, but i could notify her. i think i'm being crystal clear: a patroler picked on a newbie expert editor, using a long standing license, that some now seek to review (perpetual september). and an OTRS for the photos is on the way. "she must act within Commons rules. We do not accept recent photos from anyone without a provenance." LOL: you mean when an SI employee uploads an item with a "no known copyright" that act is not provenance? as opposed to the provenance from flickr with the same license. hence the inconsistency, you failed to address. but, we can use flickr to shield them from ever having to interact with a commons editor. i have yet to see discretion on commons; what would that look like? "we should avoid butting heads", tell it to WM Israel, i.e. show me the blocked admin; this will require a culture change, i look forward to working with you on that. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this, basically per Jim. Until we have verifiable source information for each of these files, these will be, at best, missing clear evidence of permission -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agricultural University of Hebei (AUH) Logo.svg[edit]

Stefan4's attempted translation of Chinese stating the license used "seems to mean..." is inappropriately vague to use as a reason to delete when the leading consensus was not in favour of deletion and the interpretation of the license is against it's current broad use for images that are under the authority of the Chinese Government. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Our Template:PD-PRC-exempt says that exempt items are:
"(1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature; and their official translations;
(2) news on current affairs; and
(3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas. "
The logo is none of those things, therefore the template cannot be applied to it.
If the template description is wrong, then it should be changed after a discussion on its talk page. Meanwhile we should continue to use it only where justified.
As for the consensus, as we all know, the closing Admin is not required to consider the consensus -- DRs are not votes -- but in this case, I count 4 for deletion (太刻薄, Stefan4, Wcam, and Ellin) and 3 for keep (Amitie 10g, TVBS588, Fry1989). TVBS588 was subsequently indefinitely blocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say DRs are based on votes? They are based on consensus in combination with fact. If we knew 100% for certain that an image is not covered by a license, it wouldn't matter if there were 100 keeps because consensus and fact must be in agreement. But in this case, we have a "it seems like it maybe isn't covered by the license IF I'm sure my translation is correct" and that's not very convincing. Fry1989 eh? 16:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether you use the word "vote" or the word "consensus", whichever it is, you cannot say that "the leading consensus was not in favour of deletion" when four people asked for delete and three people asked for keep. Your comment was simply not correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. There clearly was no consensus for deletion there; Fry1989 is correct that Stefan4's reason was "inappropriately vague," and the close was explicitly based on that. That TVBS588 was later blocked (for socking, related account not stated, possibly based on a zhwiki block, which could be improper -- was s/he block-evading or vote-stacking here?) is irrelevant. The logo would easily and routinely be included in documents which are exempt, so the argument is inconclusive or misleading. We should not apply COM:PRP where the doubt is in our own interpretation of law, not in ownership. Rather, we should obtain definitive interpretation. --Abd (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen the logo that was hosted here. However, the zh.wiki article on the University has an image hosted under fair use. Increasingly, wikis are using fair use simply to avoid Commons problems. As a logo, consisting primarily of text, this may not be copyrightable. That argument was not raised in the discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New information: there was indeed votestacking in the DR, User:Transformers 23 was User:TVBS588 per [8]. Arguments for keep still exist, but I am withdrawing my support for undeletion because of the votestacking. The logo issue can be explored more generally and this file might be revisited if better information appears allowing it. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The picture in question is an official logo of a university as displayed on the university's website. The text "Copyright 河北农业大学" on the bottom of the page is an evidence that this university holds the copyright of the logo. I believe in this logo the sketch of the school building to a green background is complex enough to be within TOO. Also, as Jim said, the picture in question does not fit any item listed in {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. Specifically, it is not Chinese government work and clearly not "documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature". --Wcam (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a sign the image is copyrighted at all. That is a website page copyright, it applies to the page and not images hosted on it which would be independently licensed. That isn't how copyright works, you can't have a single copyright notice on the page applying to any and all content on that page. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given what you said, there is still no way to tell if the image is in the public domain. The original uploader failed to provide evidence demonstrating this image is in the public domain other than using {{PD-PRC-exempt}} which is quite a stretch. --Wcam (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more of a stretch then "seems to mean", as in "I'm not even sure of my own translation". Fry1989 eh? 19:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logo on the page cited by Wcam is different from the logo used in the zh.wiki article, to which I referred. Is the University a government agency? The complexity of the logo, is it adequate to allow copyright? These are issues of judgment and were not discussed in the DR. The argument from the copyright notice on the web page cited -- which, by the way, I'm reluctant to view, my browser gives me a security warning -- is defective, as noted by Fry1989. Wcam is highly involved with the uploader, having indef blocked the user on zh.wiki, about a week ago. Caution is in order. --Abd (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logo used in the zh.wiki article is a different one than the image in question. This university is not a government agency, and even if it is, its logo is not "documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature". That I blocked the uploader on zh.wiki is irrelevant to this issue, which is in line with what you said earlier. I still don't see any solid evidence that this image is in the public domain and should be restored. --Wcam (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wcam. Your arguments stand regardless of the issue I raised about prior involvement; sometimes we want to know about such things. I have withdrawn my support for undeletion because of votestacking (there were two issues here: consensus and the substance. The substance was marginal, in my view, but consensus appeared to be for keep, certainly not for delete. The extra vote now being recognized as illegitimate, the balance shifts enough). The issue of public domain and similar logos may be explored aside from this file, and if a different consensus appears, the file could be revisited. --Abd (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this as  Not done - no consensus to undelete -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thunderbird logo2.jpg[edit]

Thunderbird logo (bitmap version) per mozilla.org is explicitly licensed under {{MPL2}}, which is a free license. 193.40.10.178 15:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The cited site starts with "you may not: alter our logos in any way" and goes on to list a number of other things you cannot do, all of which show that the logo is not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these restrictions should be considered trademark related. Sure you can't use a trademark in any possible way, but as for free content in the sense of copyright, the logo is explicitly free. Here you agree that we ignore trademark related aspects in making decisions like this one here. 193.40.10.178 11:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so -- it makes the general statement I quoted above -- it does not say, for example:
"Because this is a trademark, you may not...."
Note that exactly the same reasoning and restrictions apply to all WMF logos. It is not at all uncommon for free software to have logos that are not free. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does say "For all permitted uses of our trademarks, you may not...". And later it gets to copyright mentioning specific free licenses. As I understand they use free licenses to make it easy for third-parties to present their product, e.g on Wikipedia. To protect their logos they rely on trademark laws. I understand that this can be confusing as what's permitted and not somewhat conflicts for copyright and trademark rights. But this is the case pretty much like always for the COM:NCR.
That the software itself is free software is indeed irrelevant.
So are you also going to reconsider your former decision on Firefox logo which is currently made avaiable under exactly the same trademark provisions, though explicilty under free copyright license? And are questioning COM:NCR? 193.40.10.178 21:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. The re-use terms explicitly forbid a user to "alter our logos in any way", which is a pretty explicit ND condition; this by itself is enough to make the file ineligible for Commons -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Robert Rabiah at AFI Awards.jpg[edit]

Request undeletion, the source photo belongs to me the photographer.

The copy on facebook was given to the artist under license for personal use. --Whizbangwang (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Because it has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caelum's Edge (Formação 2013).jpg[edit]

I'm the vocalist for the band Caelum's Edge.

I own all the rights of this picture, since it is the picture of my band taken by my cousin with promotion purposes.

--Maskboss (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In that case it is your cousin, not you, who owns the copyright and he or she must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SA Rugby magazine (September 2011).jpg[edit]

This image does not violate any copyright laws. SA Rugby magazine is happy for it to be used on its Wikipedia page.

--SimonBorchardt79 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Unfortunately, I see missing permission from SA Rugby magazine. The organisation should send evidence of permissions to OTRS in order for the file to be restored. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jianhui67 -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2e Louis Braille.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was my photo I've taken with my own camera and I give up all rights! I don't understand, why this photo was deleted! Marzel (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Rachitrali[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I, Rachitrali, am the sole creator and owner of the ‎above photographs. I am one of the responsible wikipedians ‎from Pakistan and contributing my photos to Wikis free of ‎cost, Please restore these photos to its original positions for smooth running of all Wikis linked to the above files. ‎Thanks -- User_talk:Rachitrali رحمت عزیز چترالی 05:30, 10 April 2015 (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 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chitral-Urdu book of Dr Inayatullah Faizi.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my own work, please restore the file to its original position for smooth running all wiki pages linked to this file. thanks رحمت عزیز چترالی 05:02, 10 April 2015 (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 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris_Cockerels_Logo.jpg[edit]

Hello,

My name is Baudouin GERMOND and I am both a player at the Paris Cockerels Football Club and a member of the club board.

With one of my teammates, we designed last year the new club crest, which is the one I had uploaded on the Wikipedia page of the club and you decided to delete. I stated it was not my own work when I uploaded the file since it did not design it alone.

You can find proof that I am a member of this club on the official club website: http://www.pariscockerels.fr/equipe/senior http://www.pariscockerels.fr/club/direction

I hope this is enough information for you to undelete our logo from WikiCommons.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Baudouin GERMOND General Secretary Paris Cockerels

04-10-2015 BaudG (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2015 (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 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Kaparica[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I, Kaparica, am the sole creator and owner of these photographs. I have submitted an email to OTRS and added the [OTRS pending] tag to the photos. I am not sure why these images were still deleted. I took care to complete everything correctly, but if there is something else I should be doing please let me know as I would like to keep uploading more of my photos. Thanks for your help. Kaparica (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I'm not sure why the first three of these were tagged and deleted. The three have more or less identical file descriptions:

{{No permission since|month=April|day=1|year=2015}}
==Summary==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Tamas Dobozy holds his book Siege 13 in Owen Sound, Ontario}}
|date=2012-10-25 20:09:33
|source=Own work
|author=Kaparica
|permission=
|other_versions=
|other_fields=
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-3.0}}
While it is true that there is nothing on the "permission" line, they show the uploader as the author, source of "own work" and a cc-by-3.0 license. I have a fair amount of experience here and I'm not at all certain what User:Didym and User:Fastily were expecting there. I also note that all of my own images have descriptions that look exactly like this -- uploader as the author, source of "own work" and a cc-by-3.0 license with nothing on the permission line. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged these files together with some other images that were obviously not own work, probably I did not check all files carefully enough. --Didym (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the last one, you mentioned that you had given the image away for use on a Facebook page. While that would ordinarily require OTRS confirmation, I am inclined to restore it as well. OTRS is all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog typically runs from several weeks to a month or more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually agree with you, but I find it strange that you would support the undeletion of press quality/style photos from a user account with minimal contributions. While I'm not accusing the uploader of copyright infringement, I would like to see at least OTRS confirmation/evidence of permission suggesting that the uploader is in fact a professional journalist/photographer who could conceivably have taken these. -FASTILY 11:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should have been raised in a DR. We normally assume good faith and these images were deleted for "no permission since" when in fact they had all the permission that was required. Let's restore them and then, if you think it wise, start a DR. That way all of us, not just Admins, can see them and comment intelligently on the issue you raise. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Some light over this matter would be good: I have been assuming, even after a short discussion about it in VP a while back, that licensing information goes either inside the |permission field of {{Information}}, or in the separate section under ==Licensing== — either being good. I have been filling that field with only "[[#Lic|{{see below}}]]" when there’s nothing specific to add to the license tag (linking to a {{Anchor|Lic}} right before the License section heading). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tuválkin,I agree that clarity might be helpful. I haven't uploaded anything in a while, but, as I said above, there's nothing in the permission field of any of my 500 images here -- that's the way the upload script set them up. If we should be doing something different to avoid this sort of problem, then the first thing to do is change the script. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pirelli tyre test abu dhabi 2011-1.jpg[edit]

Verifico que este archivo es mi propio trabajo ya que hice yo mismo la foto en aquellos test a finales de 2011 y me gustaría que no se borrara la foto

Carlostum (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:TV Novelas - Logotipo..png[edit]

PD-textlogo applied, whether it was the uploader's own work in such a case does not matter. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helloooooo!!!! Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think, that this is really too simple for copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Taivo. Yann (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Sibyl-von-der-Schulenburg.jpg [edit]

Hi, I request the undeletion of the file Sibyl-von-der-Schulenburg.jpg because it is not a copyright violation. I have already sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org regarding the permission which was given by the image's copyright owner. Thank you

Best Regards

Ilaria D'Angelo --Lila221 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I note that in the file description, you claim that it is your own work. Now you say that is not the case. When you are uploading images, please be sure to include accurate information, as errors simply slow us all down.
Because the image has appeared on the site http://www.sibylvonderschulenburg.com/biography/ with an explicit copyright notice, the copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. If the license is satisfactory, the image will be restored in its turn in the queue. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed, so it runs a significant backlog, often as much as a month. Note also that the license must come directly from the copyright holder, not forwarded from you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 10 April 2015 (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 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

file name: father forgive me.jpeg[edit]

I am requesting that the file: father forgive me not be deleted. I am one of the editors of the book and I work for the writer whom has hired me to upload his pictures. The photo as the book, is the property of Phil Aguilar. These pictures and the book can be found at set free.org, which I also uploaded.

