Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-06

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


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

File:Young Euro Classic Logo 2015.jpg

PepermintBerlin ist der Urheber des Logos von Young Euro Classic und hat lediglich eine falsche Lizenz ausgewählt. Aus diesem Grund bitte ich um die Wiederherstellung der Datei, damit ich sie entsprechend lizensieren und markieren kann. Liebe Grüße und Danke Pepermintberlin (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Auf www.young-euro-classic.de/presse/pressefotos/ steht, es sei ein gewisser "Simon Seidel". Von dem bedarf es dann einer e-Mail an unser Support Team. Eine höhere Auflösung der Graphik/des Modells würden wir begrüßen. -- Rillke(q?) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Die Freigabe ist jetzt verschickt. Pepermintberlin (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: This can/will be restored when OTRS permission is confirmed. This may take some time, as OTRS is backlogged. INeverCry 00:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:ANBWikipedia.jpg

Hello there, This picture has been shared by El Sur Newspaper to Alejandro Navarro´s Senatorial Office. Therefore there are rights to use it and share it. Please restore it asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjelves (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 May 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose. That's a completely non sequitur argument. Do you have any evidence to show that the legitimate copyright holder has approved publication under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute the picture for any purpose, including commercial purposes? And even if the copyright holder did agree to publication under a free license (which I doubt they did), I'm sure they didn't agree to let you claim that you personally created the picture and that you are the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required, along with proper source/author info. INeverCry 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Syntax TerrOrkester anno 2015.jpg

Hey! I´m the author of the image.

Best Saerdnetunk (Kunt Kunsten / Knut Andreas Knutsen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saerdnatunk (talk • contribs) 12:40, 31 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose The image has appeared on the Web without a free license. Even though Kurt Kunsten is credited there, we have no way of knowing whether User:Saerdnetunk is actually Kurt Kunsten and therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 06:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Syntax TerrOrkester quartet.jpg

Túrelio : Hi, the question is, are you really the original photographer of all 5 images (4 head-shots and 1 background) used in this montage? --

Me: Yes, I am, credited Kunt Kunsten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saerdnatunk (talk • contribs) 13:03, 31 May 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Image hasn't been deleted yet, but has been tagged as needing OTRS permission. INeverCry 06:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

(File:The Photo Of David Zhao.jpg)

Hello, I have sent the permission be e-mail the same day I uploaded the photo. I didn't hear any answer from them so I have send another message regarding the case and, again, there was no answer. I know there are volunteers working there, but this is getting ridiculous. If the permission was not sufficient, somebody should inform me about it and I would try to solve it. Jkcmmilena (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose OTRS, like Commons, is, as you say, all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed. The backlog is usually weeks and sometimes months. Your license will be processed and, if appropriate, the image will be restored, when your e-mail reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 06:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:"Dr. Seuss's Weathervane" by David Smith.jpg

The following image files (below) were deleted. They are MY images and are released on my website under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, as I discussed here yesterday with Wiki Editor, Huon, who posted the first image to the Tesla Science Center article. The Tesla Lightning Rod image was of a piece I made for the Tesla Science Center and it was commissioned by Jane Alcorn, Director, who is mentioned in the article. "The Wind Laughed at the Sound" was also deleted and it was featured on the TV show Texas Country Reporter/Phillips Productions. I do not understand why these images were deleted?--Smithvane (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

--Smithvane (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The images appear on http://www.davidsmithart.com with
"Description text and images Copyright © 2001-2015 David Smith",
so even if User:Smithvane is actually the sculptor David Smith, I do not understand the comment above that they are CC-BY-SA.
In order to restore these we will need a free licenese from David Smith (the sculptor) and the photographer (if he is not David Smith) sent to OTRS. The e-mail should come from an address at davidsmithart.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim, yes the images are mine. I am David Smith, the sculptor. My website is www.davidsmithart.com Could you please tell me what I need to do to restore them? I am new here and it's kind of complicated figuring out the procedures. Thanks!--Smithvane (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored thru OTRS by Sphilbrick. INeverCry 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:"And_the_Wind_laughed_at_the_Sound".jpg

Please add this image. It is my image and was wrongly deleted. I am David Smith, owner of the image and give permission to use it. My website is www.davidsmithart.com--Smithvane (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored thru OTRS by Sphilbrick. INeverCry 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:"Dr._Seuss's_Weathervane"_by_David_Smith.jpg

Please re-add my image. I am David Smith, owner of the image, and give permission to use it; my website is www.davidsmithart.com Thank you, --Smithvane (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored thru OTRS by Sphilbrick. INeverCry 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:CM8416989@Rishabh_Puri_(12.jpg

This picture has be received without any copyright and has been allowed to be used freely --NGupta123 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This image has not been deleted -- it is the subject of Commons:Deletion requests/File:CM8416989@Rishabh Puri (12.jpg. Please make all comments there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Comments should be made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CM8416989@Rishabh Puri (12.jpg. INeverCry 07:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:NEYC-international.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The permissions of listed photo were released through the OTRS with ticket no. 2015052210004766. I'd like to have these photo undeleted for further processing. Thank you. J.Wong 09:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thank you for taking on this ticket. My main concern is that the email is from a different website than the school, but my Chinese language skills are very basic, so I wasn't sure about it. Hopefully you can sort this out. Green Giant (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sasol III chimney.jpg

I do not understand why it was deleted as on flickr, it had the apropriate licence (attribution share like). https://www.flickr.com/photos/132924142@N03/18287370176/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovikap (talk • contribs)

 Oppose It was deleted as a case of Flickr washing (Commons:FLICKRW) taken from http://maroelamedia.co.za/blog/nuus/publiek-kan-nie-saampraat-oor-secunda-naamsverandering-nie/. What this basically means is that the Flickr uploader isn't the true author/copyright holder of the image. INeverCry 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose A bit misleading, the deleted image is not the one from that page, but the Flickr user's photostream has only a few completely unrelated images, including one that is a mislicensed crop from that page. The deleted image (and others) appears to have the EXIF information deliberately removed, though, and it looks like none of them are that uploader's work. Revent (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Several soapbox car race photos

These images belong in Category:Oak City Rally:

They were deleted per this request. --Palnatoke (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Public event, only 2 images in this cat before. Yann (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Logo UMFORMtechnik.jpg

I need your help. The file is the logo of the company I'm working at. I just created a article in wikipedia for the magazine and wanted to add the logo.

What is the right copyright? http://www.umformtechnikmagazin.de/index_2_de.html http://www.blechrohreprofile.de/index_4_de.html Here are the logos in green and red — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.huber meiba (talk • contribs)

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:ANB.jpg

It´s the second time a picture has been deleted, even thought I have been given permission to use them. It seems that Wikipedia and Wikicommons have lost neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjelves (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You may have been given permission, but we are not mind readers -- you must include that in the image description. This image has no license or permission of any kind.
It appears without a free license at http://www.elciudadano.cl/2015/05/12/164414/alejandro-navarro-y-su-opinion-frente-a-algunas-dudas-sobre-el-cambio-de-gabinete/; therefore, in order to restore it here the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim above. Yann (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Woodlands Tournament Golf Course.jpg

Hello! This photo is licensed as CC Attribution 3.0 Unported. Would it be possible to have the file undeleted? Thanks!

Treyperry (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored the file and done a license review. INeverCry 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:M&C.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received in ticket:2015041910006889 Mbch331 (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Spisovatel Pierre Franckh.png

Please undelete that file per ticket:2015052210007871. Thank you. --Mates (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 01:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Files by Marina Arbuzova

Reason: ticket:2015060110004277 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

The picture named Ven. Prajnananda Mahathera should not be deleted

is a photo of my lord preceptor. He gave me full consent to use that picture in craeting a wikipedia profile for him. So it should be restored. I am sincerely requesting to restored the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upatisso Bhikkhu (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There are four problems here.
First, in the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer (that the image was your own work). It is clear from your comment above that is not correct, so we need to know the actual photographer.
Second, you say that the subject of the image gave it to you. He is not the photographer either. It is, therefore, unlikely that he has the right to freely license the image. That right almost certainly belongs to the photographer.
Third, you say "He gave me full consent to use that picture in craeting a wikipedia profile for him...". Permission for use on WP is not sufficient. Both Commons and Wikipedia require a free license to use the image anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works.
Fourth, the article on the subject has been deleted from WP:EN. Unless you can show that he is notable, Commons will not host the image.
In order to have the image restored, you must first establish that the person is notable by having the article reinstated at WP:EN. Then, have the actual copyright holder, almost certainly the photographer, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Murad aka Eunuch's Motherhood.jpg

I myself is the producer of the film and hold the copyrights of the picture in question IramQureshi (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Iram Qureshi

Please submit a verification of the licensing per COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: please send permission to COM:OTRS -- Steinsplitter (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Sultana Siddiqui presenting award to Sohail Asghar.jpg

This image is from an award ceremony presented to our film and I have right to use it. --IramQureshi (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Iram Qureshi

As above, please submit a verification of the licensing per COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: please send permission to COM:OTRS -- Steinsplitter (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sohail Asghar and Qazi Wajid.jpg

This image is from my film Murad and I have the rights.--IramQureshi (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Iram Qureshi

And again, please submit a verification to COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: please send permission to COM:OTRS -- Steinsplitter (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Žodziški. Жодзішкі (1917).jpg

This is a German postcard, which was created and published in 1917. Moreover, the author of photo is unknown. So according to PD-old-auto-1923 and PD-old-70 it's definitely in a public domain. According to PD-scan the owner of hard copy doesn't have any claims on digital copy of this public domain work. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Support there's no reason this should have been deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done as per Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Dzisna, Barysaŭ kamień. Дзісна, Барысаў камень (1882).jpg, File:Barysavy kamiani. Барысавы камяні (1890).jpg

The reason for deletion of these files is not true. Both of them aren't scaled-down duplicates of File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.05.png and File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.06.png respectively. Actually they had the same resolution. And initially they even had better resolution and were uploaded from other sources (not from "Сапунов А. П. Двинские или Борисовы камни. — Витебск: Тип. Витебского Губернского Правления, 1890 — таб. 06. — 31 с."). Moreover, because of using .jpg format instead of redundant .png they have the same quality and resolution with much less file size. I believe we should use the server space rationally. So if there is a need to delete some images it should be redundant File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.05.png and File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.06.png. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition in my opinion such practice (uploading redundant file from the same source [1], [2] and then adding incorrect speedy deletion request [3]) have to be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose Putting the two versions side by side, it is hard to choose between them. However, as a matter of policy, Commons prefers PNG over JPG for all images other than those originally created as JPG:
"If you have a choice of file formats in which to save a graphic, scan, or other such thing, save it as PNG..." (Commons:File_types#JPEG).
Therefore, the PNGs should be kept and the deletion of the JPGs was appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
No, but that same guideline does mention that JPG thumbnails are often better (and I think more performant to make), so having copies of both is not the worst idea. That is why we have {{JPEG version of PNG}} and related templates. Deletion does not save any disk space. So... particularly when the contributor wants it undeleted, I  Support undeletion. It doesn't hurt anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
For me this case looks like the following: "However, if the original file is in JPEG, it generally makes no sense to convert it to PNG: converting a lossy compression into a “lossless” format doesn't buy you anything since the “loss” already occurred in the original, and doing so will only increase the file size (any edits, however, should probably be saved as PNG as well as JPEG". The proof of my opinion is that there is no difference in quality between images. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kazimier Lachnovič. From a technical point of view, saving a lossy image (jpg) into a lossless container does not make the resulting image lossless. -FASTILY 00:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If the PNGs are not original lossless scans, but rather just JPGs converted to PNG, then yes the wrong duplicate was deleted in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Kazimier Lachnovič/Clindberg. INeverCry 04:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:NBCSN 2013 Trans.png

Deleted pursuant to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NBC logos. However, the nominator's rationale makes me wonder whether deletion were the right choice: he says "in addition to the copyright issues [for which the nomination was filed], this was a COM:OVERWRITE violation by Corkythehornetfan. Please retain the original version." Please check the deleted revisions: is there an original version that's distinct from what was deleted at DR, and that presents no obvious reason for deletion on unrelated grounds? If so, please restore it per the DR nominator's request. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: original file was PD Logan Talk Contributions 06:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and this should not have been in a hour since it is not a clear to the cut case. Natuur12 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with Logan that the image is PD -- we have many NBC logos and the issue has been debated before -- I agree with Natuur12 that this should have stayed open much longer -- we have an informal agreement among the regulars at UnDR that all UnDRs will stay open 24 hours. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: File was restored. No further discussion has taken place for several days. A new DR can be filed if necessary. INeverCry 04:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:SignalFlagUniform-USNSpec.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It was deleted as a duplicate of File:ICS Uniform.svg. However, I specifically made a series of files based on some US Navy specs that I found, not necessarily the ICS ones (there are some minor differences in many of the flags) and now this one in particular is missing from the categories it used to belong to. It looks like someone copied my version over on top of File:ICS Uniform.svg then marked mine as a duplicate. There really is no reason at all to do that with SVGs; just use the one which you prefer. They previously were different SVGs and we might as well keep both. So... I would prefer mine be undeleted, keeping its original description and categories, and if it is the same as the last File:ICS Uniform.svg revision then that should be reverted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Clindberg. Overwrite by Andrew J.Kurbiko history cleaned accordingly. INeverCry 04:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Adem Jashari.JPG

