Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-12

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

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

File:logo_mobi.gif

This image is the logo of ukrainian mobile operator as usual as the oters logos using in wikipedia. http:// uzhgorod.net.ua/images/2005/08/20/logo_mobi.gif

 Not done The logo is complex enough to be copyrighted unless you can find an explicit release with a free licence. Other logos on Wikipedias are either free of copyright or are defended by a "fair-use" rationale; but Commons does not accept fair-use images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg

I request the un-deletion of the file File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg as I can confirm that I own the copyright for this work. There is therefore no violation involved whatsoever. --Noodlings217 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose It appears here: http://www.psychologies.com/Auteurs/De-Kermadec-Monique with "(c)DR". Therefore policy requires that DR send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Jameslwoodward: , and thanks for looking into it. I can confirm that this image is licensed under a Creative Commons license. This links to the author's own site as you can see from the domain. --Noodlings217 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Helpful but not sufficient. The CC-BY license called out there requires attribution. The photographers' names are not given, so it is impossible to use any of the images in accordance with their license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thank you, Jim, for your reply. I have asked the copyright holder to send an email according to the OTRS procedure so that the issue can be clarified. I believe it has been sent. The CC "By" license requires that the name of the holder be mentioned, and that name appears clearly on the site. I hope this will help, please let me know otherwise. I take copyright as seriously as you do and hope we can work through this. --Noodlings217 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but CC-BY requires the name of the author, the photographer in the case of photographs, not "that the name of the holder be mentioned". Therefore we need to know the name of the photographer, which I did not see at the link you provided above. The OTRS message is ticket #2015112110006218. I have responded to the e-mail with the same request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Hello again, Jim. I appreciate your looking into it. The site appears to have been updated since it mentions the name of the photographer, and in fact it may be in reply to your ticket already. In any case, since you can confirm there is a ticket open, it's probably better if I bow out at this stage so as not to confuse the issue. But of course let me know if there is anything I can do. --Noodlings217 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the image. Note, please, Noodlings217 that claiming someone else's work as your own, as you did here, is a serious violation of Commons rules, and wastes a lot of time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Jim, I appreciate your help. Be kind to a newbie who did a lot of work to provide the necessarily licensing information, got in touch with the original holder and worked behind the scenes to comply with community rules. As you saw, the image was always properly licensed for publication, it was a matter of surfacing the proper references. I promise I shall strive to do better next time, but I find your rebuke unnecessary after I spent so much of my time running around to contribute content to Wikimedia Commons. The time you spent handling this issue is greatly appreciated, so let's be friends, please. --Noodlings217 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I take a simple view of things. Even a newbie ought to understand that it is wrong to claim that you created an image when, in fact, you did not. That being understood, my comment was as gentle a rebuke as I can imagine. Your effort in the cleanup is certainly appreciated, and I think next time you will get it right from the start. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thank you, Jim. There is a lot to learn when getting started on Wikipedia and I got confused. There was certainly no intention to misrepresent my ownership of the work, and I am glad we settled this. I edited the file File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg with new licensing information, hoping to atone for my sins. I hope the new information is correct and follows community guidelines. Let me know if there is anything further I need to do for the file to be re-instated fully without fear of re-removal or re-deletion by another admin. --Noodlings217 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We actually edited the file description at the same time and I kept my version, not yours. It should be fine now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: A million heartfelt thanks, Jim! I will now unfollow this page since this is all fixed. Feel free to get in touch any time, needless to say. --Noodlings217 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually happened to run across it at roughly the same time, and had the edit window open, so I *also* had an edit. Feel free to undo my change if you like. —RP88 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by RichardTE

List
* Category:Main Street, Ellicott City

Reason: Photos of historic Main Street, Ellicott City, Maryland by John L. Beck. Dating back to the 1970s, Beck still lives on Main Street (his house is in the pictures), as do I, user:RichardTE, who submitted them to WikiCommons. Obviously there is a copyright/licensing issue. How can we get these authenticated for Mr. Beck & restore his 60 photos? Thank you. RichardTE (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Several problems here. First, it is not at all clear to me that these are in scope -- they are small, not particularly good quality, and although the community is the county seat, it is not particularly notable. Second, the image source is listed as "original collection of John L. Beck, Historic Ellicott City". That suggests that Beck is not the photographer, although some of the images say that he is. Some of the images name other photographers. In order to restore these to Commons, first, our colleagues will have to agree that they are in scope. Second the actual photographer of each image must send a free license to OTRS (one e-mail and license per photographer, not per image)..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[moved the following from my talk page]