--Honegreen77 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send a permission to COM:OTRS, then the file could be restored. Yann (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Husk Power Brad Mattson India.PNG[edit]

Hello, I have explicit permission to use this photograph and to upload it from the author, but was not certain which licensing tag to place on it. The photograph was taken by someone I know, I asked him if it would be okay to upload it and he said yes. Please undelete the photo. Thanks.--Slainte12 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In order to have the image restored, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tiny fragment of map with only one place name.jpg[edit]

Please, check if it was deleted rightfully. It was a tiny fragment of a russian map with only one place name. It is important for retaining the correct russian name of brazilian capital. — Николай (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that the file was deleted rightfully. The file itself is important for illustrating correct orthography, please upload it into ru.wiki as fair use. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support This is, as the requester has said, a tiny fragment -- one word -- from what is probably a copyrighted map. While you couldn't take a sentence out of a copyrighted book, you could certainly take one or two words without infringing the copyright. It seems to me that this is similar -- at this level of detail there is nothing copyrightable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Only one word: Brasília (in russian). Is a photograph of one printed word (in a book or in a map) an infringement of copyright??? — Николай (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete several artworks by John Tenniel[edit]

Please undelete: File:The Pool of Tears.png, File:Alice in Arm-Chair.jpg and File:Alice and Chesire.gif - they were incorrectly deleted even though they clearly qualify under {{PD-old}}. These works were first published either in 1865 or 1872 in England. The artist died more than 100 years ago in 1914. Thanks Dodger67 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment We already have these images in bigger resolution: File:De Alice's Abenteuer im Wunderland Carroll pic 23.jpg, File:De Alice's Abenteuer im Wunderland Carroll pic 05.jpg, and File:Alice and kitten.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As Yann says, we already have all three, all of which are larger and better quality reproductions. It is true that one of the deleted images includes some text, so they are not identical, but the reproduction is nowhere near as good, so it is hard to imagine anyone using it instead of the existing image.
In fact, we have multiple copies of most, perhaps all of the Tenniel illustrations at Category:John Tenniel's illustrations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Someone might profitably go through them and DR many of the triplicates. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore -- Without regard to whether we have superior images, these images were in active use on en.wiki at the time of their deletion. Further, there is something very strange about their deletion. The deleting administrator's notes in the deletion log all say "No license since 30 March 2015". If they were in long-term use on en.wiki, but a problem with their licensing only cropped up recently, it suggests that someone, possibly a vandal, monkeyed with the images' {{Information}} template, and the deleting administrator's due diligence wasn't sufficient to detect it. I, for one, would like to see them restored to get to the bottom of the mystery. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't in long-term use. They were only uploaded on 27 March. The file descriptions looked like this – no license or PD tag, just the statement "This artwork is found in a published book" (which is not very relevant). They were added to en:John Tenniel by the uploader – presumably because they didn't check to see that we already had better versions. No mystery here. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. As Yann and Jim note above, we have many copies of those images. So what happened on Wikipedia? LX has correctly reported it. These were not long-standing links. To fix this, any Wikipedia editor could point to better images. Otherwise, if those did not exist, yes, they could be restored. But absent a showing, or at least a claim, that the deleted images are better in some way, it is unnecessary. There is no mystery. The license information was inadequate. Deletion was routine. (Routine deletion process does not require an administrator to figure out if proper license information could be added.) I will note that Yann restored File:Alice_in_Arm-Chair.jpg and then re-deleted based on the duplication of images. Our process is working (Thanks, Yann, for showing you care). One more point.
The user filing this request first asked on User talk:Fastily, which was proper, except the manner of asking was uncivil. Fastily deleted the request without comment, thus leading ultimately to this filing. Fastily could possibly have resolved this with less fuss, by recognizing that users often get upset over what they don't understand and giving a brief clarifying answer. The deletion reason allowed re-upload with a proper license statement. It wasn't terribly helpful, but wasn't a brick wall. Whenever a file is deleted with re-upload allowed, it is probably not necessary to come to this page, unless the deleting admin refused to undelete to allow the license to be fixed; in that case, follow instructions. But users don't know that. I had already pinged Fastily yesterday over his removals of requests, I will also ping the user about the incivility, and the other user who attempted to help without doing his own homework, assuming error. And when I make mistakes -- or you think I've made one --, please, someone tell me! That is how we help each other and how we function as a community. What goes around comes around. --Abd (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orinam_about.png[edit]

Logo of Orinam organisation. Please undelete it and provide the licensing as "Copyrighted logos". --Section377 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is indeed a copyrighted logo and the text puts it beyond the ToO. See http://orinam.net/, which has the clear notice "All content © orinam". There is no such thing as a license called "Copyrighted logos". If the organization would like it restored, an officer of the organization must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forbidden Voices Image For Wiki Page.jpeg[edit]

It is unclear why this image was deleted on "Forbidden Voices" page when copyright was turned over to Wiki. Please tell me what permission you require and I can obtain it from the copyright holder. We have sent in the authorization. If you require a different type of permission then please tell me the 'type' of copyright authorization you need and I will forward it to permissions. Thank you KHBibby (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image is of a poster for the film Forbidden Voices. In order to restore it to Commons, an officer of the production company must send a free license to OTRS. Note that the license cannot be just for the "Wiki Page", it must be free for all uses anywhere, including commercial use, which includes the possibility of others being able to make and sell copies of the poster. If such a license has already been sent, then please be patient. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed. It runs a backlog that ranges from several weeks to well over a month. If the license is approved, then the image will be restored in its turn. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sea Duel.jpg[edit]

This is my original content that I freely give to Wikipedia.

ZadocPaet (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a screen from the Milton Bradley game Sea Duel which is copyrighted. I don't see how you can say that it is yours to freely license. I suggest you read COM:Licensing before you make any more uploads to COmmons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

tshuva moshe[edit]

no debe ser borrado pues es un aporte informativo considerado como exponente y creativo de la danza en venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshetshuva (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

You haven't identified any file to undelete, and none of your uploads have been deleted (yet). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alex_Cendron.jpg[edit]

Please undelete File:Alex_Cendron.jpg, OTRS received with the CC BY-SA license. Thanks --Melos (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Ticket number is 2015032310029965. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 23:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Départementales2015 posters Castanet-Tolosan.jpg[edit]

Posters are de minimis, per Commons:De_minimis#Crops_of_de_minimis_images. Gyrostat (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I completely agree. Aside from a little sky and a small piece of a blank wall, the only things in the image are six poster holders, two of which are empty and four of which have copyrighted works on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Each posters should be considered separately, and are therefore de minimis. You must take the context into account to understand a photograph (without which it doesn't make any sense). In this case, the socio-political context clearly shows the posters are only media to show the context itself. I remain firm in my position: posters are individually de minimis. Gyrostat (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that our standard for de minimis is that the copyrighted item must be of little consequence to the image:
"However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster." COM:DM
It goes on, specifically on this the point at issue here:
"In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." [emphasis added]
We have had cases here where your argument was applied, but they had hundreds of copyrighted magazine covers in the image. With four copyrighted posters that are the only thing of consequence in the image, you cannot apply de minimis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polyclinique et urgence 3 à chabat el leham ( laferriere ).jpg[edit]

Hi,

The following files have been deleted for being out of project scope. However, they are used in w:fr:Chaabat El Leham, so I would to transfer them to the French Wikipedia.

Could you please undelete them temporarily?

Thanks,

Orlodrim (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done No warning, files in use are not out of scope, let alone speedy. Fastily, you can do better than that. Yann (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seemed strange to me that they were considered out of scope. Thanks. Orlodrim (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Germantown_Florentine_20150330.jpg[edit]

I took this photo myself of an old building in my town. I marked as SA-4.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flerchjj (talk • contribs)

According to [9], Flerchjj is indeed the author of the photos. Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Do we need a LR here? Yann (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Germantown Salons 20150330.jpg[edit]

I took this photo of old buildings in my town. I offered it under sa-4.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flerchjj (talk • contribs)

According to [10], Flerchjj is indeed the author of the photos. Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logrunner - female.jpg[edit]

I have contacted the owner of this photo on Flickr and he has changed the licensing so that it is now acceptable to Wikipedia.--Ian Faulconbridge (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Philippe Sollie.jpg[edit]

Hi there,

since I am a newbie in Wikipedia, maybe I need your help. I linked the image file above to a biography and it was deleted after a week. But I fail to understand the reason. The tags point to "No indication of user's own work on this image of 400 pixels square and no metadata, possible COM:COPYVIO." Could you help to fix this issue? Thanks in advance, Frederic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrederic (talk • contribs)

I answered on his talk page in French. There is no copy of this on the web, so it might be OK. I asked for a bigger file with EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User reuploaded the original picture with EXIF data. Good for me. Yann (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logrunner - male.jpg[edit]

I have contacted the owner of this photo on Flickr and he has changed the licensing so that it is now acceptable to Wikipedia.--Ian Faulconbridge (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Van_Gogh_Fietspad.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted, but afterwards it got OTRS and was placed on the English wikipedia. There it is labeled as it might be transfered to commons. I tried, I didn't succeed as the file was formerly deleted. I succeeded adding the automatic generated information, but not the file itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Van_Gogh_Cycle_Path.jpg Could someone help me to restore this file? --Hannolans (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rainbow Station.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted, but afterwards it got OTRS and was placed on the English wikipedia. Would be great if this file can move as well, part of the same OTRS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rainbow_Station.jpg --Hannolans (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 23:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MuralEstLosAndes01.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I visited that railway station on March 17th, 2015, and took the picture with my smartphone (Motorola Moto G, XT1032), and I can prove this with the original file (with the XT1032 metadata). This one was then uploaded to my facebook account and downloaded from there (because of the resolution) for being finally uploaded to commons.The file is mine, although the painting I photographed, not. Ranma sb15 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Chile. In order to restore it here, the artist who created the mural must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done not Freedom of Panorama in Chile for artworks Ezarateesteban 23:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vincent Moon photographed by eugene shimalsky.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted in ticket:2015041710012376 Mbch331 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Mbch331: ticket seems to be valid. Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg[edit]

Also:

COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT I hereby affirm that I, Prince Papa Jan am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media of all the images on this page. 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. Prince

Papa Jan - Copyright holder 18.04.2015

http://papa-jan.com/eng/index.html?copyrigjts.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan gurkov (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done license cc-by-sa4.0 granted Ezarateesteban 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elgrafico74.jpg[edit]

This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. This image was published in 1974. --Abmvidauser (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done It hadn't been removed, but labeled as 'no permission'. I've removed the template, as {{PD-AR-Photo}} applies --Discasto talk 13:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done file is not deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Шелест Алексей Нестерович.jpg[edit]

Прошу вернуть на место фотографию моего деда Шелеста А.П. Так как копию этого фото сделал я с оригинала находящегося в семейном архиве. Наследником архива деда являюсь я и права на это изображение тоже принадлежат мне. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zveuf21 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Owning a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright or give you the right to freely license it. This is clearly a halftone -- scanned from a printed page. In order to restore this to Commons, the actual copyright holder, which is almost certainly the photographer or his heirs, or possibly the publisher of the work from which it was scanned, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Please send a permission as explained above. Yann (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacky_Xu.png[edit]

Hi I would like to request the retrieve to following file File:Jacky_Xu.png. I have a valid permission to use the said photo and I don't see any reason why the photo needs to be deleted. If any, please state the following. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat.pambid (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose If it is actually your "own work" as you claim in the file description, please upload a version at full camera resolution and not this small version that appears to have been taken from the Web. If it is not your own work, which is what you suggest above, then the actual copyright holder, which is probably the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Please send a permission as explained above. Yann (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khalifatul Masih-I.jpg[edit]

[11] Licensing: {{PD-old-100}} sadaqat (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page says nothing I can see about who took the photo, and a photo taken around 1908-1914 is not old enough to assume the photographer has been dead 100 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The image also appears at http://www.alislam.org/gallery2/v/a/khalifa1/ with an explicit copyright notice. I think, however, that that is copyfraud. The subject lived c. 1841-1914, so this photograph must be 100 years old, and from the look of the subject, probably taken around 1881, when he was 40. India is 50 years after creation or 60 years after publication, both of which are long past. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Motithang Higher Secondary School.jpg[edit]

It is a logo of school that is freely distributed to the students of that school for manipulation. I am a graduate of that school and im entitled to use the logo as a part of my contribution to Wikipedia.--SangaytenzinPhy (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It may be freely distributed, but the copyright is still owned by the school and you have no right to freely license it. In order to have it restored, an authorized official of the school must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose You do not have the permission to license that school logo under a free license as a graduate. An authorised personnel of the school needs to send an email to OTRS, permitting it to be used on Commons under a license. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim and Jianhui67. Please send a permission as explained above. Yann (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pictures by Klaus Dolle[edit]