Please, do not delete this file, we need it for the articles

 Oppose This is not a reason to undelete anything. The file was nominated for deletion with rationale "This is a derivative work, of a poster in Kosovo. We do not have sufficient freedom of panorama in Kosovo." and it still stands. Taivo (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Kosovo. INeverCry 00:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Coverforwikipedia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have upload this image to use on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEN_(magazine) this page. I am managing openthemagazine site. So kindly undelete this image. Rajneesh79 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a reason to undelete anything. This is book cover and it violates cover artist's copyright. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from artist/copyright holder required. INeverCry 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:BasharNuseibeh-head.png

I have now confirmed with the person in the photo (Bashar Nuseibeh) that he holds the copyright for it and he is happy to release the photo into the public domain. --Bp5 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bp5: Please submit, or have the copyright holder submit, confirmation per COM:OTRS. Thanks. Revent (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 00:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Several files

Reason: ticket:2015053110006292 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. @Максим Підліснюк: please add the OTRS ticket to each image. INeverCry 01:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

(File:Verbrennungsluft.jpg)

Erbitte Wiederherstellung der Datei: (File:Verbrennungsluft.jpg)

URL: http://www.ofen.edingershops.de/Verbrennung-&-Verbrennungsluft:_:114.html bzw. http://www.ofen.edingershops.de/images/content/verbrennungsluft.jpg

Ganz unten auf der erstganannten Seite stehen die Lizenzangaben: Das Bild "Verbrennungsluft" haben wir unter creative commons – Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) gestellt. Für die Nutzung verlangen wir kein Geld, bitten aber um einen Link auf unserer Seite (www.ofen.edingershops.de) --Kaimu17 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. Needs category. INeverCry 08:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:彰化八卦山大佛.jpg

According to the Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 58:

Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:

1.Reproduction of a building by construction of another building. 2.Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture. 3.Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article. 4.Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan is a Building or a work of sculpture, not artistic works, so Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan can be exploited by any means except building or sculpturing another Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan.

So, the photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan should not be deleted, they can be used in wikipedia or made into postcard. These actions doesn't violate sculptor's copyright by the Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 58.

These photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan also shouldn't be deleted :
*File:2006trainmeetup4.jpg
*File:Changhua 080302 3.jpg
*File:Changhua Pagu Mount Budda Sculpture.jpg
*File:Eight Trigram Mountain Buddha (Baguashan Great Buddha), Changhua City (Taiwan).jpg
*File:Great Buddha Changhua 2 amk.jpg
*File:Great Buddha Changhua amk.jpg
*File:Great Buddha of Bagua Shan.jpg
*File:Great Buddha of Baguashan.JPG

--祥龍 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See also :

--祥龍 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose What I said may be correct, but this is not the place to argue it. We never base Deletions or Undeletions on changes in our understanding of the rules -- the changes must be debated and made, then we can undelete if necessary.
Your reading of the English is incorrect. "Sculpture" is a subset of "artistic works". Point (4) applies to all artistic works, including sculpture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan in fact is a building with six floors , people can invite inside and see the sculptures about the story of Buddha from 2nd floor. The Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Republic of China also says it is a historic building（歷史建築）. Due to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Taiwan_.28Republic_of_China.29 says OK for buildings , the building named Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan is ok too. So, I consider these photos shouldn't be deleted.--祥龍 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is similar to the Tower of the Sun situation in Japan, where it was decided that the pictures should be deleted. The ROC FOP provisions essentially seem to be identical to the Japanese ones. Taiwan was a Japanese colony for a long time, so maybe the ROC decided to keep various old Japanese laws for simplicity and only made minor modifications where necessary.
See Article 5 for the things protected by copyright. Artworks (美術著作) and buildings (建築著作) are listed on different lines. I interpret it to mean that 'buildings' within the meaning of Article 5 are fine whereas 'artworks' within the meaning of Article 5 aren't fine. This statue seems to be both an artwork and a building. Since Article 58 (FOP) specifically says that artwork aren't fine (instead of saying that buildings are fine), I interpret this to mean that things which are both an artwork and a building aren't fine.
For this reason, I  Oppose undeletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, according to the Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 5:

For the purposes of this act, "works" shall include the following:

1.Oral and literary works. 2.Musical works. 3.Dramatic and choreographic works. 4.Artistic works. 5.Photographic works. 6.Pictorial and graphical works. 7.Audiovisual works. 8.Sound recordings. 9.Architectural works. 10.Computer programs. The examples and content of each category of works set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be prescribed by the competent authorit

In current version, the buildings (architectural works) is different from artistic works. And by the legal interpretation about similar issue from Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, R.O.C, the photo of ( outside walls of ) Taipei 101 can be made into postcards for selling freely due to Copyright Act of Republic of China (2014) Article 58 point 1, and it's not concerned with Article 58 point 4. So Stefan4, your statement is not correct now, but maybe correct before the version of 1992.--祥龍 (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems to say that buildings, or specifically Taipei 101, may be photographed freely, or at least the outer walls. The page also notes that the name 'Taipei 101' is {{Trademarked}}, which is not something that we care about on Commons. The problem is that certain buildings fall into multiple categories in Article 5 of the copyright law. Compare with a comic book which may fall into both the category '語文著作' and the category '美術著作'. In this case, the statue would seem to fall into both the category '美術著作' and the category '建築著作'. The page you linked to does not consider this situation and it doesn't seem to be possible to make any conclusions about it from that page. Article 58 suggests that as soon as something falls into the category '美術著作', then it is not OK, even if the work also falls in other categories such as '建築著作'. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I read the book named "著作權法逐條釋義", it says that by the legislative purposes the "Reproduction of artistic works" at Article 58 point 4 means making the same object, or slavish copying, without reproduction with creativity. The example in the book is the sculpture made by Ju Ming, displayed at park. If you taking the photos or drawing the pictures about the sculpture, due to those photos and pictures aren't slavish copies but works with creativity, they aren't "Reproduction of artistic works" at Article 58 point 4.
And according the book named "圖解著作權法", those photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan may be able to claim they have become photographic works, because they aren't slavish copies but works with creativity of the photographers.--祥龍 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to restore. INeverCry 08:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Underlit rooftop statue in Lucerne (4872714278).jpg

Deleted as a copyright violation, plainly it was not.

There is an associated DR, which closed with "poor quality" and for being out of scope. However this appears to be the only photograph we had of this building in Lucerne. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Ellin Beltz#Commons:Deletion requests/File:20100131-DSC 2331 (4872714278).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 08:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Soy diseñardor y el escudo es creado por mi. Deja de borrarmelo por favor.

Soy diseñardor y el escudo es creado por mi. Deja de borrarmelo por favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanchezhernan (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No file presented for undeletion. INeverCry 08:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Henry Katzman and Carl Sandburg.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My name is Kynan Katzman and I am the copyright holder for this photograph. I have given permission for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia, and there are no other copyright issues with the picture. It also hasn't been published anywhere else, so I was told I do not need OTRS permission. Thanks for helping out!Kyndcat (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Weak oppose Permission to use on Wikipedia is not sufficient because the Com:reuse would be restricted. In addition, it seems a little bit unlikely that this photo hasn't been published before, given the composition of the photo. But that's just me. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone else help out with this? I do not know how else to emphasize that this unpublished picture is a family photo with full copyright and ownership by me. Thank you to anyone who can provide assistance with this request. Kyndcat (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published, I'm not sure that OTRS is necessary. That is usually just if there is a solid possibility that it could have been copied from another source. The "heirs" template would make it more specific but I doubt most uploaders know about that one. Looking at the thumbnails on the Google cache, I guess it does have a bit of the "look" of a publicity photo, but there basically seems to be about zero hits on Google for it or anything remotely like it, so it really does feel like a private photo. This does seem like a normal "assume good faith" situation to me, so I guess  Support, provided the license is clear that anyone can use it, not just Wikipedia (that is sometimes a reason for asking for COM:OTRS email; if there is an indication that the uploader may not be fully aware of the liberal license required, then the email should make clear of the rights they are relinquishing to remove any doubt). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Carl, I was suggesting OTRS not because it is technically required, because otherwise this image is almost certain to be challenged again, and I think it would be best to have something that clear to point at. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be best, sure, but I'm not sure I'd require it for undeletion. We could point at this discussion from the original DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is probably the best idea in the long run.. INeverCry 08:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Pesco

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of these files are awards of the U.S. government. They were all tagged with the following permission template: "The graphic above is a representation of an award or decoration of an agency of the federal government of the United States. As works of the U.S. federal government, such images are in the public domain; photographs of such images are also considered to be in the public domain per this court ruling."

In the case of such images that are automatically in the public domain, the origin of the image is not relevant. I don't have to be the public employee that made it to have to claim this template. Deletion of images of government awards that have the appropriate template attached to them is not constructive. Pesco (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Only was deleted as a copyvio. And photographs of 2D objects are PD by Bridgeman; photos of 3D objects can still be copyrighted, as can artist's interpretations thereof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I narrow my request to . For an illustration of all these medals from a U.S. Government poster, please see File:USMM_Medals_and_Decorations.jpg. For most military medals, the third dimension (depth) is not a distinctive aspect of the object, compared to, say, a sculpture. Pesco (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The rule given to us by WMF counsel is that photographs of coins are independently copyrightable. Medals are rarely flatter then a coin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: 1 file restored per request. There's already an SVG version anyways. INeverCry 08:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Logo GreenTauros.png

It's the logo of my Quidditch Team and I'm authorized by the President (Michele Genovese) to create it. I request the undeletetion, please.

Fendizer (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from Michele Genovese required. INeverCry 08:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kurt Lehovec.jpg

Kurt Lehovec image, deleted because of unclear copyright, it is Creative Commons as the author states at the bottom of this post: http://www.freedomfeens.com/?p=1736 ElizaBarrington (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored & license reviewed. INeverCry 08:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Najat Anwar by Farid Dms Debah.jpg

Je suis le seul détenteur des droits de cette photo.

--FaridDms (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Looks like a nice portrait. Yann (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Daft Punk.jpg

This file was deleted because the website mynewsdesk.se was described as the owner of it. It's been uploaded to that website but the real owner of it is Sony Music Entertainment, which has uploaded it with a proper Creative Commons license. The image, and the license, can be found here.DaftClub (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Your link is to mynewsdesk, and, as was noted in the deletion comment, mynewsdesk has no right to license the image. The link offers no evidence of under what license, if any, that Sony has released the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support There is clear info that image is under CC-BY-3.0 license ("Licens" in Swedish; see the link shown there) on the page pointed above. @Jameslwoodward: do you doubt that "Sony Music Entertainment Sweden" was authorised to license the image? Could you, please, be more precise concerning your doubts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand. I assume that mynewsdesk found the image somewhere on the Web and put it on its site with the CC license. If that is the case, then my objection is correct. If, on the other hand, mynewsdesk operates like Flickr, then a third party placed the image and the license on the mynewsdesk site. If that third party was in fact, Sony, then the license is OK. However, that remains to be proven -- as we well know from our Flickr experience, it is common for people to post images under false names and with false license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, I think you should look more in to what mynewsdesk actually is before making these assumptions. Mynewsdesk is a website where companies, like Sony Entertainment, can post press releases and so on, as well as photos from their own possession. The companies themselves choose the license of the photo. For example, you can see on this photo, posted by Universal Music, which is published with no sort of CC-license, but with an "All rights reserved" marking, that every company chooses how to license their photos. DaftClub (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Before you make broad criticisms such as the one above, please remember that Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day. About 1,500 of those are deleted for various reasons. 15 Admins do 90% of that work. There are billions of web sites and I have never seen mynewsdesk before. I certainly do not have time to study the operation of a site that I may never see again. I did say above that I might have misunderstood the operations of mynewsdesk and you enlightened me. However, you still have not offered any evidence that person or entity that posted the subject image is actually Sony -- all we know is that it claims to be Sony.
I note that you have uploaded a variety of images from mynewsdesk -- the same problem applies to all of them. I also note that none of those that I looked at have been license reviewed. That is an essential part of the process of uploading third party images from sites such as Flickr and, apparently, mynewsdesk. I strongly suggest that you add the template {{LicenseReview}} to all of your existing and future uploads from such sites. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a general problem with images from Mynewsdesk: many seem to have been uploaded by company employees who do not know that the images will be listed as 'licensed' and who do not have the right to license the images in the first place. Numerous images have been deleted from Commons for this reason, sometimes because of conflicting information in the EXIF. A problem with Mynewsdesk's default configuration, I believe. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to restore. INeverCry 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:San Campio.jpg

Solicito que se vuelva a subir mi imagen dadado que yo la he creado. --83.42.27.221 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Copy from [4]. Please send a permission to COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:JoseIgnacioPaliza.jpg

Esta imagen es publica, esta en la pagina de la camara de diputados de manera gratuita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrusblood (talk • contribs)

 Comment Small image (250 × 326 pixels, 19 Kbytes) without metadata. Please send a permission to COM:OTRS if you are the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kyoukai Senjou No Horizon II.png, File:Kyoukai Senjou No Horizon I.png, File:Kyoukai Senjou No Horizon I Personajes 2.png, File:Kyoukai Senjou No Horizon I Personajes 3.png

These files were "created" by me, do not remove any web page. The images were edited, as contained things that were not relevant to the subject of the article in which they were used.

That is, the files were uploaded after taking photos of the original scenes, for further editing and finishing touches, and be used in the article.

I appreciate if you can clarify my concern, or if possible definitively to restore these files. Danyel3096 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment These are screenshot of TV series. The producer needs to send a permission to COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Coat of Arms of Belarus (1991).svg

File:Coat of Arms of Belarus (1991).svg and all files from this request. As stated here: "According to interstate and international compacts the Republic of Belarus is the legal successor of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, therefore this license tag is also applicable to official symbols and formal documents of the Byelorussian SSR", so any previous official symbol of Belarus is in public domain. Here you can find the text of the law (English version included), where this particular version accepted as official coat of arms of Republic of Belarus. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like File:Pahonia.svg was also deleted; looking at the Google cache, that was a self-made work. Why was it deleted in the first place? Was it derivative of a specific bitmap representation? As per Commons:Coats of arms, the copyright attaches to each representation, not the general design, so there shouldn't be any mass deletions of multiple representations based on the age of the general design (which doesn't have much copyright relevance). It's possible that photos or bitmaps lifted from websites could be a problem. However... there is {{PD-BY-exempt}} which gives those symbols special status, and furthermore the titles of some of the images indicate they were taken in Warsaw, so COM:FOP#Poland would seem to apply if they were outside (I can't see them). The deletion summary confuses me -- it says FoP would apply but the logos are not de minimis. That doesn't make sense... de minimis use is always OK (FOP or no FOP); for "OK" FOP countries however use which is not de minimis is also OK (that is the primary reason for the FOP distinction). I can't see the images so I'm not completely sure, but it sounds like the deletions were a mix of misunderstanding of the copyright of a COA (it's the particular representation, not all representations) and a misunderstanding of FOP. Tentatively  Support though I may be missing something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:US flag 15 stars.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This SVG (or versions of it) had been around for a long time. At some point, I uploaded File:StarSpangledBannerFlag.svg, which was an SVG representation of a very specific individual flag (not a generic 15-star flag). At some point later, someone copied the star-spangled banner version on top of File:US flag 15 stars.svg and nominated my upload for deletion as a duplicate, which happened. I asked the deleting admin to undelete mine, which he/she kindly did. However, the File:US flag 15 stars.svg file was then turned into a redirect to my file. I think it should be undeleted, with the last, copied revision removed, since the previous versions were all legitimate SVG versions of a generic 15-star flag. There is no reason to overwrite one SVG with another; we should have both available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds and looks reasonable, though... a bit convolved. They appear to be distinct depictions with different aspect ratios and slightly different colors, assuming that what's visible in histories is what's being referred to.... this and this are similar but not duplicates. Revent (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No, not what I meant, sorry -- File:StarSpangledBannerFlag.svg as it stands is perfectly fine. Yes, there was a separate file uploaded over it once, though I reverted it, as it was not the dimensions specified in my description. That file could certainly be uploaded under a different name. What I am asking to undelete is the original File:US flag 15 stars.svg, which is currently a redirect, but which once had its own completely different content before being overwritten then deleted as a duplicate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, something else buried farthe down then.. I was thinking you wanted more of a split. My bad, disregard. :) Revent (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: UDEL is getting longer and longer with Fastily gone. You could help here and elsewhere as an admin. But you wont. So your request will have to wait with the rest. Good luck. INeverCry 08:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Blender.svg

I'm not sure which file was meant, but high probably the file was the icon like this w:de:File:Blender.svg (and the first version of w:File:Blender.svg) then it's free, as you can see on http://www.blender.org/about/logo/ under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG. The Tango styled icon is created by "Jakub Steiner" (Tango artist), the license is there clear given as CC-by-sa/3.0/ (file metadata) and the old files (on DE and EN) had GPL/2.0/!? I mean the commercial restriction is only because it is a logo:

4. The logo is used unaltered, without fancy enhancements, in original colors, original typography, and always complete (logo + text blender).
So probably the desktop icon is here not concrete meant?
5. In case you use the logo on products you sell commercially, you always have to contact us with a picture of how it will be used, and ask for explicit permission.
So commercial use is possible, there are logos on Commons which are more restricted. Probably as {{Trademarked}}?
↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. That page also is pretty explicit about the copyright: The Blender logo is a copyrighted property of NaN Holding B.V, and has been licensed in 2002 to the Blender Foundation. The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites and publications. So it would seem they are claiming copyright as some of the basis of those restrictions, not just trademark. It also seems like the copyright is owned by another entity so the copyright license might have to come from that other entity. The "freedesktop" SVG does have a by-sa-3.0 license in it though, but I wonder if that was just any additional expression added. I can see where the uncertainty comes from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. So there is a small uncertainty left. Could it be useful to contact the Blender Foundation (and also ask about the license contradiction in the icon files)? If yes, could someone do this with good English!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Stichting Blender Foundation
Entrepotdok 57A 1018 AD
Amsterdam
the Netherlands
Email: foundation (at) blender (dot) org
Chairman: Ton Roosendaal


License by Blender Desktop icon

Hello Blender Foundation,

I've a little question about the logo and the desktop icon: http://www.blender.org/about/logo/ 
The icon there (under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG.) does have a by-sa-3.0 license in it though!?
So is it allowed to upload it under Wikimedia Commons with CC BY-SA 3.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or not?

Is this a possible text to send? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The main issue is that the Blender Foundation does not own the rights to the logo -- they are merely a licensee and cannot grant licenses. It is a different foundation which actually owns the rights. The freedesktop icon looks like it was done by a third party, who were in the habit of freely licensing their works, and may not have considered the derivative work aspect when they made the file. In that case their license is just for any extra expression added. To me, that is the most likely situation. Asking would not hurt though, as it would at least bring the issue to their attention. Maybe ask "One of the icons there (under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG.) has a by-sa-3.0 license inside of it, which seems to be at odds with the copyright claim on the page. Is that file truly under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or is it still restricted as a derivative work?" Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have sent the email. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I got an (fast) answer (@Clindberg: ):
Hi,

The Creative Commons allows to license out files that have logos - which have trademark/copyright protection outside of the realm of the CC areas.

Also Mozilla offers a svg of their logo as CC-BY:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/licensing/website-content/

I don't see this as a conflict? I might be mistaken though, but then you better seek advise at the CC website or a board there.

My take: the CC-BY for our logo means that you can use it freely, but while respecting the trademark.

-Ton-

What that means for us? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  18:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It does happen that logos have a free copyright license but are fully restricted by trademark. We can host those. If that is the case here, then fine. But you can't say it has "trademark/copyright protection outside of the realm of the CC areas". You can say that for trademark, but not copyright. There is no copyright protection outside the realm of CC areas. So unfortunately, that is a little ambiguous, though it does sound as though he really may have just meant "trademark", which would be OK. However, the other text on the page explicitly mentions copyright protection (as well as trademark) to prohibit commercial uses. If they just meant trademark there as well, it is also OK. But if they really did mean copyright, then it's an issue. The copyright owner sounds like it is NaN Holding B.V., so they would be the best ones to ask. Since that situation dates from 2002, before CC licenses really were widespread and before the concept of having a free copyright license on a logo while retaining the trademark existed either, it's certainly possible that a free copyright license is the desired situation today but it has just not been made explicit. I just don't know who added that license to the SVG -- if that was a third party, then it may not be all that relevant. I probably won't argue much either way however this gets decided -- they admittedly are distributing it on the blender.org site with that license, which is something of an indication that it is OK, though it's also possible that is an inadvertent mistake. But, it's also possible that the mistake means it is licensed that way even if they did not want it -- if someone puts an image on Flickr and marks it CC-By accidentally and it stays that way for years, they probably may not have much recourse if someone uses it under that license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So I clearly interpret it that we can upload it with CC-By to Commons again. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  16:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've given this to OTRS. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  04:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Now being dealt with through OTRS. INeverCry 08:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Hazal_kaya_2011.jpg

This sketch is made by me (derivative) in September 30, 2011. No copyright violations committed, therefore I request undeletion Mona778 (talk) 05:50, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hazal kaya 2011.jpg. There are many copies of the Internet. Please send a permission to COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 08:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Gumus.jpg

Rebuttal > This file is a sketch. Clearly marked as "own work" (derivative) with no "tv logo" relating to copyright violations . Further, it has been uploaded nearly six years ago, verified, and permitted under "GDFL" license agreement. I request undeletion. Purpose of use: to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question

Mona778 (talk)

  •  Comment If there is a blanket rule for every uploads in wiki, then may I ask you to invistigate as well these three files ...> This Secondarywaltz thinks he is smart, but in fact he is the opposite when he flagged the wrong file! all those two pictures in Wikimedia Commons (related to Hazal Kaya) uploaded by users SuhailAzaz from Pakistan and Vkrainka from Ukrain are infact in copyright violations category. two pictures uploaded by SuhailAzaz from Pakistan are copied from the original picture of the behind the scenes

(promotion of "aski-memnu (forbiden love tv series) made by Ay yapim downloaded from haber3.com > http://www.haber3.com/yeni-dizisi-belli-oldu-foto-galerisi-24356-p8.htm > you can also download the (full-lenght) of the same photo from > https://www.pinterest.com/ayasnowwhite91/hazal/ taken in Aug 2008. So it means that, can not be possibly taken in 2012 as that guy said it is. And certainly not "own work" (unless he worked for Ay yapim and mistaken 2012 for 2008! But even then, the picture should remain the property of "Ay yapim" the production company). Infact, Hazal Kaya was a bit overweight in 2012 and out country (Macedonia) for her then new project (Son Yaz - Balkanlar 1912(2012). Meaning, that she couldn't have looked as thin as she did in that picture from 2008 (you can search the web for 2012 pics of Hazal Kaya) and see it yourself. As for the other picture, uploaded by Vkrainka from Ukrain is indeed taken in 2013 (at least correct year!), but is a screenshot of "ask tv series" made by Gold yapim (a scene from episode 3 or 4) possibly downloaded from pintrest.com > https://www.pinterest.com/pin/434175220297492868/ you can check that too. Notified Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard about the ==Hazal Kaya.jpg OTRS permission== > uploaded by SuhailAzaz from Pakistan that has a OTRS ticket is in copyright violations. uploaded picture isn't "own work," and not had been taken in 2012. Copied from the original picture of the behind the scenes (promotion of "aski-memnu (forbiden love tv series) made by Ay yapim downloaded from haber3.com > http://www.haber3.com/yeni-dizisi-belli-oldu-foto-galerisi-24356-p8.htm > you can also download the (full-lenght) of the same photo from > https://www.pinterest.com/ayasnowwhite91/hazal/ taken in Aug 2008. In short, picture taken in 2008 not 2012, and remains the property of "Ay yapim" the production company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazal_Kaya&diff=507352357&oldid=507023800 (his last attempt when he finally succeeded to claim someone else's work as his, and go ahead and uploaded the file)! He probably is making fun of you even now after almost three years since the file's upload (how easy it is to deceive some people)!