Hi all, @Klaus Dolle: claims to be the husband of es:María Uriz. I can't see any sensible reason not to trust the uploader claims, as all the images uploaded by him (of great value, I must add) deals with his wife. Moreover, the images are also available in his professional web site with appropriate CC-BY-SA license. He's complained about the umpteenth deletion of his work on the grounds that {{Own}} authorship "is not enough" (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria Uriz y Montserrat Caballe en Parisina D'Este.jpg). Although from a very, very, very, very strict point of view an OTRS authorization would be needed, I wonder which are the requisites for trusting or not an {{Own}} ownership. Therefore, I ask for the restoration of all the pictures, uploaded in good faith, and with great value. It seems as if we're not doing anything to support our contributors. The kind of pictures uploaded by Klaus are extremely valuable, given the restrictive IPR laws in Spain. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've asked Mr. Dolle (here) to send an OTRS authorization. However, I must insist that IMHO such authorization is not actually needed. --Discasto talk 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No that DR was not closed as "{{Own}} authorship "is not enough"" but as claim of ownership of the copyright is nog good enough. Given that this looks like either a scan of a painting or a historical photograph claiming own work is indeed not good enough. Natuur12 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provided that you deleted the picture it's obvious that, for you, it's not enough. But I wonder whether your assessment is the general understanding in the project, especially considering that he's clarified that the pictures are obviously old, obviously not digital, and had been scanned by himself. I wonder again why it's not "good enough". Moreover if we take into account that, as mentioned, the pictures are also available in his web site with proper license (although with lower quality). I admit that the best way to sort this out is to send a proper authorization (I guess he find it difficult to understand the authorization procedure), but I can't find any suspicious element that might make authorship dubious. --Discasto talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained that and given the fact that you agree that "Although from a very, very, very, very strict point of view an OTRS authorization would be needed" and that two other admins deleted files by this uploader based on the same info I believe that I'm on the safe side. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree at all. And it's not a question of being on the safe or unsafe side. The question is that, according to the elements I've provided (not considered in the DR's9, which comes from the information provided (in Spanish) by the uploader (and which was considered as valid also by an administrator, see here, quoting a mail by @Alan: ), and given that there are no suspicious elements once everything has been explained, which are the grounds to consider that {{Own}} is not enough? Are we supporting good faith contributors or making everything for them not to come back? --Discasto talk 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) PS: as a matter of coherence, all Mr. Dolle's uploads should be removed as well, shouldn't them?[reply]
I was talking about the situation when I closed the DR because you quoted my closing statement incorrect ;). Based on the current information II tend to agree with Jim. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My fault then :-) --Discasto talk 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Hmmm. Klaus Dolle is apparently a professional photographer. It is entirely reasonable to believe that he took these images and they appear on his professional site with a CC-BY-SA license. If a third party had simply uploaded them from Dolle's web site and a License Reviewer had confirmed the license, we would have accepted that. Why is it that we should require anything more just because Dolle uploaded them to Commons himself?

In either case there is the possibility (which I don't accept) that his professional web site is license laundering, but getting an OTRS message from him won't remove that possibility. I don't see that OTRS is needed under any interpretation of our rules. What am I missing here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question I restored this one. Any more to restore? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hi, @Yann: . Mr. Dolle has just forwarded me the mail he's sent to permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org. In it, he authorizes all the images he's ever uploaded to commons (that is, all the pictures listed in Special:Log/Klaus_Dolle. Would you mind restoring all of them? I'll add the corresponding {{OTRS pending}} template, so that the proper id can be added once the authorization is processed.
However, I'd like to guarantee that this Mr. Dolle is not forced to go through a similar journey of suffering. May I assume that this authorization will be "enough" as authorship proof for subsequent uploads, even if no new OTRS authorization is sent? Best regards --Discasto talk 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I think a general permission would all his images would be fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if nobody is managing commons-permissions-es, so that the ticket is being managed by a person that can't speak Spanish. What should I explain in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Anyone_at_permissions-commons-es.3F? Best regards --Discasto talk 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: - Perhaps you have some time to have a look at the ticket? Natuur12 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to the ticket. One picture depicts Dolle. Several pictures seem reproductions of old pictures. From those pictures we need to know who the photographer is. So I tagged some with PermissionOTRS and some with OTRS received, waiting for his reply. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acrobatic Women's Pair.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I took this photograph. I uploaded this photograph. I have never assigned the copyright to anyone else.

You can find my work at http://rgaphotos.smugmug.com/ http://instagram.com/poleydee and https://www.flickr.com/photos/81092457@N08/sets/

All of the events these photographs were shot at were public events, where public photography was allowed, and in addition, I was assigned a photography pass and full media accreditation.

Please can you undelete it!

Paul Dawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poleydee (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I know this is a nuisance, but unfortunately we get identity theft here fairly frequently. The image has EXIF:
"Copyright holder: Paul Dawson, RGAPhotos.smugmug.com"
so policy requires that User:Poleydee confirm that he is actually Paul Dawson.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Ok, well I shall make a valiant effort to save you all the time and effort as I know you all have day jobs to do and are busy and that the OTRS process takes a while.

Proof of identity photo on RGA Photos website.

On the above link I have posted a picture that shows:
The logged in account settings for RGAPhotos.smugmug.com (which is referenced in the EXIF)
It also shows that I have changed the description on the original posting of the image on my Flickr account to reference Wiki Commons and that I have given my permission for the free licence (which can be viewed live here).
And finally, I have posted a selfie of me with today's date and hello wiki commons written on a piece of paper. You can independently google image search me to see that it is me. I know you guys are busy - so I hope this helps!

--Poleydee (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are all busy -- 15 Admins do 90% of the deletion of about 1,400 images every day. That is why we have a process for handling this kind of problem. Taking things out of process both slows us down and favors you over other people who would also like their images restored. Please send the message to OTRS as described above. I note, by the way that the Flickr page you cite has a CC-BY-NC license. NC licenses are unacceptable on COmmons, see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the challenges of this process for an outsider is that is very hard to understand. I've read the OTRS page and I still don't know how to submit a request. I also don't know what an NC licence is, and/or how to change it, or why I set it like that in the first place. I see that you have a lot of challenges with people faking things, but it would be less challenging for admins if they deleted less and dealt with objections raised by rights-holders instead. I shall read the OTRS page again and see if I can work it out.

Poleydee (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you need do is ask -- I'm sorry that you find the OTRS explanation less than perfect. Fundamentally you need to copy and paste the boxed text into an e-mail, modify it as required by the red instructions, and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. And then wait, I'm sorry to say.
I think that NC licenses and our reasons for not accepting them are covered fairly well by the cartoon on COM:L, which I mentioned above.
As for deleting less, we are so close to being overwhelmed by the 10,000 images that are uploaded to Commons every day that we simply don't have time to consider other ways of doing things. For now, it is much easier to get the uploader's attention by deleting the image and then, if possible, restoring it later, than it is to somehow try to get the uploader to provide the necessary permissions before deletion. Note, too, the UnDR is less than 1% of all images that have been deleted and we do not restore most of the requests here. It would be better if we had a better method. but 0.25% isn't a bad problem rate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding Jim. It's a challenging task I admit. I did find the OTRS email and actually they actioned it already, so much better service than everyone led me to believe. Thanks. Poleydee (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done apparently. Yann (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quebekoisie affiche.jpg[edit]

I am creating a wiki article on behalf of the owners of this image. They allowed me to use it directly from their website at http://mofilms.ca/boutique/quebekoisie/ --Veroterio (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dibujo Naif de Amsterdam.jpg[edit]

Hello team,

As you explain me before, I have upload my picture to Flickr and manage the CC rights. You can find here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131784060@N05/16966907270/in/photostream/


I hope now I can use it for my Wikipedia articles.

Thank you very much!!

--AGarriga (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alejandro, proper authorization must be issued by the picture's author (Mia Möll, that is, Gema Sánchez). Even if you both share some sort of business, it's Ms. Sánchez the one that keeps the copyright of the pictures. Please, follow the procedure described in Commons:Modelos de mensajes#Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones, from a mail address clearly identifying Ms. Sánchez and referring to the deleted files (and any other she'd like to refer to in her web site. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gervasio Sánchez, por Daniel Rivas Pacheco.jpg[edit]

La imagen tiene licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España License, en la web http://drivaspacheco.com/2013/03/18/el-grito-que-nadie-quiso-escuchar/ Gracias --Eluque1 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mabrouck Rachedi.jpg[edit]

I am writing to request that the undeletion be undone and that the file be restored. I just emailed back and forth with Mabrouck Rachedi who assures me that he has the copyright for this photo. I am a professor of French literature with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, and I am simply trying to help Mabrouck out.

If you would like to contact him directly, I will ask him if it is ok for me to give you his email address.

Thank you very much for considering this request.

Nancy Erickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.k.erickson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a more or less formal portrait of Mabrouck Rachedi. He is listed as author and source. Since it does not look like a selfie, it is very likely that is incorrect. Because this is not "own work", policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which will almost always be the photographer, not the subject, send a free license to OTRS. Once that reaches the head of the queue there (sometimes a month or more is required), the license will be checked out, and if approved, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Please send a permission as explained above. Yann (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CFSignhandover.jpg[edit]

I put up a help request regarding putting this image on Fuzz Townshend wiki page. I had edited my original photo file (I took the photo in question) to blur some signage on the image to comply with wiki rules. On 13:00, 2 April 2015‎ Kelapstick approved the image being put on the page with comments "(→‎Classic Friendly: per talk page request, there is nothing spammy about this image. IT makes no mention of the particular garage, and is directly related to the section at hand.)" - I have just sent a copy of the image along with the recommended text and information to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the template and clearly stating where the image is currently hosted on a website that I maintain and where it is published on said website. My name also appears at the bottom of said website in the copyright provision. Please reinstate the image. Thank you. --MarkB1975 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As you have found out the hard way, when an image appears elsewhere on the Web, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license to OTRS. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed, so it typically runs a backlog of a month or more. Your image will be dealt with when it reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sigrid Agren at Rouge Coco Chanel.jpg[edit]

No Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdmgsjones (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. "When adding a request: ... 4. State the reasons for the request" —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The image appears without a free license in many places on the web. Restoration here will require that the photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wayne Hankey.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Used with explicit permission from copyright owner. Victareon (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since it has appeared at http://dalgazette.com/slider/facing-cuts-to-fass-prof-proposes-new-model/ with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that the photographer, Kristie Smith, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jass bhatia at music launch.jpg[edit]

The image file is given to me by the owner of the image and the person in the image. I request you to please review the file again or let me know the terms and conditions of upload a file

--Ekjeetkaur (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, not the subject, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of photo File:M&C.png[edit]

This photograph is onwned by Mike & Colin themselves and uploaded free of any rights. I am updating this Wikipedia page on their behalf.

PS Before I noticed that this photo was deleted I have uploaded the same photo with filename; Mike & Colin.png You can delete either one of them.

Thanks and best regards, Wesjo Heikens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiker100 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose This image appears without a free license at http://www.janvis.nl/artiest/mike-en-colin/?optie=fotos. Policy therefore requires the actual copyright holders (there are two photographs in this image) must send free licenses to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Town of Salem Start Screen.jpg[edit]

The use of this file on Wikipedia falls under Fair Use. Furthermore I have the permission by BlankMediaGames to use the image. Masta Sukeh (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use isn't good enough for commons. If the permission is sufficient (releasing under a free license), you'll have to go through the OTRS procedure. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Rolf Martin Schmitz.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015040210007249. Emha (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iran Castillo en viernes de animas.png[edit]

The image that was deleted, was a photo that i personally took in the premier of the movie "viernes de animas". It has no copyright issues since it is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebkane (talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nuclear physics 360 degrees in a circle.jpg[edit]

Yes I just found out this was deleted though would like it reversed please for educational purposes. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.230.34 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As commented at the DR, "that's esoterism, not science." It is not clear that it meets our requirement for having any educational purpose since it is not true to fact. Furthermore, it appears on a copyrighted web site, so it is not only out of scope, but also a copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of RBMSC.png[edit]

I didn't get the file from web or any website authorities. Rather I myself designed the logo for the RBMSC Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHBOSS (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This does not appear to be the official logo of the school -- it is not in use on the school's web site. That means that it is out of scope -- Commons does not host art from artists who are not notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Konrad Reidl.png[edit]

{{Own}} {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} --RFD3896 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The listed source, author, and subject are all Konrad Reidl. Since the image is a formal studio portrait and not a selfie, it is obvious that that cannot be correct. In order to have it restored, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DonVaccaro.jpg[edit]

This file was provided by Don Vaccaro himself. He agreed to put it into the public sphere under the commons license. Why do you people keep deleting it? The image of Don, by d is one he owns the copyright on, and he is happy to release it under the commons license so it is freely available. Yet, this just keeps getting deleted. How is he supposed to get share this information? What frigging evidence do you people need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything unclear about the explanation you received last time? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have been referred to Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F. I'm sorry if you were not. See case 1. "I have received permission to upload the image to Commons." The guidance is "Please forward us the permission to the address listed above. We require that the owner makes a clear statement that they release the image under a free license."--Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. If you have a permission, please send it to COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png[edit]