Mona778 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gumus.jpg. Please send a permission to COM:OTRS if this is your own work. Yann (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 08:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:World Tai Chi & Qigong Day in Tehran, Iran.jpg

We organize World Tai Chi & Qigong Day each year in 80 nations, and our participants send us photos of their events to post on our website, on Youtube, etc., to share with the public. We are the official organizers of this event and have the right to share the images sent to us by our participating organizations worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamdouglas (talk • contribs)

 Comment Please send a permission to COM:OTRS. You also need to upload source images, or send a permission for the files not yet deleted. Yann (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 08:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Untying-the-Knot.jpg

This file is not copyrighted and should not be deleted. The picture is of Vikki Ziegler star of the Bravo tv series Untying the knot. The photo and logo in conjunction are free to be used.

 Oppose Every file is copyrighted by default. Please read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Yann (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio per Yann. INeverCry 08:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Phantomz73

Please restore the following pages:

also

Reason: I am the owner of those pictures, I am obsidian key.com owner and here is the official authorisation to use those resources on wikipedia, wikimedia and wikidata: https://www.obsidiankey.com/component/content/article/41-web-site-statements/135-public-websites-and-no-profit-organization-permissions Phantomz73 (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On that page, you say "you are NOT autorized to sell them in exchange of money/points/services." In other words, you don't really mean to put them under the CC-BY-2.5-AU, which does authorize people to sell the pictures. Should you chose to use a Creative Commons license that matches your stated desires, like the CC-BY-NC, you have the problem that Wikimedia doesn't accept files under the CC-BY-NC; Wikimedia only accepts files that are free, including for anyone to sell.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks then, I'll create a dedicated page/gallery on the website with fully CC-BY-2.5-AU compliant pictures and re-upload them, if that's ok, thanks --Phantomz73 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This request is out of process and wastes people's time. I am the Admin who deleted the files and Phantomz73 has raised the issue on my talk page. We can probably deal with the problem there and it should come here only if that fails. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Eurogrand Logo.jpg

Hi,

I'm working on the company, and I'm allow to use the file, upload it to Wikipedia.

Also is a free image in the sense that anyone can use it for affiliate porpoises without asking our permission.

Please don't hesitate to contact me, --Sebastiansta (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Sebastiansta

  •  Support "I'm allow to use the file, upload it to Wikipedia" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require a license that allows use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. Similarly, "anyone can use it for affiliate porpoises" limits the possible uses and is not allowed. It is also clear that it is not "own work" of User:Sebastiansta as claimed in the file description.
However, the logo is {{PD-text logo}}, so it should be restored. The source, author, and license must be corrected..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that this really is a textlogo. The casino has his head quarter located in Gibraltar which is one of the British Overseas Territories. And as wel all know com:TOO is quite low in the UK. We have deleted far simpler logo's from the UK per DR. Plus fonts can be copyrighted in the UK as well. Natuur12 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't feel strongly about it, but the font here is a very plain bold sans-serif font without any special features. Both of the examples given at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom are significantly more complex -- the one with extra bars on the "E" and the other with four colored triangles. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the text or the font can get a copyright, but what about the background? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's a standard font, then the logo itself shouldn't get any protection. The ones the UK ruled copyrightable were where the logo designer made some custom alterations to the letters. And while fonts can be copyrighted there, I'm not sure the *use* of the fonts in say a logo are deemed a derivative work. Only if you are creating a competing font, mostly. I can't see the image so I'm not sure either way, but if text in a standard font, the only chance at copyrightability would be the background (if any). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
How about restoring it so the file can have a proper DR? Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No need to restore it -- it is the yellow and black logo in the upper left corner of http://www.eurogrand.com/uk. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Direct link to the logo. ;oP Yann (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd probably lean OK for the U.S., but the UK... hrm. It would be based on the background only. Not sure if a basic gradient would do it or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done as above. If necessary, we can always have a proper DR. Yann (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

SE VOLVIO A BAJAR MI TRABAJO

se volvio a bajar mi trabajo de las imagenes de PIONEROS DE CANCUN, me gustaria saber que requisitos necesito para comprobar que es mi trabajo el que se dio de baja, son fotografias de los cuales dispongo del derecho de autor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacemonkey2011 (talk • contribs)

Files by Thomas Koch TV

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015051810008618. Emha (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 12:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Two files by Stefan Polte

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015052610012401. --Emha (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 12:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:St_Thérèse_of_Lisieux,_Holy_Name,_Oxton,_Birkenhead.jpg

This file was uploaded by me and is my copyright. Perhaps the difficulty arose because I have several identities on flickr.com, namely "Ernest Denim", "Sean Hare" and "Rafferty Fazakerly". I affirm that this photo was taken by me and is my copyright. It is a suitable headline photo for the article on Margaret Agnes Rope. Please undelete it. Thank you --Pangapilot (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Please change the license at Flickr [5], or send a permission to COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Still ARR at Flickr. Yann (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Homemade pasta.jpg

Hi,

There seems to be some mistake in deleting this image and classifying it as copyright violation. The image belongs to me and is also a part of my photostream on flickr.com. If you believe it is copyright violation, I request you to kindly prove that the image does not belong to me and that is belongs to someone else. Mere hunches are not good enough. If it cannot be sufficiently established that the image is someone else's, please restore the file.

Thanks --Raveesh Vyas 05:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveesh212 (talk • contribs)

Please change the license at Flickr [6], or send a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
First, the image is All Rights Reserved at Flickr, so policy requires that, as Yann says, either you change the license at Flickr or send a free license to OTRS. This is because we have no way of knowing that User:Raveesh212 here is the same person as Flickr user "Raveesh Vyas".
Second, your comment above,
"I request you to kindly prove that the image does not belong to me and that is belongs to someone else. Mere hunches are not good enough. If it cannot be sufficiently established that the image is someone else's, please restore the file."
is backwards. The burden of proof is on the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is legitimately uploaded to Commons. Please keep that in mind in the future.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Still ARR at Flickr. Yann (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Sattar_Safarov.jpg

Please undelete this photo File:Sattar_Safarov.jpg, i am can not understand why somebody delete it. this is my grandfather thank you

 Comment Could you provide the original image with metadata? Or you can send a permission to COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No answer so far. Yann (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:MichaelHout.jpg

This image was submitted by Michael Hout. This image is public and was taken during his time at the University of Texas at a Population Research Conference in 2013.

--NYU-Soc (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose All recent images have copyrights and this one is no exception. The fact that an image has been displayed to the public or appears on a public web site says nothing about its copyright status. Hout is the subject and therefore is probably not the copyright holder -- that almost always remains with the photographer. In addition, this file had no license. In order to restore it, we will need to know who the actual photographer was. If it was not you, then the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim above. Yann (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Logo_de_La_Debacle.jpg

Hello, i've been noticed that you recently deleted my image File:Logo_de_La_Debacle.jpg. I have all the rights of it, because it's a logo of my radio programme, and it was created for that purpose. I please request you to undelete the image. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santifr (talk • contribs)

Français : Bonjour, Ce logo est complexe et a donc un droit d'auteur. Pourriez-vous envoyer une autorisation (voir COM:OTRS/fr) pour qu'il soit restauré. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
English: Hi, This is a complex logo and therefore has a copyright. Could you please send a permission (see COM:OTRS), then it can be undeleted? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from author/copyright holder required. INeverCry 06:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Pohled na budovu letecky.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, I have permission from the leadership of the printing house FINIDR s.r.o. to use both of the images. Please advise me how to prove this. I really need to use this images, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you very much. ATrina21 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose An officer of Finidr must send a free license directly to OTRS. Since OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, it may be several weeks or even a month or more after the message is sent until the images are restored. I note that you have uploaded these images twice after they were previously deleted. That is a serious violation of our rules and if you do it again you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from author/copyright holder required. INeverCry 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by RenRen070193

Please restore the following pages:

under the Public Domain Dedication Mark 1.0 license RenRen070193 09:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvios/Flickrwashing. INeverCry 06:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Daan Noppen Entropy.png

The artist provided me with this image (Daan Noppen himself), it's free of any rights. Daan Noppen can be contacted through studioruz@me.com

Claire1visser (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)claire visser09-06-2015

@Claire1visser: If a work is uploaded by a person who does not own the copyright (and it's not published online by the author under a free license) then the author needs to submit a 'declaration of consent' through COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from author/copyright holder required. INeverCry 06:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Nature reserve categories

Please undelete the following categories:

These categories were created as part of a coherent and complete system of categories for all the nature reserves in Baden-Württemberg. Category pages usually included local categories (municipalities), templates with WDPA identification numbers of protected areas, as well as external links to a map service that allows to identify the location of pictures. So, even if there were no files in these categories, other than claimed during the deletion, they were not really "empty". Many more of these formerly "empty" categories were filled with images during the past WLE campaigns by photographers who were actively trying to fill the gaps. Also, I'm quite sure that for some of these categories there do exist files already that simply need to be attributed to the nature reserves. At de.wp, there is a complete system of lists of nature reserves for Baden-Württemberg that include all the links to the corresponding commonscats; eg. de:Liste der Naturschutzgebiete im Landkreis Tübingen. By deleting the categories, a very active project gets sabotaged that combines the features of de.WP and Commons. --Sitacuisses (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Эмблема ЖФК Топедо.jpg

File:Эмблема ЖФК Топедо.jpg Файл был удалён ошибочно вместе со страницей, для которой был загружен. Страница на восстановлении. Ранее была удалена, т.к. не было ссылок, доказывающих необходимость наличия страницы на википедии — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Littlegrass (talk • contribs)

Файл был удален в связи с нарушением авторских прав. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 22:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Seeds, 1979.jpg

I help manage the estate of Benjamin Abramowitz and these photos were posted by and with the permission of the estate. --Abramowitz2015 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose While the heir to the copyrights involved certainly has the right to freely license the works, in most jurisdictions the estate itself has no right to give away assets, including freely licensing copyrights. In order for these to be restored, the heir to Abramowitz's copyrights must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Benjamin Jon Williams soccer referee.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015030210019336). Please double-check there are no obvious issues with these - I am yet to see the images. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Question @Mdann52: NK national football team photo had the following remark in the DR: Copyright by MediaServicesAP (C) 2014. What's up with that? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: It's been followed up already - I'll keep an eye out to make sure it's resolved. In any case, that's why I asked you to double-check for me - I can't see the files myself. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Files have been restored. INeverCry 22:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Kris Tiffany Janson at a ribbon-cutting ceremony in June 2014.jpg

I sent a permission as Ticket#2015060910010237.The reason is the owner grant me a permission to use the below mentioned photo are they proposed by Ric Galvez and Maja Mundial. If you have any question regarding this, please feel free to contact Mr. Galvez through this email address at ric@missosology.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenRen070193 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Procedural close - no deleted file presented for restoration. INeverCry 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2015052610013561 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. @Максим Підліснюк: Please add the OTRS tickets. INeverCry 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Text1_Julia.pdf

I do not agree with the deletion of the file. The administrator did not give an counter argument. Initially the Commons:Project scope of this file was questioned. Since it is being used on wikiversity in an educational context we have COM:INUSE and COM:EDUSE. Our students have the job to create text and share it with other students and give feedback. So please do not delete the files of our course and undo the deletion. Thank you very much. Otherwise please make a community decisson about removing educational scope from wikimedia commons. --Renepick (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think you are stretching "educational use" far beyond its intent. Homework assignments from students who are not notable are not interesting or useful to any but their own classmates and teacher and should not be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If it was actually in legitimate use on wikiversity per their guidelines, then that qualifies for "educational use" here, even if a straight upload would normally be deleted. I'm not too sure what wikiversity's scope is, but if it's within their scope, then it's within ours. We don't try to dictate scope to other projects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: As per Jim. This is just plain text. If the context is in scope at wikiversity you can just insert the content there directly. No need to upload an PDF here. Natuur12 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Angeli Dione Gomez.jpg

I submitted a permission to OTRS as [Ticket#2015052010002388].In fact, the publisher Maja Mundial (World Pageants) granted me a permission as the proved that the below mentioned photo from https://www.flickr.com/photos/98261855@N07/11777515646/ may be used as we proposed.If you have any question regarding this situation, please feel free to contact the publisher as soon as possible.

Thank you!--RenRen070193 02:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a deleted file, nothing to do here. {{OTRS pending}} added to image description page. You can do so yourself in the future, after opening the OTRS ticket. Revent (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:AMU claims new.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AMU claims new.jpg. Copied from Content is available under CC-BY-SA. at the bottom of the page and on link "CC-BY-SA" - Except where otherwise specified, the text on Wikia communities (known as "wikias") is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA). If the file will be restored I made the right license. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"the text on Wikia communities" does not seem to cover images. Further down in the terms of use, it says "Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text.". This makes the license situation at least unclear. --rimshottalk 19:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose It also says, "Freely licensed or public domain images are strongly preferred on Wikia." "Strongly preferred" makes it entirely possible that any given image on the site is not freely licensed. That certainly puts it beyond our "significant doubt" standard of proof. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not text but an image. This page states that 'Non-text media on Wikia should not be assumed to be available under the same license as the text. Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file.' We should therefore not assume anything about the licensing of the file unless this is stated on the file information page, but there is currently no text on the file information page. Also, was the original map outline really made by the Wikia users? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Staceylee.jpg

I forgot to put OTRS pending on this image, please refer to this email:

Dear Hsiaolan Hsu,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015061010003046].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team

--Lanpapapig (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image will be restored when and if the message reaches the head of the queue and an OTRS volunteer approves the license. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed. It may be several weeks before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: I've replied to the email. We need permission from the photographer, not the subject. Green Giant (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Fichier:Thompson fields.jpg

I request you to not deleted this file because Maria Schneider gave permission to load this image on wikipedia. I have a mail that confirm that.

So this image is Creative commons Thank you Chrisjac (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The image is a CD cover, and identical to the image on her website. It cannot be undeleted unless permission is received directly from the copyright owner per COM:OTRS. When permission is verified, the OTRS volunteer can request undeletion. Revent (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Anna Faris in January 2015.jpg

Requested and granted permission to use from Don Alessandro ( Owner of the photo )

Apprantly you dont even know who the copyright holder is, I deleted your reuploads. The editor at celebmafia.com is not the photographer, the photo is from Getty Images. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The image is attributed by Getty Images (and licensed reusers) to a different photographer. Revent (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Windsor Regional Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere.
--IKrasnoff (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Isabel & Roy Jodrey Memorial Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Frank W. Morse Memorial Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Annapolis Royal Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Berwick Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Rosa M. Harvey Middleton & Area Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Murdoch C. Smith Memorial Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Bridgetown & Area Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Wolfville Memorial Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The photo was not done by you but by Google. That you dare to claim copyright on an image that has a Google watermark makes it hard to believe your claims about the other images. --rimshottalk 07:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Rimshot. Clear Google watermark visible. INeverCry 09:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kentville Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Taken from http://www.kingscountynews.ca/News/2011-11-25/article-2814393/Imagining-the-way-to-a-new-Kentville-library/1 where it has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio per Jim. INeverCry 09:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kingston Library.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that photo was done by me and can be used by anyone and everywhere. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Logo.png

The reason for the request is the fact that this image is opened for a public use by any individual or organization. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright belongs to Annapolis Valley Regional Library. It's their logo. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:AVRL Bookmobile.jpg

The reason for the request is the fact that this image is opened for a public use by any individual or organization. --IKrasnoff (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely copyvio - uploader claimed File:Annapolis Valley Regional Library Branches Map.png was his work even though there's a Google watermark. It appears that the uploader either doesnt understand COM:CB, or knowingly makes false copyright claims. INeverCry 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Source is FAO we4bsite for which Ms Semedo is currently the Deputy Director-General. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagana cd (talk • contribs) 2015-06-12T15:53:34 (UTC+02:00)

  •  Oppose The fact that the subject is an official of the source organization is completely irrelevant to the copyright. It copmes from a Web Site with an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore this to Commons, an authorized official of the FAO must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 09:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

==

Hello .

This picture was clicked by me in from my own camera. I have the copyrights for this and i own this picture.. I kindly request you to undelete it. Thank you --Roche Denver (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 12/6/2015

 Not done: Copyvio. Found on various sites including http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/22/india-budget-airline-jet-deaths, etc. INeverCry 09:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:zelma.jpg

por q borraron mis fotos si son mis fotos.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelma Galvez Carrillo (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

==

Die Fotos meiner Großmutter stammen alle aus dem Familienarchiv. Die Urheberrechte liegen in unserer Familie. Ich weiß nicht, was ich ansonsten noch dazu sagen/schreiben kann. Unsere Familie (meine Mutter als Tochter und ich als Enkelin von Frau Anita Gura) sind mit der Veröffentlichung einverstanden. Bitte die Löschung rückgängig machen. Falls noch Fragen bestehen oder weitere Informationen benötigt werden, stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung. Danke für die Unterstützung und viele Grüße --Henkeline (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

--Henkeline (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Both of these images were taken by professional photographers. The copyrights are therefore almost certainly held by the photographers or their heirs and not by your family. Unless you can show a formal written transfer of copyright to your family or can get the photographers or their heirs to provide a free license to OTRS, the images must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. INeverCry 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Barra Show.jpg

undeletion request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scardied94 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The image is a concert poster, and has been published elsewhere on the internet at higher resolution than was uploaded here. Unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright. Revent (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 09:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Bengibbard.jpg

The file definitely does not have any copyright associated with it in the US. --Amkoir (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Amkoir: All modern creative works are copyrighted by the author (here, the photographer) without any requirement for a statement that they are copyrighted. Revent (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio per Revent. OTRS permission from copyright holder required for hosting this on Commons. INeverCry 09:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Jama Masjid Bhilai.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Mosque is registered under Public Trust act 1951 of the Government and so the pictures of it belongs to the mosque. This article is being submitted on the consent of the president of the monument's trust. Necessary evidences of registration can be produced on request. Hence, kindly restore the picture as the article to which it belongs is issued in public interest. Shoeb shazz (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Eid-gah on Eid.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Mosque is registered under Public Trust act 1951 of the Government and so the pictures of it belongs to the mosque. This article is being submitted on the consent of the president of the monument's trust. Necessary evidences of registration can be produced on request. Hence, kindly restore the picture as the wiki article to which it belongs is issued in public interest. Shoeb shazz (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:(de)Map-South Africa.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was deleted with the rationale "no educational purpose". Actually this kind of travel maps are the basic maps in all wikivoyage projects and helps to illustrate or localize a region and the POIs of that region. This in particular would be useful in these articles.

If the deletion was correct, so thousands maps in Category:Travel maps should be deleted too. Thank you very much. -- Nastoshka (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was copied over from http://wikitravel.org/shared/File:(de)Map-South_Africa.svg for use on wikivoyage. Looks to be a German version of File:Map-South Africa.svg which was copied over. The name isn't great -- it is a detail section of South Africa, not the whole country -- but that is not a deletion reason. While it may not be obvious at first glance, the note that it was copied over from Wikitravel should be enough.  Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the map might contain all of South Africa -- but a weird setting in the SVG may limit the display to a small area. It looks like the English version is the source of images like File:Map-South Africa-Gauteng01.png which are in use (or were), so presumably there are (or were) German versions of the same. It would be nice to fix the SVG so it renders better but "no educational purpose" is way way wrong. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per above. INeverCry 21:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Southern Tibet 29to32N 84to89E Topo Rainbow Zebra 918.jpg

This file was deleted because I did not provide the source and author when uploading the file. [I now provide the source which is http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/dem3.html]. The author is Jonathan de Ferranti. Also, this file initially had the wrong license. The correct license is PD-USGov-NASA. Rainbow Zebra 13 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If it was self-drawn based on raw data, then yes that sounds correct. If the image was purely automated from the data, there may not be any human expression, in which case it would be PD-ineligible. If there was some, it should be whatever free license the user upload had. Either way, it sounds like the nomination reason suspected the entire map was simply copied from elsewhere and deleted under suspicion it was not self-made, so if that was not the case, then it should be undeleted. I'd probably just use whatever free license the uploader chose for their work -- PD-ineligible can vary greatly around the world so an explicit CC license could still help in some places even if PD-ineligible is true in others. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I used the software program Map Render 3D, from GHz Limited, to choose a specific color combination and produce 15 individual small maps. Then, I used the software program Image Composite Editor from Microsoft to stitch together the 15 maps to make one large map. Rainbow Zebra 13 (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per above. INeverCry 21:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Tsiolkovsky_str_3.jpg and File:Tsiolkovsky_str_5.jpg

Критерии добросовестного использования — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13243546A (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio per Jim. INeverCry 21:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Radiohead rainbow text.png

Was deleted because of "Copyright violation: Flickr account from bad authors list". But shouldn't it be labeled as public domain when it's a picture that only contains text? The picture can be found here. DaftClub (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The image seems quite unlikely to be in the scope of Commons, and even an image of a 'blurry rainbow' can be copyrighted. Revent (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose The background certainly has a copyright, but, also, we have a tendency to forget here that "only contains text" is backwards -- the only copyright mentioned in the US constitution is that for text -- everything else came later. According to the USCO guidelines, this text, consisting of several sentences, would certainly have a US copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
(nods) I aimed at the 'easiest' objection, instead of all possible... the text consists of complete phrases, that are not 'obvious' phrasing, and are thus copyrightable. IMO obviously not simple enough to be PD. Revent (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose The text is borderline to me. There are very few ways to express that information. The background though is not borderline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio per above. INeverCry 21:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Aleksey klimashevskiy.jpg

That's my photo for an article and it's not copyright violation. Thank you.--Egorkl (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Images that have been previously published need a verification of consent from the original creator per the process stated at COM:OTRS. The same applies to your next two requests. Revent (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Veseliy Petrushka.jpg

That's my photo for an article and it's not copyright violation. Thank you.--Egorkl (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Aleksey klimashevsky ded moroz.JPG

That's my photo for an article and it's not copyright violation. Thank you.--Egorkl (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 21:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Snowball in hood.jpg

this file is not copied from anywhere and is unique --DEBALINA CHAUDHURI (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)DEBALINA CHAUDHURI 14/06/2015

 Not done: The image has been published by brainware-india.com, as was noted in the deletion summary, prior to it's upload to Commons. Verification of license permission per COM:OTRS is needed for undeletion. Revent (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Files about Russian Dissidents

Please restore the following pages.

Reasons: The files have been deleted this year because of copyright issues. Adequate permissions had been recently available to User:Domitori. So, we have to recuperate these files in order to modify the information about permissions and let it adequate. --Csisc (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What permissions are you referring to? Permission usually needs to be confirmed through email by OTRS. INeverCry 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that Permission should be confirmed through email by OTRS. We managed to do this soon. However, we need first that the files would be restored. --Csisc (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send the permission to OTRS. If everything checks out the files will be restored automatically Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:CynthiaKirchnerNYLAFilmFestival.JPG

I am asking for File:CynthiaKirchnerNYLAFilmFestival.JPG to be undeleted as it is not a copywrite violation. I am the photographer and sole owner and contributer of this image. --Intheknowgal (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I just deleted the 'current' version of this, as it was a file page with no attached file. The deletion of the original file uploaded here looks correct... it appears to be a photograph of an image on a television screen, and thus a derivative work of the copyrighted original. Revent (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:DW. INeverCry 23:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:BHFF Awards.JPG

I am asking for File:BHFF Awards.JPG to be undeleted as it is not a copywrite violation. I am the photographer and sole owner and contributer of this image. --Intheknowgal (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image appears at http://www.lasplash.com/publish/Entertainment/cat_index_la_events/13-th-annual-beverly-hills-film-festival-announces-award-winners-at-gala-awards-ceremony_printer.php without a free license and "Photo Credit: GEORGE ATORAYA SIMONOV". In order for it to be restored here, Simonov will have to send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Marjanovic & Laurin 2009 tree from SOM.tif

This is the second time I have to request undeletion for this file. This is from the supplementary on-line materials of a journal, not from the journal itself. The publisher made no modifications whatsoever to its file, which does not appear in the journal. Hence, I retain copyright. This is a waste of time... Michel Laurin

✓ Done: Done, valid OTRS-ticket. My bad, I forgot to remove the speedy template. Natuur12 (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:HollywoodAcademyofArtsLogoFinal.jpg

I am asking for [these files] to be undeleted as it is not a copywrite violation. I am the creator, sole owner and contributor of this logo/image. --Intheknowgal (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose These logos all appear on http://www.supermodeluniversity.com/ without a free license. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS to allow their restoration. However, even with permission, I don't think these should be kept on Commons. There is no evidence that Supermodel University is notable -- the only Google hits are the web site, Facebook, and Linked-in. There is no WP:EN article. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 06:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:14 exode-80x200 4 LL.jpg

I am the author of "l'exode 80X200cm.jpg"

I am the author of Victimes_du_nazisme_LL.jpg

I am the author of 35 retrouver linnocence-100x100 2 LL.jpg 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)--FrancineMayran (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose First, the uploader of these is User:Francine sarah m. The person signing above is FrancineMayran. If you are the same person, please understand that using two different accounts without a good reason is discouraged and using two different accounts to deal with the same file is absolutely forbidden. Please pick one or the other.
Second, there are two problems with these. They have all appeared elsewhere on the Web without free licenses, so they cannot be kept on Commons unless the copyright holder sends a free license to OTRS. More important, though, is that they appear to be personal works of art, which we do not generally keep on Commons. We will restore them only if they were created by a notable artist. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Evidence of notability/OTRS required. INeverCry 06:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