Transfered from User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png:

Hello Jameslwoodward, You decided the deletion request to delete because "logos are usually treated different from code". I think this does not apply in this case, as the line quoted by User:Natuur12 explictly includes "content", i.e. artwork like logos. Also the README in the project's repository explictly includes artwork. There is no further statement about an exlusion of the logo, so it is obviously licensed under GPLv2+ as well. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "obviously" in copyright law. A logo is neither content nor artwork, it is a separate and distinct thing and in order for it to be covered by the free license, it would have to be named. As I said,. the Wikipedia logos are a good example of this -- everything on all WMF projects -- art, text, content, images, etc. -- are freely licensed, but not the logos. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Wikipedia-Logo is under a free license, only trademark stuff is also applied. And tradmarked logos are possible on Commons, as per COM:Trademarks. Would be a problem for all logos otherwise… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the discussion after the logo was delinked from en:The Battle for Wesnoth. As User:Nenntmichruhigip pointed out, the license found in the source repository (which I checked this week) specifically includes image files, and the image file uploaded appears to be no exception. RJaguar3 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of transfer

I would like to hear some other oppinions on this. Some other files which propably would have to be deleted under the same reasoning: File:Frozen Bubble icon.png, File:VLC Icon.svg, File:Virtualbox logo.png, File:Audacity Logo With Name.png, File:Logo Battle of Wesnoth in Spanish.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth Map Editor.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth Map.png. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If artwork is included in the free license, the logo should be OK. What can get a copyright in the logo is essentially artwork. The text of the logo is too short to get a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RUZ 4.1.jpg[edit]

Copyright for the above mentioned file has been waivered by the Organisation Raiffeisen Unternehmerzentrum (RUZ). The file is free to be used by anyone. F crash (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hermanas_Correa_Vergara.jpg[edit]

Estimados Señores
Por favor solicito a ustedes si pueden reponer este archivo. Este archivo está amparado el la licencia PD-Chile Letra C
Esperando tener favorable respuesta , los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Podrás transcribir lo que dice la letra c de esa ley?, Saludos --Ezarateesteban 12:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Estimdo Ezarate vea por favor aquí el punto C , Template talk:PD-Chile , muchas gracias lo saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y como sabemos que el titular renunció a sus derechos? --Ezarateesteban 22:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Estimado Esteban
Yo envié un mail OTRS dando autorización respectiva, pero este se encontró que no era necesario debido a que esta fotografía supera con creces los 70 años de antigüedad . Como he señalado en distintas oportunidades esta fotografía se encuentra en el álbum familiar que tengo en mi poder y desde siempre ha sido conocida por familiares y amigos desde su creación.
Es por anterior que esta fotografía se encuentra amparada en el punto C. Esperando que lo explicado sea de su utilidad , saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)--Juanjose1956 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done There isn't reason to doubt that it is in PD in Chile Ezarateesteban 23:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Retrato_de_Pedro_Nolasco_Cruz_Vergara.jpg[edit]

Estimado administradores
Solicito a ustedes reponer el archivo borrado , debido a que este se encuentra amparado en la Licencia PD-Chile , letra C.
Muchas gracias y espero su favorable respuesta, los saluda nuevamente --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estimado adjunto aquí el link donde indica el punto C Template talk:PD-Chile , muchas gracias y los saluda. --Juanjose1956 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done idem above Ezarateesteban 23:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OrganicsShampoo.jpg[edit]

I need to undelete.Thank you

 Oppose Agreed. It's also a derivative work of copyrighted product packaging. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stanley Pranin[edit]

On all of these, typically the photographer would hold the copyright. I don't see that addressed at all. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A valid permission (if received) for free-license publishing from the copyright owner should be sent to OTRS. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Globos de látex con formas.jpg[edit]

Hello team,

I have upload my picture to Flickr and give it the CC rights, so i hope I can use my picture now in Wikipedia articles.

Here is the link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131784060@N05/16947044527/in/photostream/

Thank you very much!!

--AGarriga (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as below Ankry (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teju-babyface.jpg[edit]

Hello Wikipedia. I work personally for Teju Babyface. The deleted file doesn't violate any copyright in anyway. it was handed over to me by he himself. Thanks

 Oppose Permission from the photographer is necessary. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A written permission following COM:OTRS is required to be send in such cases. Ankry (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fritz Fröhlich Soldat.JPG[edit]

no copyright problem here, hanging in public reception area in our building, can even be seen from outside. second, it is a relief painting (~15mm height) and my photo is only a 2d image. this artwork should not be banned here. --Epsrw1 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You need a permission from the painter, or his heirs. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done FoP does not cover inside building in Germany. Ankry (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Globos de látex con formas.jpg[edit]

Hello,

This file has being remove many times, I have it in Flirck and the rights are mine, is my picture. You can check here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131784060@N05/16947044527/

So please could you restore again? And can you let me know what I have to do when I upload a picture to dont be remove?

Thank you very much.

AGarriga (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose While you may have made the photograph, I doubt very much that you designed and manufactured the balloons shown in the photograph that show various animal characters. The photograph is a derivative work of the copyright for each of the balloons and cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the creator or creators of the balloons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Ankry (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shaun Foist.jpg[edit]

Could an admin please restore this photo? The image has been released on behalf of Michael Warth under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GDFL. (Ticket:2015021210021146) Thanks, Mike V • Talk 17:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. @Mike V: please verify vaidity of the permission as there are two different images under this name, one of them watermarked. If in doubt, request deletion again. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kevin-Corson.png[edit]

File:Kevin-Corson.png is not a copyrighted image, I have been given permission to use the file on Wikipedia by the person who made the file and he has sent email on 2 occasions to Wikipedia to verify this. If you would like I can have him send it again, but I assure you there is no violation ao please undelete the image so that I can use it for the page I've created for Kevin and get it submitted for review.

Thank you,

--Ronewer (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose With very limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, every created work has a copyright until it expires. The subject image appears at http://www.tdninc.com/services/ with an explicit copyright notice. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder, almost certainly the photographer,not the subject, must send a free license to OTRS. Note that " permission to use the file on Wikipedia" is not sufficient for either Commons or WP -- images must be free for all use by anyone anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Permission to use is not enough for Commons stored images. Please follow COM:OTRS if you receive a permission with a valid Commons license. Ankry (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stink Blasters.jpg[edit]

Also:

I took a photo of [these toys] for Wikipedia. This is in no way copyright infringement just as a photo of GI Joes is in no way copyright infringement. It is covered under fair use. I took the photo myself, and it is NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Whoever flagged it as such needs their account suspended for not knowing what they are doing. I am very upset that the image was deleted without even asking me.

Thank you for reading. (Votesmall (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Oppose Let's see, where do I start?
1) Túrelio, who deleted the files, is one of our most experienced Administrators. He certainly knows what he is doing.
2) Fair use is not permitted on Commons because it is not possible to claim fair use for a repository.
3) We do not have any images of the G.I. Joe toy for the same reason, see Category:G.I. Joe.
4) The images are certainly derivative works of the copyrighted toys and cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the toy manufacturers, which is extremely unlikely.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Ankry (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Алишер Навоий Узбекистон почта маркаси.jpg[edit]

Автор сам дал разрешение для публикации свои произведения

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Six Files on EMPT[edit]

Please undelete the following files, because an OTRS ticket has been sent on Friday, 6. March 2015 at 17:49 to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' and will be resent today.

--PSTproducts GmbH (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015030610022459). --Mdann52talk to me! 09:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Addictions Awareness Ribbon.gif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015010510001745). --Mdann52talk to me! 10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parmil-nathwani.jpg[edit]

this picture personally received from his owner he want his picture should be there on his wikipedia

 Not done Please follow COM:OTRS if you received free license permission from the copyright owner.

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

File:Harsh Sanghavi.jpg[edit]

this picture personally received from his owner he want his picture should be there on his wikipedia

 Not done Please follow COM:OTRS if you received free license permission from the copyright owner.

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

File:Harsh Sanghavi with Narendra Modi.jpg[edit]

this picture personally received from his owner he want his picture should be there on his wikipedia

 Not done Please follow COM:OTRS if you received free license permission from the copyright owner.

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

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beatrix_Potter . https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Squirrel_Nutkin.jpg File restored on 31 Dec 2013 so now it Derivative of free content Сунприат (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Todd Whitaker.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021010021257 ). --Mdann52talk to me! 16:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:300px eyebase screenshot.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021210015117 ). --Mdann52talk to me! 16:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ronn headshot.jpg[edit]

What do you need? I have absolute right to this picture and I have said it - put my name on it and have no issue debating it. What does this take?Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2015/2/19/jewish-organizations-should-know-that-the-new-israel-fund-is-no-friend#.VSf7HJTF8Yc= with the notice "© 2015, JNS.org. All rights reserved." In order to restore it, the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it to JNS to use, just as I gave it to Wikimedia. I am the owner. The JNS article you point to was authored and provided by the subject of this picture, of whom I have rights to use and distribute. As an aside, an OTRS email was sent.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse us by putting {{Support}}on your own request. You may not like it, but what I set forth above is firmly established policy. It is designed to protect copyright holders from the unfortunate fact that identity theft is fairly common here, both by vandals and by fans, and OTRS is the only we we can confirm that you are actually who you claim to be. Please note also that OTRS is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog often runs from several weeks to well over a month. If your license checks out, the image will be restored in its turn. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Judae1: You say in passive voice "an OTRS email was sent." May I presume that you sent it? Given that, I'm sure the image will be restored when that email is processed (which, in my experience, can take up to 30 days).
In the future, if you want to make sure an image is not deleted while waiting for the OTRS process, remember to tag it with {{OTRS pending}} as soon as you upload it and/or send in the OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This request has been open for 12 days. If this is being handled through OTRS, is there anything more to discuss here? Time to close? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done So closed. Let's wait if OTRS people find aand process the email. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Epivates Anatolikis Thrakis.jpeg[edit]

Το αρχείο File:Epivates Anatolikis Thrakis.jpeg διαγράφηκε χωρίς λόγο, από τη στιγμή κατά την οποία δεν υπόκειται σε κανέναν από τους περιορισμούς πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων της wikipedia.

Είναι παλαιότερο του 1928 και ο δημιουργός του το έχει διαθέσει σε κοινή χρήση. --Politis1977Politis1977 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)14:31, 12 Aπριλίου 2015.[reply]

 Oppose In the file description, you claim to be the author of the image. That is obviously not correct. The rule in Greece is that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If this image is, as you say, from 1928 then it is far too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. In order to restore it you must either prove that the photographer died before 1945 or that the photographer deliberately intended to be anonymous. Please note that the fact that you cannot name the photographer does not mean that he intended to be anonymous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Politis1977, establishing licensing on Commons for a photo where the photographer is not known is not impossible, but can be difficult. This file was in use on w:el:Επιβάτες Θράκης. Fair use is allowed on elwiki, see the guidelines.
When you sign with ~~~~, you do not need to add your signature manually, which you did above, thus your user name was repeated. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Use elwiki Fair Use for this image, if necessary. Ankry (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Braatz-Egbert.jpg[edit]

Because there is a congress in Sept. 2014 in Berlin in between Egbert Braatz, it is important, to have a picture of this famous scientist for the whole world. I tried to present it, but you deleted this picture. In March I tried to undelete it for the first time - but nothing happend. Once more:

The picture shows Prof. Egbert Braatz (1849 - 1942) as physician in Koenigsberg, todays Kaliningrad. German: Prof. Egbert Braatz war ein namhafter Chirurg und Gastroenterologe in Königsberg. Er wurde durch die Erstbeschreibung und Erstkonstruktion eines Gastroskopes - besonders in Japan - bekannt. Einzelheiten bei wikipedia.org Egbert Braatz

Source: fotographie own work, upload by user from a picture, part of the archive of the franz-neumann-stiftung.net, where the user is the chairman Archiv der Franz-Neumann-Stiftung Ursprung: Neumann-Meding als Benutzer ; uploader Neumann-Meding

Kategorien: Koenigsberg, History of Medicine, Albertina Koenigsberg, Physicians, --Neumann-Meding (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The is the second request for this image. While second requests are not forbidden, they are not encouraged. In this case you have added no information -- in fact you have not provided all of the information that you did in the previous request. There you said "Als Quelle hatte ich eingegeben: eigenes Werk, da ich das Foto selbst aufgenommen habe aus einer Zeitschrift "Ostpreußische Artzfamilie"; Adventsrundbrief 1964, S. 15"

As I said at your first request, "The 1964 magazine is certainly copyrighted. The copyright for the photograph will last until 70 years after the death of the photographer. It can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer (or his heirs) sends a free license to OTRS or if the magazine sends a free license. In the latter case, the magazine must show that its license from the photographer allowed it to sublicense the image to Commons." There is no reason to change that.