There already was a discussion about this file here but the closing was wrong since this is obviouly not a case for the OTRS-team. What has changed since the closing is that the responsable of the LUCE confirmed that the file was anonymously made in the 1920's. This is archived under ticket:2015040910008084. Pinging all participats: @Jameslwoodward: , @Discasto: , @Blackcat: , @Stefan4: , @Coentor: , @Lucas: . I have no particular opinion about this file but I opened this request because of the OTRS-ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Support Thanks Natuur12. The LUCE newsreel was made by the own LUCE team in their studios, as the responsable of LUCE said, the film was published in 1930 and the images were taken, in the latermost date possible, the 19th march of 1928 because this work is represented in the film. PD-Old.--Coentor (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 Very weak support I'm barely OK with restoration -- we think the film was first shown in Italy, not Spain, but we're not sure. We think the works pictured are covered by Spanish FOP, but, of course, if one of the creators of the works sued in Italy for copyright infringement, then Italian FOP would apply and the creator would win -- this is, admittedly, so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but it violates PRP. We think that the Italian "anonymous work" provisions apply even though there may well be a record of the photographer, director, etc. somewhere and all of them would have to be dead for 70 years if the "anonymous work" provision does not apply.
That's three areas where we think but don't know for sure, but, by stretching PRP a long way, as I said, I'm barely OK with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 Support Per both Jim and Coentor. I do agree with Jim, but this time I do think claiming COM:PRP would be as using a hammer to crack a nut. Best regards --Discasto talk 10:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per above. @Coentor: can you update the licensing if/as needed? This is far away from my areas of experience. INeverCry 06:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Logo udg color.gif

Soy parte del equipo administrativo de la Universidad de Guadalajara y tengo el permiso de usar el logo pues fue enviado a mi correo por parte de trabajadores de la Rectoría de la Universidad de Guadalajara, por lo tanto, la imagen no fue descargada de internet. Agradecería que la imagen fuera borrada pues el escudo es parte importante de la imagen de la página de wikipedia de la UdeG.--Tomjc.55 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Juan Carlos Torres 15 de Junio de 2015

@Tomjc.55: (this might need translation) The image was deleted because of a 'technical' flaw in the provided information, in that it was not correctly described. You stated that the image was your 'own work', which is apparently not correct. The image itself should be fine (a version with slightly different colors is at File:Escudo UdeG.svg) but needs to be attributed correctly. Revent (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Complex logo. Please send permission to OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Robert-Metcalf Kinderliedermacher.jpg Freigabe von Fotograf und Person vorhanden!

Für das Bild File:Robert-Metcalf Kinderliedermacher.jpg liegt eine Freigabe sowohl vom Fotografen (Heinz Kleim) als auch von der abgebildeten Person (Robert Metcalf) vor.

Spitzaufknopf (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 06:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Audrey Art Conned image - undeletion request

This image is my image, the image came from a scan I did of an artwork I created by hand. Why have you just plain deleted it? I'm Just trying to provide my artwork to be used on Wikipedia. Everything I upload gets deleted. I haven't got time to provide all the info that's requested for each and every one but this one is clearly one of my artworks, that I, myself, have uploaded for use here. You guys are SOOOO difficult! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Mylne (talk • contribs)

@James Mylne: The cartoon image of Bambi, from the 1942 film, is copyrighted by Disney until 2038. Your image is an unlicensed derivative work, and thus cannot be on Commons. Revent (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose Agree. The Bambi is a derivative of the Disney copyright. The image of the woman probably also has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation as explained above. INeverCry 06:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Vishal singh 20110603 1099493839.jpg

Although the uploader User:Roshan014 has uploaded many copyvio images, this was an exception which got deleted in mass deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

After searching, this does indeed seem to be the case. Revent (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 06:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Arkistolaitoksen värillinen logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The logo should be allowed to be kept since it follows the logotype copyright practices. In addition, the usage was approved by the institution whose logo it is. I don't think an OTRS is required, because it already complies. Susannaanas (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Complex logo. Approval of institution IS required. Please use OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:منطقة الشعيبة الصناعية في الكويت.jpg

Please correct me on where I did wrong, the file is on flickr and under license please check it here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/86937137@N00/18210417583/ If there is any confusion please undelete the file. Thanks Kuwaitpedia1 (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kuwaitpedia1: Non-derivative licenses are not allowed on Commons. Revent (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: NO Non-derivative licenses on Commons allowed. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

@Hedwig in Washington Please check the link again https://www.flickr.com/photos/86937137@N00/18210417583/

File:Lídia Jorge.jpg

Temos autorização expressa para uso livre e colocação da foto na Wikipedia. Não há qualquer violação dos direitos de autor.

 Not done: Please send permission to OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Lídia Jorge.jpg

Temos autorização expressa do autor da fotografia e da Escritora Lídia Jorge a que a página se reporta, para uso livre e colocação da foto na Wikipedia. Não há qualquer violação dos direitos de autor.

 Not done: Please send permission to OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

hi

Please note the photograph that has got copyright issues is mine itself and i m responsible for it

najeeb--Aziznj1979 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aziznj1979: Is this in reference to File:Kebabi Ghost.jpg? If so, because the image was previously published you need to submit a declaration of consent per COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Natuur12 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Planet Dog Catalog cover.jpg File:Planet Dog Logo.jpg

Pdmedia (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Pdmedia June 16, 2015

Hedwig in Washington See en:Planet Dog, which I would assume is the intended use. The non textlogo one has an OTRS ticket. Revent (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just read it and looked at the history, moments before it died a flaming death. Not done, I think. Revent (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:منطقة الشعيبة الصناعية في الكويت.jpg

Please Check the image again https://www.flickr.com/photos/86937137@N00/18210417583 Now its license Kuwaitpedia1 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: License washing. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Портрет Интеллигента.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2015061710015262 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Super Tucano-Smoke Squadron-Sgt Johnson.jpg

Ass per: Template:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil Check OTRS Dafranca (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC) http://www.fab.mil.br/noticias/mostra/13827/FUMA%C3%87A-%E2%80%93-Veja-imagens-in%C3%A9ditas-do-novo-avi%C3%A3o-da-Esquadrilha Dafranca (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dafranca: The OTRS volunteer will request undeletion once they have processed the ticket. Revent (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Revent. INeverCry 08:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Agata 4 - Super Tucano.ogv

Ass per: Template:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil Check OTRS Dafranca (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As above. Revent (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The OTRS volunteer will request undeletion once they have processed the ticket. INeverCry 08:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Net_art_kot_zgodovinska_avantgarda.pdf

File in question is a book (net.art as historical avantgarde), issued by creatvie commons license by DOBER, contemporary institute, I am a member of editorial board. It is clearly signed with CC signs on pages 0, 58 and 61

User: CAcophonia (span class="signature-talk">talk) 13:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I note that you uploaded the file a second time after it was deleted. This was a serious violation of Commons rules. Breaking the rules is a poor way to start here. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 08:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Dear-VS-Bear-film-2014.jpg

this images use my the permission by the director of the movie. Sanjeev Vedwan from Vaisali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bablu Baghel (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 08:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Statue d'Alfred Dreyfus, cour du Musée d'art et d'histoire du Judaïsme © Sylvain Sonnet.jpg

     File:Statue d'Alfred Dreyfus, cour du Musée d'art et d'histoire du Judaïsme © Sylvain Sonnet.jpg

Cette photo est libre de droit et remplit les conditions d'admission ! This file is copyright free ! Merci ! Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moise.nedjar (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from sculptor and photographer required. INeverCry 08:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:El Bacá.jpg

El archivo fue borrado, alegando que infrige derechos de autor, en primer lugar la imagen no posee derechos de autor, es una imagen que circula libre por páginas dominicanas, y un par mejicanas. que ambos paises tienen la leyenda del Bacá. pueden usar google imagenes con busqueda de imágenes, y no encontraran ninguna firma o derecho de autor, de hecho, la ví en otros servidores, subida por diferentes usuarios. el link que puse como firma fue donde la página que la saqué.

Draco-u (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The file was deleted, claiming copyright infriges first image has no copyright, it is a picture circulating free pages by Dominican, and Mexican par. both countries have Bacá legend. You can use google images to search images not find any firm or copyright, in fact, I saw on other servers, uploaded by different users. I put the link as a signature was where the page that I took.

  • Google Translator

Draco-u (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. That an image has been widely used on the internet without a copyright notice does not mean it is in the public domain. Revent (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Lo Wai-kwok 2015.jpg

Please explain why the image was deleted. The source youtube video ([7])was uploaded on YouTube under a CC license.--Hang9417 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

P199 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaCvAYyspC8&t=7m21s (the timestamp was added in the edit summary of a reupload). It looks like the same person to me, on the left. Revent (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The original version was also captured from the same video but I did not mark down the time, therefore I uploaded a new version that I knew when it was captured. I cannot understand why User:Thibaut120094 said he could not find that guy in the video.--Hang9417 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored, i don't understand why the file was deleted. Thank you for marking the time, guess I need new glasses. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:IriyamaAnna2011.jpg File:IriyamaAnna2010.jpg File:IriyamaAnna2012.jpg File:IriyamaAnna2013.jpg File:IriyamaAnna2014.jpg File:IriyamaAnna2015.jpg

--Nakki2908 (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose. No reason for undeletion given. Only two of the files listed above have actually existed. They were deleted as copyright violations, and rightfully so judging by the user's other uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Images are both watermarked by en:AKS (company), the Japanese talent agency that manages this woman's career. OTRS required. Revent (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Auto decompression units.png

This image can be used under the free license : Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Which is : {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklyn.issac (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 June 2015‎ (UTC)


  •  Oppose I doubt very much that you are the actual copyright holder of this work as you have claimed above -- the image apparently belongs to the auto parts company Pricol, along with your other uploads.
The image appears on a variety of web pages that have explicit copyright notices. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This image was produced by Pricol. The Pricol states that all the images from their website are free for use provided the source is cited. The copyright holder of this file, Pricol, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.--Franklyn.issac (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The only copyright information I see on the web site that you linked is:
"© Copyright 2015 Pricol Limited., All rights reserved."
If you can cite a page that has a CC-BY license, please do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: © Copyright 2015 Pricol Limited., All rights reserved. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Logotipo Pegaso PCS.gif

THIS LOGO WAS USED TO SHOW THE FIRST NAME OF A COMPANY. --Drojasmx (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drojasmx: The logo itself (not the name) is copyrightable. You must show that it has been released under a free license, either by citation to a source that shows the licensing, or by a declaration of consent per COM:OTRS. Otherwise, it can probably be uploaded to the Wikipedia where you want to use it under a claim of fair use. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. Revent (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Complex logo, (c). Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:JuanJesusHernandez.jpg

Cuento con el permiso por escrito del autor del archivo (imagen .jpg) que ha sido eliminado. El autor es un spotter que me ha cedido los derechos de la imagen para utilizarla en Wikimedia Commons y Wikipedia. Solicito que dicho archivo sea restaurado en Wikimedia Commons.

Canaryfly (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Permission to use an image on Commons and Wikipedia is not sufficient. Both Commons and Wikipedia require that images are freely licensed for all use by anybody anywhere. In order to restore the image to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: insufficient license Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Logo drebis web.png

Wurde wg. fehlender Lizenzangaben gelöscht. Gewünschte Angaben: {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}}

Bitte wiederherstellen.