I recognize that it is frustrating not to be able to use this image, but Commons hosts only free images and this one is not free. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Ankry (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:下載.png[edit]

I have already sent evidence to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)

this is my evidence (requests for permission.)

Please check again.

thanks a lot!

  • evidence 1

致 permissions-commons@wikimedia.org：

我是（作品）[    www.adenovo.com/static/550f8476e4b0293ab04643e3/t/55276b8ee4b05a7749c2e0b5/1428646802375    ]的作者或版權的唯一所有人。

我同意此作品可以在[請於http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses    創用CC授權－相同方式分享 4.0國際通用版    — 必須有具體的許可形式，否則此回覆將不會有效]許可條件下出版。

我承認我允許任何人將作品用於商業目的，並根據其需要舉行修改，只要不超出上述許可條件和法律的範圍。

我明白我仍然保有作品的版權，保有根據許可條件屬於我的權利，而其他人修改的版權不屬於我所有。

我了解自由許可只牽涉版權，我保留反對運用我的作品進行下列行為的權利，如誹謗、侵犯人權、防止商標註冊等。

我同意我未來不能收回這份答覆，而我上述作品可能永久保留在維基項目中，但亦有可能被移除。

[    王崢    ]
[    2015/04/20    ]



  • evidence 2

寄件者： service of Adenovo <service@adenovo.com> 日期： 2015年4月20日 下午3:59 主旨： 著作權聲明 收件者： permissions-commons@wikimedia.org


我在此確認本人 王崢 是 www.adenovo.com 官方網頁的創作者。

我同意該作品中之圖檔(www.adenovo.com/static/550f8476e4b0293ab04643e3/t/55276b8ee4b05a7749c2e0b5/1428646802375)

以下列開放授權釋出：創用CC授權－相同方式分享 4.0國際通用版

我明白當我以上述授權釋出後，我便允許任何人在其他授權以及法律的限制下，對本作品進行商業或其他的再製使用、或根據他們的需求任意修改。

我理解這樣的授權並不只限於維基百科以及其他相關站台之內。

我理解我仍有作品的著作權，而根據我所選擇的授權格式分享。其他人對本作品的修改並不是我著作權的範圍。

我理解我不能撤回這項協議，而這份授權作品可能會永久保存於維基媒體計畫中，但也可能無法永久保存於維基媒體計畫中。

[寄件者姓名] 王崢
[寄件者職稱] 創意總監
[寄送日期] 2015/04/20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch7learn (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. The backlog there often runs more than a month, or even more. Your license will be dealt with when it comes to the head of the queue. In the meantime, please be patient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please, wait till OTRS people process your email. Ankry (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chris-2000.jpg, File:HYPNOS-2013.jpg and File:Krabathor-2014.JPG[edit]

Please, restore these three files because there is a permission in OTRS (ticket:2015030510027447). Thanks. --Harold (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Ticket is incomplete IMO yet. Ankry (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In first email is mentioned CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. I think it's OK. --Harold (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpgThe HRS logo was deleted for unjust reasons.[edit]

I work the society and have full permission to post and use this logo in accordance with our style guides Please undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.7 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that we delete more than 1,400 files every day. Without the name of the file or the uploader, it would be very time consuming to find the subject file. It is likely that when you do tell us the filename, the response will be that an authorized official of the logo owner must send a free license to OTRS. Note that freely licensing the logo for all uses, including commercial use, as required here, is probably beyond what is authorized in your style guide. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Nothing to do. Ankry (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stollen 1930.jpg[edit]

Dieses Bild wurde mir vom Urheber (*sternmanufaktur) persönlich zur Verfügung gestellt. Ich habe dem Urheber nun gebeten, mir schriftlich das Verwendungsrecht des Bildes zu bestätigen. Werde dieses Schreiben so bald wie möglich nachreichen.

(Fürst,Roll,Ungvari (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done Let's wait till a valid permission from image author is received and processed by OTRS people. Ankry (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Intelligiant pitcure.jpg[edit]

After some time I realised that this pitcure is stamp of British Post Office. It is important because it's painting of today's standard water cannon, you can read more on Intelligiant page and you can read even more in Croatian version of Intelligiant page but then use translator. --A1B2H3 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No such file uploaded. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Спецвыпуск стенгазеты "Шаги истории" посвященный Великой Отечественной войне.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the file may use free. It is free. Rustam6996 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No evidence that the file is freely licensed provided. Neither in image description nor here. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Т. Туаева - Древо желания.jpg[edit]

This is my photo, it is a photo of me as an actress in the movie. It was taken by me, and you could really tell by looking at the photo. Please undelete the photo. I have been having so much trouble with publishing a wikipedia article about me, now this adds another problem. Please help. Thank you, Temina Tuaeva

 Not done The photo does not seem to be a selfie. No proof that the movie containing this is freely licensed or PD provided. Ankry (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Temina Tuaeva.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the file. I am giving permission information you request. I am so new to this wikimedia/wikipedia that problems keep popping up. Please help. Thank you, Temina Tuaeva

 Not done If you have a permission from the photographer, please email it to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the photo will be restored. Ankry (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Don-Plaza 1.jpg[edit]

All files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Яна Чекунова were deleted per COM:FOP#Russia. However, this deletion request was not properly categorized. This has to be reassessed following the change in FOP Russia. --Off-shell (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There were two issues with the files -- lack of FOP and no confidence that they were actually the uploader's own work. Since you are not the uploader, I don't see how we can intelligently discuss the latter question. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was "some of the nominated files unlikely own work". This suggests that only a subset of those files were suspicious. It's a pitty that all files are lost, and not only the suspicious ones. --Off-shell (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This particular image is low-res and has been published elsewhere. So nothing can be done without mail to COM:OTRS by the photographer or (at least) upload of its original version with full EXIF info. Anyone more? Ankry (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryszard Gradziński.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021110007762). --Mdann52talk to me! 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomas-Schmidt 2013.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021210009508). --Mdann52talk to me! 19:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SS Sea Owl at Weston Super Mare, England, November 1944.jpg[edit]

I am requesting the undeletion of the above image, which I originally uploaded but was confused as how to properly license (so I just selected "I don't know" and trusted someone who did would get in touch with me on how to go through the proper procedure). I'm still not sure how to, but the image is my Dad's from World War II taken when his unit was stationed at Weston Super Mare before deployment to France. He's 90 and gave it to me to upload to use at the SS Sea Owl page at Wikipedia (the transport he went over to England on). Can someone please undelete this image and instruct me on the proper way to license it. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was your father the actual photographer? If so, usually we would require your father to send a free license to OTRS, and if he is Internet savvy, that would be the best way, but if he is not Internet savvy, then we can probably take it as is. He (or you for him) must choose a license. The usual Commons license is CC-BY-SA.
If he was not the actual photographer, then we will need a license from that person or his heirs, or evidence that the image was published before 1989 without a copyright notice. That may be impossible, but, unfortunately the law does not deal well with copyright orphans..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User Jim. He took the picture. How do I request undeletion using a CC-BY-SA license? All I am really familiar with is uploading images using Upload Wizard. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What happens next? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Permissions for deleted files received[edit]

Moved from OTRS/N

Could an Admin restore these files if all seems good. Reference Template:OTRS ticket. I just need them restored, I'll handle it from there.

Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Mlpearc: Please renominate for deletion if you found ticket info not OK. Ankry (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will :) Mlpearc (open channel) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

RAW India.jpg[edit]

This file File:RAW India.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) was unfortunately deleted Commons:Deletion_requests/File:RAW_India.jpg, because as per the deletion request it is a fake logo. I would like to argue for the undeletion by trying to prove that the logo is indeed correct.

The proof comes in three parts:

First a search of logos of similar intelligence organisations in India like the Narcotic Control Bureau, National Intelligence Agency which have official logo on their websites show a very similar variation/arrangement of the Lion and fig leaves.

Second, if you search the images of Bollywood movies on R&AW you would find this logo pop up many a times. I am attaching a low res screengrab from two Bollywood movies Chamku (on the left) and Madras Cafe (on the right) which clearly show the R&AW logo.

Third, if we look at books written by ex R&AW employees we would find mention of this seal or logo, there are some pictorial representations which are very similar to the logo uploaded onto wiki.

On these grounds I would like to request an undelete.

thanks, Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

No subject[edit]

申请恢复File:《张家港史志》2015年第1期 总第7期 第42-49页.jpg 24.193.58.129 21:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

申请恢复File:《张家港史志》创刊号 总第1期 第39-43页.JPG 24.193.58.129 21:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

申请恢复以下图片：

因为我亲自所摄的图片，图片里的内容是本人亲自所写的文章。所以贡献给维基百科。WashingTong (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not deleted yet. Yann (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Serghei Paşcenco.jpg[edit]

Я занимаюсь статьями о футбольном клубе "Шериф" в русской Википедии. Метаданные на фотографии присутствуют, по ним видно, когда, где и каким фотоаппаратом были сделаны фотографии. Добавлю, что планирую залить состав всей команды, но не доходят руки. Просто я не хочу создавать еще одну учетную запись, чтобы залить весь состав команды. Также хотел бы узнать, если на фотографиях видны все метаданные, на каком основании подозревают, что они не мои? Я могу и спустя 10 лет залить фотографии под свободной лицензией, это сугубо мое право. Заодно прошу восстановить эту фотографию File:Matías Degra.jpg, все метаданные опять же присутствуют. --Kodru (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Google translate is not particularly helpful here, but this has been sitting for three days waiting for a Russian speaker to come along, so I took a look at it.
I have been articles about the football club "Sheriff" in Russian Wikipedia. Metadata in the photo there, you can see them when, where and how the camera pictures were taken. I should add that I plan to fill in part of the team, but not reached. I just do not want to create another account, to fill the entire squad. Would also like to know if the photos you can see all the metadata on what grounds to suspect that they are not mine? I can, and 10 years later pour pictures under a free license, this is purely my right. At the same time ask to restore this image File: Matías Degra.jpg, all metadata again present.
translator: Google
The problem here is that the images have EXIF showing Skiolov & Adjem as the photographers. Both of them look like professional photographs of the players on the team. The translation does not seem to say that Kodru is the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explain my photos of all the players, as I live and work in Tiraspol. In order to fill these photos I need to create a new account under the name Skiolov & Ajami? Meaning, if my photos and the authorship I could write whatever I want ... If you find the same photos with metadata, will be pleasantly surprised. I think for this and there are metadata that you can see that the photos are not taken from the Internet and download them people is their author or coauthor. I would add that I am in Tiraspol work in different places photographer. I live alone in Tiraspol and in Estonia. --Kodru (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If necessary, I can in a material change to the authorship Kodru, I think you know very well that it is not hard to do .. --Kodru (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

All my photos deleted unnecessarily[edit]

I logged in today to upload additional photos of myself which were taken with my own cell phone, and found that all photos I had previously uploaded of myself were deleted somehow.

In reviewing the logs of the deletion discussion, it appears that there was a concern as to the validity of my having uploaded photos of myself here after they had been used in public articles. The bottom line is that those images of me which were used in articles were taken from my public twitter account, and were photos taken of myself by myself and my husband for our own use. There are no professional photos at this time that I own the rights to, and it was brought to my attention by a wiki-user that other photos of myself were being used without my permission, and I would have preferred these uploaded photos be used instead. As such I was advised to upload them, and did so.

I would appreciate these images being undeleted as they are images of myself and my husband, taken by myself and or him, using our own equipment, which I uploaded to be able to have some control over the images being used of me on Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Brianna Wu--Spacekatgal (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is in response to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Spacekatgal. To be very blunt, Brianna Wu and her husband, Frank Wu, are high profile people with world class graphics skills. My colleagues involved in the DR and I don't believe that Wu would upload this collection of very low quality images to Commons. Identity theft by fans is common here and it is certainly well beyond our standard of significant doubt that identity theft has happened in this case. If you are, in fact, Brianna Wu, please confirm your identity by sending a message to OTRS from a traceable address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - You can send an email to OTRS, or you can simply write a public line on your personal website http://www.briannawu.net/ saying that you are User:Spacekatgal. Apologies for the hassle, and double apologies for calling your contributions low quality, that was uncalled for. --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I stand by my remarks above. If User:Spacekatgal is Brianna Wu, then she and her husband are world class graphics people. These images are not up to the standards that they certainly set for themselves in their other works and would not be kept on Commons unless they were the only images we had. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those deleted images were the very images Brianna Wu uses for her internet presence and gives to the media for articles. For example, to head her piece in the Washington Post [12]; that image was one of the ones that got deleted. But not up to our standards. --GRuban (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No permission from Brianna Wu so far. Yann (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by sadaqat[edit]

File:Zafrull Khan.jpg[edit]

please restore my file {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} sadaqat (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:История российского мусульманства беседы о северном ислам.JPG[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} sadaqat (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdul Karim Sialkoti.jpg[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} sadaqat (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:История российского мусульманства беседы о северном ислам.JPG[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}sadaqat (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ностальгия по откровению.JPG[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}sadaqat (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Приглашение в Ахмадийят.JPG[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}sadaqat (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Гомеопатия.JPG[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}sadaqat (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Философия исламских учений,.jpg[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}sadaqat (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Философия исламских учений.jpg[edit]

please restore my picture. I am a autor of this file.{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}sadaqat (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done These are not YOUR images, but copied from the Internet, or other sources. Yann (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:poshtenskakutiazaprikazki.jpg[edit]

Hello. The pictures are for the official Wiki page of an event. I have all the authors authorization to use them. This is my first time uploading pictures, so I am sorry if I did not select the right license for the photo. Please undelete the pictures. Thank you.

--Kalburov9 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Kalburov9, 25.04.2015[reply]

  •  Oppose These were taken from Facebook, which is copyrighted. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographers send free licenses for each image to OTRS. In addition, at least one of the images, File:poshtenskakutiazaprikazki.jpg, is of a logo or other visual work. In order to restore that, we will need a license from the creator of the work pictured, and not from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, also, that this UnDR is the correct procedure for requesting restoration of a deleted image. Uploading an image a second time after deletion, as you did at least twice here, is a serious violation of our rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Йохан Юргенс (Johann Jürgens) Rossia.jpg[edit]

Picture of the German actor Johann Jürgens (ru:Юргенс, Йохан). Used by two Wikipedias. Victim of bulk deletion. --2A00:C1A0:4889:E600:5879:9D00:E8C4:9E5C 11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Don Omar Live.jpg[edit]

Also:File:Don_Omar.jpg

Description English: Don Omar Live Date 25 April 2013 Source https://www.flickr.com/photos/diariocriticove/8683216105 Author Diariocritico de Venezuela Licensing[edit] Checked copyright icon.svg This image was originally posted to Flickr by Diario Critico Venezuela at http://flickr.com/photos/89374726@N02/8683216105. It was reviewed on 26 April 2015 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. w:en:Creative Commons attribution This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelugo (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not all Flickr files are as they appear. This pair show that they are Getty images and therefore the licenses on Flickr are License laundering. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:O'Hara, Maureen.jpg[edit]

I did some research on this picture, and found a lot of sites say it was taken in 1940.

This means it is over 70 years old and is a free picture in almost every country, including Ireland. It should be undeleted and given the {{PD-Old}} template. --Steverci (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose That is not at all correct. In almost all countries, including Ireland, an image is under copyright for seventy years after the death of the photographer. A 1940 work might be PD today, if the photographer died within four years after taking it, but it is unlikely. As a general rule, we use 1885 as a cutoff date for assuming that the photographer has been dead for seventy years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Update I have been discussing the location of the photo on Wikipedia's help desk, and we came to the conclusion it was made in the United States by studio RKO. This would make it free under PD-US-no notice, just like a lot of her other photos here. --Steverci (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't conclude that the image was published without notice just because a print of the photograph doesn't have it. The law did not require that individual prints have notice if they were being sent to newspapers or other users that would print them covered by the publication's general notice. Wire service photos and photographs taken by newspaper staff never had notice on the images themselves. The same could well be true of this -- certainly beyond our standard of proof -- significant doubt. In order to restore it, you will have to show that it was published without notice, as that word is used in the 1909 law. Merely having a print wihtout notice proves nothing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a physical print was sent to a newspaper, then yes that print needed a copyright notice. That act right there was most likely publication, regardless if it was later published in the newspaper. A publicity print sent to several newspapers would be published. But, we do like to have some actual evidence of that. I do see a copy here which does seem to show it existed as a separate print some time ago, but it often helps to see the back as well -- that would probably have been an OK spot for a copyright notice on a publicity print. It feels pretty likely this is a PD publicity image, but I'm not sure we have the evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Question If we can't prove that there was a copyright notice, could we prove that it was not renewed? Yann (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but who wants to slog through two years of printed copyright renewals -- the renewal would be from before the beginning of the computer searchable database. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. 12 days and still no evidence to support any of the PD rationales proposed. Time to close this one. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nothing to demonstrate PD status. Green Giant (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Standard of Sri Lanka (Maithripala Sirisena).svg[edit]

Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. The flag was created by the uploader (User:Prez001) and we know this because any images provided by the Sri Lankan government are of too poor a resolution to have been simply copied. The symbol in the centre and the border are PD-ineligible and basic geometry. There is only ONE element on this flag that is above COM:TOO and because of the poor resolution of the government images, Prez001 HAD to create it themselves. This file of the flag IS NOT copyrighted, and the nominator themselves also admitted they do not claim that it is, siply they feel that the "own work" license was inappropriate and that the Government of Sri Lanka should have been properly attributed. This qualifies for immediate undeletion. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to spell it out for everyone, here is why this file is not copyrighted. This is the image with the highest resolution available from the Government of Sri Lanka. This is the symbol in the centre and it qualifies under basic geometry. It is too simple as it is just 5 concentric rings. The 4 leaves in each corner don't even need mention because they are from the national flag. The only thing left is the border which consists of two parts which I have highlighted with an arrow. This part again qualifies as basic geometry, it's just 5 rectangles. The only remaining part that is above TOO and therefore copyrightable is this part. However, this part is not the same as on the Government image. Here is Prez001's version, but if you zoom the resolution on the Government's image you can see it is different. The only copyrightable part of this flag is not the same on Prez001's file as it is on the Government image, and it never could have been because the resolution is so poor that Prez001 had to create it themselves as everyone can see. That makes this image Prez001's own work. They hold the rights to their image, they have the right to release it, and this file is not a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The labored narrative addressing the numerous elements present actually demonstrates why the DR was closed correctly. Indeed, the above is essentially analogous to arguing that because individual letters and words are not copyrightable, poems, stories and other literature ought not to be copyrightable. This, of course, is nonsense. The selection, combination and arrangement of elements--even if they are individually ineligible for copyright--can give rise to sufficient originality in the aggregate/combined work. For example: "the designs are protected in their entirety because it is the combination of elements that is copyrighted. The combinations of the common elements have resulted in designs that are original and protected in their entirety." (Yurman Design, Inc. v. Golden Treasure Imps., Inc., 275 F. 2d 506, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)) See also the bottom of page 10 here. Frankly, I don't even buy that the floral symbol in the center is below the TOO. It certainly is not a "common geometric" shape as contemplated by the Copyright Act (see page 9). Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is too simple, it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. There is nothing copyrightable about Prez001's file except for the floral part in the border and Prez001's version is completely different. Prez001 drew this themselves, this is their work. The same principle applies to coats of arms on Commons, you draw it yourself then it's your own work. This isn't a copy of the flag from the Sri Lankan Government because the resolutions of their images of this flag are absolute junk. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And anyone with a ruler, like Piet Mondriaan, could create this, which had a copyright before it expired due to time. Copyright law does not care about ease, labor intensity, or tools but about originality - which the flag certainly has. The uploader himself acknowledged an attempt to copy: "I came across the image from the presidency site. and i proceeded to recreate that image" [13] To the extent there are differences in the uploaded version, the COM:DW does not dissolve the copyright of the base work. When you were notifying the admin who previously restored the file (through merely because it was improperly speedied)[14] and the file's author [15], you seem to have missed @Obi2canibe: and @Taivo: . I've corrected the oversight for you. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually copyright DOES care about ease, that's the entire point of originality. The more unoriginal and simple something is, the easier it is to create. You also know quite well that "re-create" does not mean the same thing as "copy". We have thousands of flags and coats of arms that are "re-creations" but not "copies". As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. The flag may be copyrighted, but Prez001's version most certainly is not. DW only means anything if the original work is is a copyright violation, the only elements that Prez001 derived their work from are too simple and basic geometry, the complicated bit is completely different. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the COM:TOO entry for various countries, you can see copyright refused for many images that are more complex than the flower symbol in the centre of this flag. File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Jeff Ho logo.png for example do not use simple repeating geometry. There is no question the flower symbol is not copyrightable. In fact, nothing on this flag is copyrightable and the flag as a whole would not be considered copyrightable save for the flowery thing in the border. if it wasn't on the flag, the flag would be here right now. As I've already shown, Prez001's re-creation of that flowery thing is completely different. Their file does not violate the original. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain this in a more simple way. This would not be considered copyrightable, if the flag was just that design and it went through a DR it would be kept. The border is just rectangles, and the flower symbol in the centre is basic geometry. It's no different than the many roundels we host on Commons. Concentric rings are not complicated enough to be copyrighted, and just because these have 8 edges instead of perfect circles isn't enough of a difference because it is still a basic simple repetitious pattern. The leaves again don't matter, they're from the national flag. The ONLY thing on this flag that raises it above the threshold of originality and makes it copyrighted/able, is not the same design on Prez001's image as on the Government of Sri Lanka's image. Therefore is is not a violation. Prez001 drew his own flower border, his own design, he has the rights to it. It's not a DW, it's not a copy, it's not a violation. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


When it comes to governmental flags, the basic design is almost never considered copyrighted (same with seals). We generally are only concerned about straight copying of files, or if there is a complex figure, copying/tracing that specific representation (since many representations are probably possible). This argument basically says we cannot have any representations of flags or seals where the basic design could be considered under copyright (even though they are typically always PD-EdictGov at the very least). I don't buy it. An SVG is already not a straight copy, and (from what I can see on the Google cache) I think this is a legitimate SVG representation from the specific JPG representation on the website. Basically, I don't think the general "selection and arrangement" copyright is really applicable to governmental flags and seals. That is getting into copyright paranoia territory for me -- has there ever been a lawsuit about such items? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you add that as a support, than?
Really the issue here has been argued dozens of times over coats of arms on Commons, and the result has ALWAYS come out that if you drew it yourself without exacly copying or tracing the image in question then it's free. This argument could easily also apply to the images I uploaded last night. Is File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg copyrightable? Absolutely yes it is copyrightable. However, my version is not, because the only copyrightable part (which is the lion badge) was drawn by Sodacan as a free element, and the rest of the flag sans the lion would not be considered copyrighted. The same applies to this presidential standard. Fry1989 eh? 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Any other opinions here? Yann (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not, but I'm not letting this one go. This is Prez001's work and they have a right to release it. Fry1989 eh? 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So is this going to be undeleted the proper way or do I have to upload it again myself? Because I absolutely will. Fry1989 eh? 16:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just be patience and if you reupload the file you likeley end up blocked. You know that right? Given your really ucivil comments in this discussion I don't find it strange that there are no more opinions given. But if you want more opinions, I agree with Elcobbola. Natuur12 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have said absolutely nothing uncivil regarding this matter and I know what I'm talking about. I have discussed this flag entirely on it's merits, but it's no surprise to me that you would try to make this about something it's not. You know what I'm talking about. So either give a link or quote about my supposed "uncivil comments in this discussion", or go away. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't know what you are talking about but if you insist: Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. (suggestive), it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. (rude language), As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. (suggestive and assume bad faith), So is this going to be undeleted the proper way or do I have to upload it again myself? Because I absolutely will (making empty threats). The entire tone of your comments is quite hostile I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OH please you're grasping at straws. "Improperly deleted", well as I disagree with the deletion OBVIOUSLY I think it was improper to have been deleted! "Something any idiot can draw", that's not directed at any person or user, it's a figure of speech describing the simplicity of the element in question (ie: anybody could do it). The canvassing inference, that's absolutely right, I reserve my right to notify who and how I wish and it was obvious that I was being accused of canvassing which I was not. If you don't think I notified the right users or enough users than do it yourself but don't accuse me of canvassing without solid ground for that accusation. Notifying only 2 users is a far far way away from canvassing. As for my last comment, I have waited long enough, I am absolutely right and sound in my arguments and if it is not undeleted than I shall upload it again (multiple times if necessary). This work is free, whether the original is copyrighted or not is of no consequence. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm telling you, if you re-upload the file you probably end up blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm telling YOU this work is free. Don't think I won't exhaust every opportunity I have at restoring it. If File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg can be on Commons, so can Prez001's work. Just try to have my file deleted, there's no arguments that can be made, I drew the flag, Sodocan drew the lion, so even if the original flag is copyrighted my file is not. The exact same principle applies to Prez001's file, they drew it themselves, and in particular they drew the copyrightable parts themselves independent of the original work and therefore it is not a copy and therefore is not a violation. If you have real arguments for why you think the flag shouldn't be restored, instead of accusing me of incivility because you don't like my manner of saying "anybody can do it", lay them out instead of this ad hominem "you're hostile, so nobody wants to listen to you even if you're right" which isn't how things work here. We delete and undelete things on their merits, and the merits for this flag being free are solid. Might I also remind you even the nominator themselves admitted they don't think it's a copyright violation, their problem was with attribution. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting. I'm only giving this 3 weeks, that is patience enough. Fry1989 eh? 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is right on the edge. I have great respect for both Эlcobbola and Carl. Эlcobbola's argument is good, but the problem here is that most of the flag is PD, so, as Fry so forcefully and unpleasantly argues, it's difficult to make the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" argument. I am, therefore, inclined to go with Carl and support undeletion. Although his comment about lawsuits skirts PRP, I think it's a valid comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Youra Livchitz (1917-1944).jpg[edit]