--Mollman (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Not PD-text at all. Scope unclear. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Khertek Anchimaa Toka.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The document is in the public domain, a public personality Tuva, inside Russia, the 1930s There is no record of the photographer and any rights you may have about the image has expired. Lucas Rubio (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A very similar image (same person, same clothing, slightly different pose) is used as a non-free file on the English Wikipedia, at en:File:Khertek Anchimaa-Toka.png.jpg. Given when she was born (1918) and her appearance in this image, I very much doubt a date in the 1930s is accurate. Revent (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Revent Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Portada Meditaciones sobre las relaciones humanas.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: these two files are my propriety, I am the owner of the ISBN and the copyright. so i guess i can upload them... anyway, if you need some certificate for check it out. please let me know.. please answer me as soon as possible. regards!! Manuel Chacon-Fuentes (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Since user accounts here are essentially anonymous (and because of how often users simply copy content from the internet and apply a false license to it), when material has been previously published without an indication of a license at the original source, we require a private email confirming the license from the copyright owner, following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Once that email has been processed, it will be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Aranzadi Iruñea Denon Artean Pamplona En Comun.png

This file has been deleted on the grounds of Copyright violation. The file can be seen here. As far as I understand, it's made of simple geometric shapes and text. Of course that it can be argued whether the flower-like shape at the top (made of a combination of simple geometric shapes) is simple enough or not, but I think it should be determined by community consensus (that is, through a regular DR) and not as a discretionary admin decision (I'm not criticizing @INeverCry: , but asking for a third-party opinion). Best regards --Discasto talk 21:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the "flower" was my concern. I have no objection to the file being restored if others consider it below TOO, or if a DR is desired. INeverCry 21:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think an actual DR would be appropriate... more complicated logos have been evaluated as okay, but the TOO in Spain is not 'simple'. Revent (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done OK for me. DR could be created. Yann (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Maxim Mironov tenor.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo you have deleted has been made by myself and it is completely free of any copyright. Profitrol (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright holder Matilde Fasso according to exif-data Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Charbroiler-commercial-countertop (1a).png

This file was generated by me for use in the Charbroiler wikipedia entry page - it is representative of a standard small-form countertop commercial charbroiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyungbluth (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on a variety of copyrighted web sites, including http://www.zesco.com/Star-6015CBF-Star-Max-15-Gas-Char-Broiler-pz315D129.htm. It can be restored here only if the actual photographer sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: File needs permission via OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Plain curry and rice.jpg

respected sir, high resolution images cannot be deleted without any copyright problem unless the user himself deletes them. the EXIF of the image was not missing as well. i request that that the image must be undeleted. -shrey-ɡreatɡannu (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the deleted images three were low resolution and one was thumbnail size (File:Roti or chapati.jpg). None of them had EXIF data. How did you create the images? --rimshottalk 08:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Sattu.png

File:Sattu.png

respected sir, high resolution images cannot be deleted without any copyright problem unless the user himself deletes them. the EXIF of the image was not missing as well. i request that that the image must be undeleted. -shrey-ɡreatɡannu (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the Google cache, this was a 605x306 image, and there was no real EXIF on the image page (just two entries -- horizontal and vertical resolution). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Bitte wiederherstellen: Der eigensüchtige Riese.jpeg

Die Künstlerin hat gestern ihre Erlaubnis per email gegeben:

Von: Marie-Claire <mclafosse@gmx.de> Betreff: Bildfreigabe Datum: 20. Juni 2015 22:28:36 MESZ An: permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org Kopie: Jens Braband <jens.braband@web.de>

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild Programmheft zum Musical Der eigensüchtige Riese, dass ich Inhaberin des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin. Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de). Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird. 12.6.2015 Marie-Claire Lafosse

Deswegen bitte ich, die Datei wiederherzustellen--Duerer38 (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers. Also like Commons, OTRS is badly understaffed, and runs a backlog of several weeks, sometimes a month or more. The subject image will be restored when the message reaches the front of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Vista aérea de Iraquara - Bahia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: public domain image Sigajefinho (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes the image public domain? --rimshottalk 21:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Jorge Bermúdez soto.JPG

Estimados:

Junto con saludarlos, les escribo para apelar a la denuncia de derechos de autor que hicieron sujetos maliciosos de la imagen. Por favor restaurar la imagen porque esta cuenta con todas las autorizaciones y permisos correspondientes para estar colocada en la página Jorge Bermúdez Soto de Wikipedia.

Saludos, Maximiliano Rodríguez Asesor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der.ambientalpucv (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Japanisches Pelz-Fachbuch.jpg

From this book, formerly deleted cause the maybe copyrighted image on the cover image, I wish to restore the table of contents too. I think, this is not a copyrighted text, the contents has no level of creativity, it is only information. Can somebody do it (or restore the whole image for a short time, so I can do it). Thank you. --Kürschner (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose You are probably correct that the table of contents does not have a copyright. However, it is probably out of scope and therefore should not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, probably a contents of a book is more worth then a cover of a book. Moreover it stands in a row of dozens of fur related books in other language in Commons with tables of contents. Please restore. -- Kürschner (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it is definitely in scope, and I restored that version. I was not sure about the copyright issue, but Jim said it is OK on that point. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Yann. Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mohammad_Qayoumi.jpg

File:Mohammad_Qayoumi.jpg

I am requesting that this file be undeleted - the photo is provided by the San Jose State University Office of Marketing and Communications for which I work and has been approved for public domain use.--Melissaandersonsjsu (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Melissaandersonsjsu: In that case, please forward the written permission to our support team. See COM:OTRS for instructions. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Lety Grey.jpg it is a picture done by myself. It is my own person. Why was deleted? This picture belong to me

--Letygrey (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Zoltán Zubornyák in 2014.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission arrived but was not handled for months. Ticket:2015032210026353 huwiki queue Teemeah (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Teemeah: Please add the ticket to the file information page. Revent (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Undelete File:Belén Fernández.jpg

Requesting undelete of photo, which was provided to me by the subject and is not subject to copyright provisions. thank you. Tower1109 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose With limited exceptions which are not applicable here, all created works have a copyright until it expires, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. The subject very rarely owns the copyright -- it is almost always retained by the creator (the photographer in this case). Transfer of copyright requires a separate formal written agreement. It is therefore unlikely that the subject of the image actually has the right to freely license the image.
Also, the image appears without a free license at http://belenfernandez-writings.blogspot.ca/p/reviews-of-coffee-with-hezbollah.html.
In any case, restoring the image to Commons will happen only if the photographer sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Gustavo Sebba.jpg

Please undelete. Ticket:2015040710024935. Thanks.Willy Weazley 01:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per OTRS ticket Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

[[:]]

Note: (For admins) The deleted logo can be seen in 3 different-sized versions here: Special:DeletedContributions/Ingrid_O._L._Hagerup. INeverCry 05:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I request that this file be undeleted. It's the logo of the roller derby team I belong to and is free of use for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingrid O. L. Hagerup (talk • contribs) 11:56, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Since it is not your work, policy requires that an official of the team organization send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:A Bottle of Glenlivet Scotch Whiskey.jpg

The file deletion request had been raised concerning this picture on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ikartik90/14898493212 The picture was supposedly tagged CC-NC 2.0 but I never received an email notification concerning the flagging of it. I have updated the usage rights to Attribution-ShareAlike. Please undelete the picture.--Ikartik90 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done I suppose that the logo is old enough to be free of copyright. Yann (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Yann Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Donald Cumming.jpg

Donald Cumming

Image: Donald Cumming Photographer: Kat Villacorta

This image is a known press photo for artist Donald Cumming, often used by his label Washington Square, an imprint of Razor & Tie.

06/23--Ahyken (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 19:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:1222329505 folder2.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of the photographs uploaded for Wikimedia loves monuments contest were created by myself with my own camera. There is no copyright violation, this deletion is absolutely unnecessary.

Best regards! Koihaos. (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: This picture has nothing to do with WLM. Even if we restore it, it would be deleted again as out of scope. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Pslv MOM, Launch Vehicle of Mars Orbiter Mission.png

This file was taken from the public domain, as per creative commons CC0 code (no rights reserved). This file is not subject to copyright violation. You can find the image in this link, http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c25-mars-orbiter-mission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Social Informer (talk • contribs) 16:58, June 22, 2015‎ (UTC)

Where is the CC0 license? The Terms of Use on the ISRO site says: The copyright of the material of ISRO contained in this website belongs to and remains solely with ISRO. If any user is interested to use the material of ISRO featured in this Website, then, the user is required to take the permission from ISRO. I don't see any Creative Commons links or licenses in the link you gave. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Plus ND: Nevertheless, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that last clause is more about moral rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
All ND clauses are about moral rights. The only difference between {{Cc-zero}} and {{Cc-by-nd}} is about moral rights, for example. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
ND goes farther than is protected by moral rights in most nations. "not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" is, I believe, pretty much what the law says in several nations that we have to do with any copyright work, even if the owner put a CC-0 on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Derivative works are part of the economic right, completely separate from moral rights. Moral rights makes certain kinds of derivative works illegal (ones which may affect reputation), but it's hardly all of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The concept 'derivative work' is just the United States implementation of moral rights, and seems less restrictive in most aspects. The United States concept 'derivative work' seems to imply that the modifications must constitute a 'work', i.e. that some creativity must be used in the modifications, whereas the implementation in other countries also may restrict other modifications. For example, the Swedish implementation of modification restrictions (known as 'moral rights') restricts TV stations from showing commercials in the middle of a TV programme without permission from the author of the TV programme, but there is no creativity in showing commercials, so I'd assume that the United States implementation of modification restrictions (known as 'derivative works') allow TV stations to show commercials in the middle of a TV programme even without permission from the author of the TV programme. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No. Derivative works are part of the EU reproduction right -- when you are making a derivative work, you are reproducing at least some of the expression of the original author. Adding additional (copyrightable) creativity on top is what makes it a separate "work" thus involving a second author, but if it distribution is still dependent on reproducing a copyrightable amount of the expression of the original author, it's still reproduction and thus subject to the original author's reproduction right. That is all a "derivative work" is. For Sweden, it looks like that aspect is listed in Article 4 (adaptations, translations, etc.) The U.S. does not have explicit moral rights... putting commercials in a TV program actually does not violate any copyright, and would not be a derivative work, since the commercials do not contain any of the expression of the original author. It would be more of a composite work, combining sections of the original work with (independently copyrightable) commercials. If the original author wants to prevent commercials in the U.S., they would have to explicitly negotiate that fact when drawing up the contract for the broadcasting (or whatever) rights, or give themselves the right to refuse the form of the broadcast, or something like that. At that point the contract would govern what the broadcaster could do or not do -- the author can't later decide that he thinks affect his work too much, the way that moral rights can do. Well, of course they could complain and depending on their relationship the broadcaster could well make changes -- but if it came to a lawsuit, it would be a contractual matter. The derivative/reproduction right is transferable (i.e. can be sold); moral rights generally are not. The closest equivalent really are more common law rights like en:misrepresentation, or in some statutory laws like the Visual Artists Rights Act (which is definitely moral rights, but very limited), some edges of the Lanham Act (which is mostly about trademark but can get into personal reputation and personality/publicity rights). That aspect looks like Article 3 in Sweden's law, which has no equivalent in U.S. copyright law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
What you call the 'EU reproduction right' appears to be what is known as 'moral rights' in the European Union. I am not aware of any country which has two separate methods for prohibiting modifications. The modification prohibition is either formulated as a prohibition of 'derivative works' as in the United States or by including an article about 'moral rights' as in the European Union.
Article 4 of the Swedish copyright law is something else. Article 4 states that if you modify a work, the modifications and the original work are separately copyrighted and you need permission from both authors in order to use the work. That is, Article 4 tells from whom you need to obtain permission if you wish to use a modification, not whether you are allowed to make a modification in the first place. Article 4 was added to the copyright law in its more or less current form in 1919. Before that, permission from the original author was only needed during the first 10 years after the first publication of the translation, after which permission only was needed from the translator. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No, Article 4 is exactly what derivative works are. If you make a derivative work, you need permission from the original author to distribute it. And if a third party wants to use a derivative work, they would need permission from both authors as well (unless one of the authors had obtained a license from the other allowing them to distribute at will or under the needed conditions). You do not really need permission from the original author to *make* a derivative work if it's kept private (that is basically always fair use); it is just about publishing/distributing them that would violate the (separate) copyright of the original. The distinction of "derivative work" is primarily one of registration at the U.S. Copyright Office; registrants need to identify the new expression they are adding versus the expression which already exists and is the property of someone else. As for the "EU reproduction right", it is the one identified in Article 2 of the 2001 EU copyright directive -- it is the basis of copyright (or the economic right, at least). Moral rights are a separate concept; they were outside the scope of the 2001 directive. (Translations to a local language have often been treated differently than most derivative works; since residents of a country generally can not make use of a work in a different language (and there was often little economic benefit for the original author to make a translation), the copyright barrier to translation is/was often a serious impediment to the spread of knowledge and general education, so there are often compulsory licenses, or other limitations to more easily allow translations to the local language.
From 17 USC 101: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. From 17 USC 103(b): The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No CC0 license to find. The Terms of Use on the ISRO site says: The copyright of the material of ISRO contained in this website belongs to and remains solely with ISRO. If any user is interested to use the material of ISRO featured in this Website, then, the user is required to take the permission from ISRO, see second entry in this discussion. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Mortezakatouzian.jpg

Look pal, no body from Iran is going to sue you for this photo. I am a family member of this man and I guarantee that he has better things to do than go sue people from a country he doesn't give two damns about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirrezasepehr (talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No valid reason given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dudenopants

I request to undo this deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Dudenopants

Several of these files were in use in various articles such as here oder here. These files were deleted without proper explanation given (other than "no personal photo album", even though images were used in articles and others were of potential use). --Avril1975 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I restored these 2. Anything else? Yann (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Done by Yann Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Escudo Albion Football Club.png

(Sorry for my english!) Some weeks ago I created the emblem of Albion Football Club, with a resolution of 4508 x 5718. I donated this file because It's mine, It was created by me in a png format using a Power Point and Paint.net, so it is not a copyright violation. To verify that this is true, I leave this link in which I upload the file I created and how I did it [10]. --Juanchocarbonero (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I marked the Albion FC logo as a copyvio because it is far above the TOO. I think the user has not proceeded in bad faith, but he should take a look at Commons:Threshold of originality which will clear him some points. - Fma12 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not a free logo. Way above Com:TOO. Clear copyright violation. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Neil Patrick Harris at the Hudson Union.jpg

This picture is owned by the Hudson Union Society. The President of the Hudson Union, Joe Pascal, gave me permission to use pictures from their Facebook/website to update the Society's Wikipedia page with accurate information. I have some other pictures on the page that I hope will not be deleted as well. Not sure if I need to select a different option when uploading, but there is definitely no copyright violation.--Collin187 (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Collin Gurgul 6/24/15

  •  Oppose There are three areas of concern here. First, while the Society may own a copy of the picture, it is unlikely that it owns the copyright and has the right to license it. Copyrights are almost always held by the photographer and there transfer requires a special written agreement. Second, "use pictures from their Facebook/website to update the Society's Wikipedia page" is not sufficient permission -- both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for all uses by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. Third, as you say, the image has appeared on a copyrighted Facebook page.
In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license directly to OTRS. If your other uploads have any of these problems, they will also need free licenses sent to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Needs permission via OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kalaydo logo.png

The uploaded file is the official logo of our website http://www.kalaydo.de/ and we want to embed it in our wikipedia entry (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaydo). We have the rights to use it as it is our company.Unfortunately it is currently missing due to deletion of the uploaded file.