new default illustration on fr:WP

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was changed, no discussion, unfair use of the tools i'm affraid Madelgarius (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Changing the license" didn't address the issues I raised in the deletion nomination. Let's try this again:
  • What research have you done to show that the photographer was anonymous? (Finding a photo on Google and not bothering to look into who created it isn't the same as the photographer being anonymous.)
  • Content on Commons needs to be free not just in the source country, but in the United States as well. Can you show that this photograph is in the public domain in the United States?
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made researches and find nothing... Anonymous-EU is not enough ?... You already gave your sympathetic (pathetic?) opinion. I answered, you did not reply, not fair. Other advises? --Madelgarius (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you what's needed, and no, you didn't answer those points. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United-States? for illustrating Wikipedia in french? There's not known photographer for this picture... But may be you know things i do not. Or you are a white knight? A pity I can't tell you what I think about this in french... It would be more precise. Mais je peux te parler dans ma langue au fond, toi tu ne t'inquiètes pas de me parler dans une langue que tu sais ne pas être la mienne, à me parler des droits d'une photo aux états-unis, j'ignorais que commons était uniquement assujettie au droit américain. Cette photo est du domaine public en Europe. Je te dis que je n'ai trouvé aucune information concernant le photographe. Cette personne est un héros de la seconde guerre mondiale et des ayants-droit, s'il s'en trouvent, ne trouveraient rien à redire à l'usage qui est fait de cette photographie. Après, tu fais la leçon, tout ça... C'est contre-productif, tu surjoues, et c'est pour tout dire un peu pitoyable. Après cette salve pas davantage sympathique que les tiennes, seras-tu néanmoins disposé à restaurer cette image dont l'unique prétention est d'illustrer un article sur fr:WP? Ou ton rôle (celui que tu estimes être le tien) sur commons est supérieur à cette noble vélléité? --Madelgarius (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jag hoppas att du inte förväntar dig att få någon mer hjälp, för det lär du inte få med den attityden. Inte av mig i alla fall. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C'est pourquoi je demande d'autres avis... --Madelgarius (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In order to use an "anonymous" license on a French work, you must show that the author was, in fact, never disclosed. His merely being unknown to you is nowhere near sufficient. The "anonymous" tag is very hard to prove. Also note that the copyright for a work that is proven to qualify for an "anonymous" tag runs for 70 years from first publication, so you also have to prove that the image was published before 1945. If you cannot prove that, then we must assume it is still under copyright.
I must also warn you that ad hominem attacks, such as you have made in several places here and the DR may get you blocked. We have a low tolerance for inexperienced editors who come here and attack Users who have made more than 100,000 contributions to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you will apologize this unexperimented fellow (after 4 years of contributions here I still keep in mind the purpose of all this). The first license provided was PD-old which bothered LX, I change it into Anonymous-EU. Because, no photographer can be found, and because Youra Livchitz was killed by the germans in februari 1944 after the attack of the XXth convoy of the deportation. We can reasonably think that this picture were published for the first time at that time in the clandestine press and in septembre 1944 in the first hours of the liberation. You apply strictly and in a non collaborative way rules to a 220px picture... It was preferable for all to let this photography in the "grey zone" because no author can be found, because no one could be offenced by the fact we used this picture for illustrating purpose on such an article and finally because Youra Livchitz died more than 70 years ago and we have a "devoir de mémoire" about that. You pretend to apply rules, you have thousands of contributions which allow you to do so... Others are unexperimented contributors... And during your journey you forgot your destination. Sad. --Madelgarius (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to tell me what my goal is. In this case, my goal is to enforce the laws of France and the policies of Commons. It is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that either the author intended to be anonymous or that the image was actually published before 1945. You have done neither. In fact, you yourself admit that this falls in "the grey zone". You have also suggested that we break one of our most basic polices, see COM:PRP #4. Finally, again, you make an ad hominem attack. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "grey zone" which is not binary on/off. No attack at all in this last commentary, I certainly not agree with your position. That's all. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No evidence for anonymous authorship. Green Giant (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:trikamlaldesai.jpg[edit]

Deleted wrongly.

Stdesai (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? There has never been a file on Commons with that name. You have not uploaded any files -- or, indeed, done anything on Commons other than the comment above, so there is no alternative way to trace the file. Also, "Deleted wrongly" is not a reason we should undelete a file. You must give us both a valid file name and a reason why you think the deletion was wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the file in question is File:TrikamlalDesai.jpg, which was uploaded by User:Trdyellow, used in en:T R Desai (which was created by User:Yellowpanthertiger) and deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:TrikamlalDesai.jpg. Since it was in use, deletion on Commons:Project scope grounds may not have been correct. I am, however, a bit curious as to why the uploader feels the need to use so many different accounts. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked User:Stdesai as a Likely sock of User:Trdyellow. User:Yellowpanthertiger has no edits on Commons, so I can't checkuser it, but it appears likely to be related. Given the names involved, the WP:EN article is likely a violation of WP:EN's conflict of interest policy. While we are not here to police WP:EN, we don't need to help violators of sister projects' rules, so I would not restore this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diabase Moiseikin.jpg[edit]

It received permission to OTRS. ticket:2015041510004334 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sheikh Hasina and Shinzo Abe 2014.jpg[edit]

The picture is copyrighted but the Japanese Prime Minister's Office allows it to be used for under its six Use of Content conditions specified here. --Merchant of Asia (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The page which you cite explicitly says at point #2 that material on the web site may be copyrighted by others and that the terms there do not apply to that material. In order to have this restored, you must show that the Japanese government actually owns the copyright to this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source page explicitly states that the content is under the copyright of the Japanese government: "Copyright© Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat."--Merchant of Asia (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says that the page as a whole is copyrighted by the Japanese Government. That does not preclude there being items on the page for which other people hold individual copyrights. Point #2, which I cited above, explicitly recognizes that. For an example closer to home (my home, at least), please see http://www.boston.com/yourtown/milton/gallery/historic_milton/ which has a copyright notice at the bottom "© 2015 NY Times Co", just as the site which you mention does. The copyright to the image, however, is held by me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point# 2 applies to work for which they provide third party copyright information, like in the case of the website you cited with your work. In my case they haven't and going by their copyright policy, the work is eligible for use in Commons.--Merchant of Asia (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira e marido, foto de noivado.jpg[edit]

The photo was already with author/date/country of creation information as requested, but nevertheless someone deleted it.--P.P.Pyres (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply slap anything in the file description and expect it to be satisfactory. You claimed that you were the photographer of this 1896 image. I think I can safely say that that is actually impossible, not merely extremely unlikely. In order to have this image restored you must prove one of two things
a) Who the actual photographer was and that he died more than 70 years ago, or
b) That the actual photographer chose to remain anonymous and that the image was published more than 70 years ago. Note that simply not knowing who the photographer was is not sufficient -- you must prove that he intended to remain anonymous. Note also that if Commons was the first publication of the image, then it will be under copyright for 70 years from now.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Brazil. We don't need a proof that it was published. So I think a 1896 picture is OK. I don't think we have sufficient doubt that it is still under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, this was their engagement photo -- a formal studio portrait, so the photographer was certainly known to the subjects and was, therefore, not anonymous. Second, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, the rule is "70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the first publication", so I don't see how we can ignore the fact that this probably came from a family album and has never been published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, this does not make sense. A photographer is always known for someone, but this doesn't change the fact, that his name was certainly never recorded anywhere, and is therefore unknown to all legal sense of the term. It seems quite clear that the copyright expired 70 years after it was taken (or even shorter? what was the law at that time?). Yann (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In English, at least, anonymous means that the author made a deliberate attempt to be unknown. That's certainly possible for many photo-journalists, but much less so, as I argue here, for portrait photographers. The photographer may or may not be unknown, but he can't be anonymous.
You say, "his name was certainly never recorded anywhere" -- how do you know that? For all we know, his name is on the back of the photograph.
I also don't understand why you think that Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil is wrong about the copyright period for anonymous works. It certainly seems very clear that anonymous works stay under copyright for 70 years after first publication. That's not unusual -- the same rule applies in France, Germany, and many other countries. In the USA it's 95 years after first publication or 120 years from creation, so this work certainly would be under copyright here if it were first published here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "a deliberate attempt to be unknown" is an accurate description of anonymous publication, at least for old documents. In most cases, the photographer was not mentioned because he is not supposed to get any reward except an one-time payment (work for hire). For working on old documents on Commons for the last 10 years, I know that for many old pictures, the name of the photographer was not recorded anywhere. I don't think it improves anything to request impossible requirements, completely disconnected to the real life situation. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you're right on the edge of COM:PRP #4. However, even granting you that, how do you get around the fact that as far as we know its first publication was this year and, therefore, under Brazilian law it will be under copyright until 2085? Of course, arguably, since its first publication is on Commons, in the USA, its copyright will run for 120 years from creation, until 1/1/2017. That's closer, but still 20 months from now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The law does say that the economic right is owned by the publisher in the anonymous situation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sukima switch-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg[edit]

The user who deleted this image (and who knows how many others of mine??) put the deletion notice on my main page not my talk page so I had no idea this was being deleted. That's crafty and evil. It was deleted for copyright violation? But that's nuts. I took the picture myself with these hands I type now. I'm quite annoyed at this user [16] who followed a deletion request from a brand new user. What the heck. Steamed, Nesnad (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if your work was deleted in error. I see that more than 50 of your uploaded files have been deleted.[17] Are they all your own work? Have you uploaded any other images that you took about the same time as this image, around December 2011, with the DMC-FX60 camera that was used to take this image? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness. FIFTY of my files? What is going on here? Yes, I've used a Lumix for years (different models different years though), those are all my own images and why are they being deleted? Is it carelessness or some vendetta against me or something? That's all that has been deleted? But 50? I'm speechless! Can I see a list (your link can't be viewed on my permissions level, and even if you restore them I need to be able to go relink etc)? Even if they are restored the countless pages that used my images need to be relinked and everything, that's quite depressing and demotivating. None the less, I strongly protest those deletions (not even getting notice about those files is such a burn too, what's going on?) and request them to be restored ASAP. Nesnad (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the 50 deletions Walter Siegmund mentioned refers to recent deletions, but rather the total number. Given the time you've been here and the number of uploads you have made, that's not a huge amount, and it looks like a lot of it was at your own request, removal of duplicates, cleanup after file moves and other routine maintenance. If you browse through your log 500 entries at a time, you'll see a few red links, and if you click on those, you'll see the reasons for deletion. I also think you were notified of the vast majority (possibly all) of these deletions. To answer Wsiegmund's question about other uploads around the same timeframe taken with a DMC-FX60 more specifically, I see a whole bunch, e.g. File:Kaihin-makuhari-station2011.jpg, File:Asian Kung-Fu Generation-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Rhymester-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chara-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chatmonchy-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Thecro-magnons-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Denkigroove-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg and File:Posumon-hongkong-allcontents.jpg.
It would be interesting to know what the evidence for the supposed copyright violation was. I see that the user who nominated it for deletion has been indefinitely blocked on Japanese Wikipedia for vandalism. Based on automatic translation of ja:Special:Diff/54466755, it sounds like they had opinions about house rules on photography not being followed, but that's a matter between the photographer and the venue and not a reason for deletion from Commons. My prima facie inclination is to  support undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks for looking into this, LX. The more than 50 deletions are of more than 2000 files uploaded since 2005.[18] They include successful deletion nominations by Nesnad. I understand now that the deleted files list must be used with care to judge the quality of an editor's contributions. I'm sorry I didn't realize you needed special permission to view the deleted files list. I don't know why that is required. Besides the images you list, File:Three Kingdoms Wu - funeral urn.jpg was taken 27 October 2010 in Tokyo with the DMC-FX60 camera. Given the above, including the information about the nominator, I support undeletion. Nesnad, I'm sorry this happened. Please save a permanent link to this discussion so you can reference it if you need to. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LX, and Wsiegmund, I also thought it meant 50 of my images were recently deleted. Yes, I have asked for some of my own to be deleted in the past. Also didn't know about FOP about certain robot statues and what not in the past and got those deleted. But I clearly remember that funeral urn, and if I remember correctly it shouldn't be deleted either. (And any others from that outing, was the Japanese Wikipedia troll hitting those too?) I can't look through my long list of uploads easily, so if there are others taken with a DMC (there are other DMC models I used, been using Lumix forever) that didn't have a deletion discussion that I was notified about, then they were most likely wrongfully deleted especially if they are tagged copyvio, because I either have public domain or my own images on Commons. It's freaky to think that the Japanese Wikipedia user was that insane to go after my files here on Commons, I'm hoping this sort of thing is an isolated situation and look forward to my files being restored. Once again, is there any way you could list them here or somewhere so I can go back and try to relink any that were deleted and thus unlinked, etc? Thank you both a bunch, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Wait, did I read that wrong? The only file that wasn't self requested or just deleted because of FOP rules etc was this Sukima Switch picture? If so, that means no major task to relink, woohoo! I'll now somewhat look at my past uploads with a paranoid eye though...! Nesnad (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sukima Switch picture seems to be your only DMC photo not self-requested or deleted because of FOP rules. I don't see any other deletion of DMC photos. I looked at files uploaded in June 2010 and later. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Restored 2. Anything else to do? Yann (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:X'treme GH.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015022010002277). --Mdann52talk to me! 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Let's wait for the response. Ankry (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as Inactionable for now, since the matter is still being handled via OTRS -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mathukkutty.jpg[edit]

i request to undelete the file entitled File:Mathukkutty.jpg since it is refered to the page 'Mathukkutty keecheriyi' as profile picture. Kindly undo the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiden eipen (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose That is not a reason to restore the image. It was deleted because it is small and had no EXIF, so the two Admins involved believed that it was taken from somewhere without permission. If it is actually your own work, please upload it again at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crunk_Witch.jpg[edit]

I have received written permission from Brandon Miles and Hannah Colleen, the two individuals who make up the band Crunk Witch, and who's likeness appears in the photo. I have an email directly from them with this permission. I have included a screenshot of the email. Please let me know a good email address to send it to and I will forward the actual email to you.


--Ahughes33 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hughes

Ahughes33, in most cases the rights holder is the photographer, not the people who appear in the photo. The exception is if the rights have been transfered to the band members.
In either case, the rights holder should contact us directly with the form letter at COM:CONSENT (the e-mail address is on that page). Please ask the rights holder to identify the original name of the file as uploaded here. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (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 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:F._Mazzoli,_Auditorium_Gran_Guardia_2011.jpg[edit]

Je vous confirme que j'ai la propriété de ce fichier se référant à une image prise par moi (par mon appareil Sony Cybershot que j'utilisais à l'époque) le 30 mai 2011. J'ai plusieurs fois prouvé que j'en étais le légitime propriétaire, mais sans résultats. J'ai aussi remplacé l'image précédente par une pareille mais à plus haute définition, mais rien. J'ai envoyé le code pour demander un OTRS permission, mais toujours rien. Je me sens privé d'un droit réel. Merci de m'avoir écouté, --Ugo Mazzoli (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose If you have sent a free license to OTRS, it will be restored after the license is checked. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. As a result, they run a backlog that may be more than a month. Please be patient and wait for your request to come to the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Jim. Thanks. I wait fiducially. Best regards --Ugo Mazzoli (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MarcSchuilenburg.jpg[edit]

The file has been marked as a possible copyright violation. The text of the file and the picture however are made by myself and are not copied from another source. It's therefor free content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblito1 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose?? The file was uploaded by User:Roblito1. Its file description claims that it is an image of Marc Schuilenburg and that the photographer was also Marc Schuilenburg. It's not a selfie, so that is probably not correct. The images has a watermark "(c) Foto Mats van Soolingen", and the EXIF calls out "(c) All rights reserved). I think we need a little more explanation, please, as there are at least three conflicting items here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Escola Garcia Fossas (1937).jpg[edit]

Prior to deleting the file, can we have a discussion please? As far as I know, there has been no discussion. I want to check what license was used, etc.--Jordiferrer (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see on Google Cache, it came from this PDF (1937 photo of a school) and was marked PD-Old. I presume that is Spain photo, where anonymous works should be protected for 80 years from publication, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done apparently covered by copyright until 2017 -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vladislav Bajac, Studio Babic.jpg[edit]

The author of the photo, Nebojsa Babic,gave me the right to publish it on Wikipedia. --Miawka (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose "the right to publish it on Wikipedia" is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for all uses, including commercial use. Since you are not the actual photographer, he or she must send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, which may take a month or more, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Witold Szabłowski Polish journalist.jpg[edit]

It is lisensed free. I got author's permission to publish it on Wikipedia.

 Oppose "permission to publish it on Wikipedia" is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for all uses, including commercial use. Since you are not the actual photographer, he or she must send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, which may take a month or more, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rugby Austria Logo.gif[edit]

Als Sprecherin des Österreichischen Rugby Verbands, der Rechteinhaber über das gelöschte Logo ist, verfüge ich über die Vollmacht, das Logo unter einer CC-Lizenz freizugeben, daher stelle ich den Antrag auf Wiederherstellung der Datei.

Beste Grüße Claudia Varga

Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Österreichischer Rugby Verband ZVR 710881028 c/o Dr. Robert Langer-Hansel Universitätsstraße 6/2, 1090 Wien

Mobil: +43 699 108 60 753 Email: presse@rugby-austria.at http://www.rugby-austria.at/kontakt/verband/

cloedvarga--Cloedvarga (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Policy requires that an authorized representative send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, the image will be restored. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and is seriously understaffed, so it may be several weeks or even more than a month before this image reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Summery mind Album logo Belonging 02.jpg[edit]

Ich habe alles, wirklich alles, den Richtlinien nach gemacht und so gehandelt, wie Wikipedia bzw. Wikimedia es von mir verlangt. Ich habe mir extra einen Mentor zugezogen und Fragen gestellt, wenn ich Fragen hatte. Ich finde es unfair! Einerseits benötigt man eine URL, die man dem Urheber zukommen lassen muss, wenn man nicht selbst Urheber des Bilds/Fotos/Datei ist, andererseits bekommt man binnen zehn Minuten eine "Ermahnung", daß die Regeln nicht eingehalten werden würden. Das ist doch ein Paradoxum! Das eine schließt das andere aus: Ich benötige eine Gehemigung des Urhebers, welcher mir die URL, die zu Wikimedia führt, bestätigt, daß das dort gezeigt Bild von ihm stammt und es dort verwenden werden darf. Aber bis zu dieser Genehmigung, darf es gar nicht auf Wikimedia gezeigt werden. Wie soll das zeitlich gehen???

Erklärt es mir, als sei ich ein fünfjähriges Kind!

Ich habe nach allen Regeln und Statuten Wikipedias gehandelt um eben NICHT diese Probleme zu haben. Ich habe da KEINE LUST drauf. Und dennoch kommt mir der Mist in die Quere... Das ärgert mich jetzt wirklich gewaltig und entzieht sich meinem an und für sich vernünftigen Geist.

Gruß --MattesKoeln (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is certainly not good that we cannot give more personal service to uploaders, but the facts are difficult. We get more than 10,000 new images every day. About 1,400 of them must be deleted, as this one was, because they are copyright violations. We have only about 15 Administrators who do 90% of that work and the backlog is growing. None of the 15 have any spare time to be more personal.
This image is an album cover and clearly has a copyright. The cartoon at the top of COM:L explicitly sets forth, "We can't accept works created or inspired by others... This includes material such as ... CD / DVD covers... with two main exceptions .... You can upload someone else's work if the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it."
In accordance with that, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monomyth.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission email has been send by photographer 24 April 8.46pm Lavalounge (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image will be restored after the license from the photographer is checked. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. As a result, they run a backlog that may be more than a month. Please be patient and wait for your request to come to the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LHS-최광모-수지.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021910014329). --Mdann52talk to me! 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria-altaar.JPG[edit]

This is my own work. I made this picture. Michaelovic (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, please upload the image at full camera resolution instead of this small version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (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 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olv-bord.JPG[edit]

This is my own work. Michaelovic (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, please upload the image at full camera resolution instead of this small version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (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 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of the festival "Green Grand-Prix".gif[edit]

It received permission ticket:2015020910013803 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. ~ Nahid Talk 19:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BPTokyo Exterior Edit1 cropped.JPG [edit]

Please undelete. Ticket#2015042810006639 .Willy Weazley 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) File:Color Web NY Facade.jpg File:Photo- Joshua White 2010-9940 02.jpg File:Phase—Sponge, 1968.png[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ETPColorSquare.png[edit]

The logo in question is released for free use on the web. I am the creator of this image. Epsilont (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are two issues here. First, the logo does not appear on the web site of the organization, http://epsilontaupi.org/. We do not keep unofficial logos of organizations.

Second, since it may be the logo of an organization, policy requires that an authorized official of the organization send a free license to OTRS from an address at epsilontaupi.org. The official must confirm in the e-mail that the subject logo is official. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proof was sent {{OTRS pending }} The image is available at http://epsilontaupi.org/about/ Epsilont (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Archivo:Samuel, Perla y Azi.jpg[edit]

Les agradecería revisar este tema, se envió un correo a permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org con la autorización del Sr. Azi Wilfenson para poder usar sus fotos personales, las cuales el me las envía a mi solicitud.

Existen mas fotos que han sido borradas, es necesario hacer este formulario por cada foto y vale para las otras fotos también?

Atentamente

Edwinjcb (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Edwin Caballero usuario: Edwinjcb[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FTEJerez logo.png[edit]

This is a company´s logo, available to everyone. It is useful to have this on the company´s Wikipedia page which is being written right now.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 08:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Regine_Höflich_(Nettetal).png[edit]

Permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1991 Music For Dog People.jpg[edit]

Hello, The band leader and founder, Bobby Houck has asked me to create a Wikipedia page for the band. The band owns all cover artwork for each release they have generated and Bobby has given me permission to use these resources in building the Wikipedia pages. What do I need to do here to make sure everything is within your guidelines? Thanks!Jaxson1 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Azi_Wolfenson_Ulanowski.jpg[edit]

Foto de propiedad de Azi Wolfenson Ulanowski quien me autorizo a usar sus foto en https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azi_Wolfenson_Ulanowski, por medio de una carta enviada a permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org.

Por favor tengan a bien indccarme que debo hacer para que la autoricen.

Gracias --Edwinjcb (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC) edwinjcb[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 23:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Search engine optimization.ogg[edit]

This file was deleted for "copyright reasons" starting from 2015, but it has been in use on en.WP since 2008, as a cursory examination of the article on SEO would provide. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Search engine optimization.ogg, the file is simply a reading of a copyrighted work. The fact that it has been in use on WP:EN for a while does not somehow immunize it from deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: The blog being copyrighted from 2015. The earlier copyright belongs to the contributors at en.WP if this is the case, making the "blog" the copyvio, not the sound file. If the blog actually was published before the .ogg of the en.WP file (unlikely), that can't presently be assessed because a link to the blog in question was not provided in the deletion discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume that this file is someone reading the WP:EN article on SEO on or before May 21, 2008, then you are correct, unless, somehow, the blogger actually created the file before the 2008 upload to WP:EN. On those grounds, I would be inclined to restore the file if it were an ordinary file. However, there is a scope issue. I'm not sure that we want to start making and storing files of people reading WP articles - that seems to me a tremendous diversion of resources from more useful tasks, particularly since automated readers now do an acceptable job on most digital texts. Also, the WP:EN article has had almost 3,000 edits since this file was created -- why would we want to keep a spoken version of it that is seven years and three thousand edits out of date? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume Undeletion requests here is similar in scope to en:WP:DRV, in which case: Neither scope nor age were part of the original deletion request so I am inclined to suggest those considerations are irrelevant to this undeletion request.

If the scope must be a consideration here, then I think the existence of a category for Spoken Wikipedia makes it clear that someone somewhen thought there was scope. Reading through Commons:Project scope, these types of files pass the bar for being in scope. The age argument I find irrelevant regardless. --Izno (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, both a deletion request and an undeletion request can consider any relevant facts in deciding whether a file should be kept on Commons. We are not limited here by whatever was discussed in the original DR.
As for the existence of Category:Spoken_Wikipedia, I have no doubt that there are many categories for files that do not belong here. I randomly glanced at a dozen files in Category:Spoken Wikipedia - English and found none that were later than the 2008 date on the subject file. That suggests to me that spoken articles was a failed experiment that no one has bothered to delete. I think that all of the files are obsolete and should probably be deleted -- WP has changed a great deal in the last seven years and I see little use for spoken versions of obsolete articles. And, of course, "other things exist" is never a valid reason for keeping anything here or on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a reason to delete either. Commons deletion is not about curating; if the file has been in use then it is in scope, period, and is part of the history of that page. I don't think deleting would help anything. Even if it was a failed experiment, it can still be helpful to archive the results -- it's not a reason for deletion. Maybe someone figures out a better use someday. If it's reading a copyrighted work then there is an issue, but if it has been in use on the page for seven years that eliminates any scope argument for deletion, so if there is no copyright issue it should be undeleted, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can comment too much in the direction of Lindberg, but I have agreeable sentiment. Commons:Project scope is pretty clear that given the file was in use on a Wikimedia project and that it's assuredly not a copyvio, then it should not have been deleted from Commons. If you are actually concerned with retaining these files, you should probably start an RFC. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: Disk space is not an issue. If this is useful for someone, why not? Yann (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lisette Höflich (Nettetal).png[edit]

OTRS-Permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-04&oldid=171059532"