--Kalaydo-Marketing (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-Textlogo, has source. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Park View leaving.png

I uploaded this image which I created and added myself and it was deleted for 'copyright' when I added a 2nd image to my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrandLord (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a screenshot from a copyrighted TV broadcast, which is very unlikely to be your own work. --Didym (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Screenshot of (c) broadcast and not own work. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg - The Copy is about Asian Lite Newspaper.

Sir

The Copy is about Asian Lite Newspaper. It is free for all to download and available on www.asianlite.com (digital editions)

Regards Azeez

 Not done: No free license found on website. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Feyziyya School1.jpg and File:Feyziyya School and Fateme Ma'suma holy shrine.jpg

Although uploaded by a banned user, these are the only photos of the Feyziyeh School on commons, a building which has an article in three different languages. The photos have clear educational value and should be restored. --Bosstopher (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I am not comfortable with restoring these images. I don't believe that they are in fact own work as claimed. Com:PCP --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Hedwig. Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mark_Ryan.jpg

File deleted by INeverCry: "Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)"

File deletion not correct: Photo owned by Mark Ryan, photographer Tom Korbee, license was provided. Please undelete.

--Hexcon77 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hexcon77: Please have the copyright owner read this: OTRS and let him/her send permission via email. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:FaunaSobral.jpg

The image as been deleted due to copyright issues, I don't have any legal papers over the image, however I personally know the owner/author of the image and he provided me free access to it.

If needed, I can put you in contact with the author in order to confirm what I'm saying.

Best regards, Henrique - Herbacio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbacio (talk • contribs)

@Herbacio: Please have the copyright owner read this: OTRS and let him/her send permission via email. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Logo wet city.jpg

Hi! I'm currently trying to get the copyright in order. I know the person who's made the logo, and she's giving it the right licenze. Will we be able to upload the picture when the licenze is in order? It seems like the content is blocked for upload. If this is the case, i request it to be unblocked.

Ingrid O. L. Hagerup (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:AUF Logo.png

(Sorry for my english!) Some hours ago I created the emblem of Uruguayan Football Association, with a resolution of 4565 x 5837. I donated this file because It's mine, It was created by me in a png format using Power Point and Paint.net, so it is not a copyright violation. To verify that this is true, I leave this link in which I upload the file I created and how I did it [11].

I also ask to be notified to the user Fma12 to stop deleting images arbitrarily, because it is a great effort to create each file, I spend a hard time doing it and it is frustrating having to ask you to lift the deleted. --Juanchocarbonero (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo itself is copyrighted, so the creator of the file is not relevant, we need the permission of the creator of the logo. --Didym (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose I marked the AUF logo file (which is uploaded to the en.wiki as a NFCC image, see here) as an obvious copyvio. User:Juanchocarbonero has repeatedtly been uploading non-free football emblems to Commons, such as GELP, or Albion FC, which are far above the TOO. I think the user has not proceeded in bad faith, but he should take a look at Commons:Threshold of originality which will clear him some points. Fma12 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I started a formal DR for two other AUF logos. I wonder if this uploader is related to sockmaster User:Laln93.... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio - complex copyrighted logo. INeverCry 20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files deleted by Odder

Please restore the following pages:

These files have been speedy deleted by Odder with the rationale "Requested by uploader: out-of-scope images, derivative works, etc.". The community rejected "out of scope" as a criterion for speedy deletion multiple times, and "uploader request deletion" is only valid for content created less than 7 days ago.

Asked to explain why he deleted the files anyway, he responded the following:

The files have been deleted using an automated script, and not having looked at any of them, I have no idea what they contained and therefore cannot comment on each deletion. I was, however, assured by @russavia that they are unused, out-of-scope pictures.

It is my understanding of our deletion policy that files should not be deleted just because one single editor, indefinitely banned or not, thinks that they are outside of our project's scope. Therefore, please let the community evaluate their scope-compliance in a regular request for deletion.

(Pinging INeverCry and Fæ as a courtesy.)    FDMS  4    19:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I looked at a few of these, and while speedy deletion was probably not the best, they are either out of scope or derivative work of some copyrighted items. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I restored some which seems to be OK. Yann (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looking at the first ten:
  1. flickrphoto:12251817263: {{Out of scope}}
  2. flickrphoto:14663390495: probably {{Out of scope}}
  3. flickrphoto:6789168285: {{Out of scope}}
  4. flickrphoto:4331434703: {{Out of scope}}
  5. flickrphoto:10949031375: {{Out of scope}}
  6. flickrphoto:6789302255: {{Out of scope}} and potentially unfree
  7. flickrphoto:6503225287: maybe in scope and free?
  8. flickrphoto:5104976829: {{Out of scope}}
  9. flickrphoto:6843900000: {{Copyvio}}
  10. flickrphoto:5699451006: derivative work?
Not sure if an individual review would be useful. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That said, deleting without looking is something which should be avoided. Natuur12 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe it was a request from the original uploader (well, the one who imported from Flickr, and an experienced user). Those typically get bit less scrutiny. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the files and most of files ending with word "map" look like this file. Such files would be in scope as a source for SVG versions. Although, I am not sure if such files wouldn't be derivative works of the copyrighted maps. If they are than I would not undelete the "maps". --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Partially done Closing, no further comments for 3 days. Yann (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

External images of Category:Naval Museum of Chania

The two files were deleted on the (wrong) assumption that the building was built to house the museum, which opened in 1973. However, according to a local press article, provided by the museum web page (in greek, at Εφημερίδα "Κρητική Επιθεώρησις" φύλλο της 25.2.1973], the building dates from the venetian era (ended in Chania at 1640s) and was renovated (it was nearly ruined) to house the museum. So no FOP issues, the architect died more than 300 years ago. --C messier (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment The DR says "Appears to be a modern building (on top of an older structure?)." If there's enough renovation that it appears to be a modern building, there's probably new copyrightable work involved.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks can be deceiving. Freshly painted walls can make a building look new. Comparing with old photos (before it was ruined) the building looks, almost, the same [12]. It was the same size and the same design. --C messier (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with C messier. Even so the BW picture isn't showing a lot of detail, IMHO there's no new building. The impression of being new might be due to the partly cleaned stone wall / foundation. My 2 cents. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Mendoza González.jpg

Yo mismo tome la fotografìa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrogasparcristobal (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.terecomendamos.com/sr-cura-parroco/. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hola yo tome y subí la fotografía a un portal y ahora la comparto con wikipedia --Alejandrogasparcristobal (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, because it is on the Web without a free license, the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 06:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Help!!!

Hello everyone, I come here to ask that requests for deletion of the following images are removed:

I do not understand what this is when everything is perfect ... meet the standards of Flirck ... and although they say they belong to another site, these internet portals seem to be engaged in this too! A publication of images for use in networks !! Please withdraw the deletion ... they are the only images of Ariana Grande on their 2015 tour as I could get by following the rules of Wikipedia ... please ... if the English Wiki allow use images rights because I not? Please ... not so bad ...--SergiSmiler BCN (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

See COM:FLICKRWASHING. Nymf (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's see, as could violate the rights a photo that is unique !! If you google it there is no equal !!! Oh my God !! For now with this !!!--SergiSmiler BCN (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow. The Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder, which means even though it may appear to be free, it is not. Nymf (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvios per Commons:FLICKRWASHING. I've blacklisted the Flickr acct. INeverCry 05:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Brasão de Iraquara.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: public domain image Sigajefinho (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Created what year? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence that it is out of copyright. Yann (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:NJALogo.png

I am the school tech administrator, photographer and designer of the logo which was uploaded by myself with permission from the school. The logo falls under --EhsanAhmad (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Complex logo. Please send a permission following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Rabwah_Times.jpg

I am a local photographer and the picture of the Rabwah Times newspaper office was taken by me and hold all the copyrights and wish to upload it to wikipedia for free usage. --EhsanAhmad (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No file by that name. This user didn't upload any such file. Permission needed anyway. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Rabwah1.jpg

Hi there i am a local Photographer and the the picture i uploaded was taken by me personally and uploaded to wikipedia for free usage. I give wikipedia full and free access to the use of the image mentioned. --EhsanAhmad (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This is available with an All Rights Reserved license at http://flickr.com/photos/17306040@N04/3402416848 with metadata and at a much higher resolution than the upload here. INeverCry 06:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Not your work anyway. Stop claiming bullshit. Yann (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Orbit-Musical.jpg

Own work YUCAGENITO (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Album cover. Uploader claims to be Luis Espinosa, the singer, but the album cover copyright would most likely be owned by the record company. INeverCry 06:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per INC. Yann (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Velvet_cover.jpg, File:hunting_high_and_low_(song).jpg, File:angel_in_the_snow.jpg

Hello Admin,

tell me please, how could i find a cover of the single except into the web? shall i prepare a CD and scan it and send it to wikipedia? or from magazines?!!!!

Please do undeletion and search about correctness the cover not just whether it was from a web or not.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortenfardad (talk • contribs) 07:42, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose Unless you are the actual publisher of these covers, you have no right to freely license them here -- that is true whether you find an image on the web, scan a CD box, or scan a magazine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Parker-Yates-e1426279698584.jpg

I work as the web engineer for the company DevOps.com and the parent company MediaOps. The CEO has asked me to create a wikipedia page dedicated to our websites. I am asking for undeletion because there is no copyright laws being broken here. --DevOpsDotCom (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Three problems here. First, "The CEO has asked me to create a wikipedia page dedicated to our websites" is not sufficient permission. Images on Commons and WP:EN must be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Second, because you are not the creator or copyright holder, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner send a free license to OTRS. Third, it appears that WP:EN believes that you are a spammer and does not want your articles, so the images are out of scope for Commons and will not be restored even if the copyright issues are cleared up. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You should also read WP:COI .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Яснецов Владимир Клементьевич.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2015062210005138 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Максим Підліснюк: There are 2 images in this file. The first revision is an old scanned color image uploaded by User:DulevoPorcelain; the second is a black and white portrait uploaded by User:Dima Plokhov as an overwrite. Which image is the OTRS ticket for? INeverCry 19:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@INeverCry: The second image, by which User:Dima Plokhov --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. Please add the ticket. INeverCry 19:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Luis-Espinosa-Alcala.jpg

Own work YUCAGENITO (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Uploader claims to be Luis Espinosa, the gentleman pictured, but this is not a self-taken image. INeverCry 06:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per INC. Yann (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Dimitris Ververelis (the WiZaRD).jpg

i was late in sending the declaration of consent. it is my own photo and I am depicted on it. I have send the email accordingly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

--Ververelis (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing to do here. Not deleted yet. Please provide a permission. Yann (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Tore Ulstein.jpg

--TonjeR (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)The photographer, Per Eide, sent a mail to Wikimedia Commons on 18 June 2015 where he approves the use of this photo on Wikimedia Commons

 Not done Nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Gunvor Ulstein.jpg

The photographer, Per Eide, sent a mail to Wikimedia Commons on 18 June 2015 where he approves the use of this photo on Wikimedia Commons--TonjeR (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-06&oldid=164690013"