"Hi Jim, Ellicott City / Historic District on the Patapsco River, is one of the best preserved historic Main Streets in the region, home to many 19th-century buildings, and designated an official Maryland Main Street. John L. (Latchford) Beck has lived there and photographed the town since the early 1970s. He archives thousands of negatives in library boxes, with scanned prints of some of his work. All photographs are his, except for one (I believe) aerial photo by a friend of his. I live in Ellicott City also, where I'm a web volunteer for the town. We can complete the OTSR process for all images, or possibly re-scan the images at higher resolution. I'm not sure how to proceed or if I should be writing to you. Thank you, user:RichardTE"

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly better quality would be better. In any case, whether you upload higher resolution scans, or keep the existing ones, we will need an OTRS license for all of Beck's images from Beck and for other people's work from them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note -- basically all communities are notable. There is a Wikipedia page for it ;-) I can't see them, but as long as they are bigger than thumbnail size, I'd guess they are all in scope. Larger resolution images are always desired, of course. I think we'd just need the OTRS confirmations to restore them though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

http://www.sonialawson.co.uk/images.htm

Regarding 2 images on Sonia Lawson Wiki page. Both of these have been cleared for use. Please see both images with their respective wiki license on relevant webpage http://www.sonialawson.co.uk/images.htm --Leightonb3 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Support I have restored File:Sonia Lawson illustration for Friends of Maria Colwell.jpg. I don't see a second deleted file that appears at the linked web site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:TAMUC basketball court.jpg

This file was deleted because it was thought that the file was taken from ZFloor or KETR, however the file was instead a screen shot from YouTube. where it was listed as a standard YouTube License, therefore making it free to use as YouTube videos are licensed as creative commons. {{Youtube}}

Fabian Bowen--Fkbowen (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Standard YouTube License is not CC-BY -- it is not a free license. This is an example of a CC-BY YouTube license. It is only those videos marked with that license on YouTube that you can use with the {{Youtube}} license here (that template probably should be renamed to make that more clear, but that is what the template states -- your video is not marked with a "attribution - reuse allowed" license). And note, like Flickr and other user-upload sites, that users often copy content from somewhere else without permission then add the CC-BY license -- those are not OK either. This file needs to be re-deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Carl is correct -- the file is not free for use. I have deleted the file again. Note, please, Fkbowen, that it is a serious violation of Commons rule to upload a file a second time when it has been deleted. If you think the deletion was wrong, you may, as you did here, ask for undeletion, but you may not upload it again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:2010 - Routes Project public event - Foligno5-11-2010.jpg

- il file in oggetto non víola i diritti di terze parti; - dichiaro di essere irrevocabilmente d'accordo alla pubblicazione di questo contributo secondo i termini delle licenze Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 e GFDL; - agli eventuali riutilizzatori NON richiedo l'attribuzione né un collegamento ipertestuale o un URL alla/e pagina/e che ho intenzione di creare o di contribuire a creare.Gianni Bovini (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Brain Injury Law Center.pdf

Hi,

The file:Brian Injury Law Center.pdf entry complies with copyright and licensing wiki guidelines. It is a notable law firm specifically for handling personal brain injury cases.

Chloe Quentin 12/1/15 ChloeQuentin32 (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Request by User:Waswürdelysistratatun

I got an information, that the picture/ the file will be deleted because of missing license, but the license was sent a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waswürdelysistratatun (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. Yann (talk) 22:55, 2 December 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! I read Commons:Licensing and there was a point:

Wikimedia Commons only accepts media: that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. This picture is in the public domain and the Mintos gave me permission to use this photo. Please don’t delete this picture. What else can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinsone (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Your only contribution was File:Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 15.51.51.png. The file comes directly from https://www.mintos.com/en/statistics/ which has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom. There are two issues here. First, is this SPAM? It looks to me like advertising material for the web site. Second, unless either (a) Mintos puts a free license on its web site or (b) Mintos sends a free license to OTRS. it cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim Alan (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Simpson supporting FC Barelona in El Clasico.png

Just like the File:Simpson supporting FC Barelona in El Clasico.png image, the image was entirely my work. I drew the whole thing. Each and every pixel was hand drawn by me in MS Paint. So, how it violates the copyright?
acagastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 05:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 OpposeYou surely understand that cannot type out the latest Tom Clancy novel and claim it as your own work? Similarly, you cannot copy a copyrighted character and have anything but a derivative work which requires a license from the copyright holder -- in this case, Fox -- to publish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and COM:DW Alan (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:'No Joke' Poster.jpg

Please, how is this a violation?

It has proper CC license, permission from the rights holder via Flickr.

Very disappointing how easily these things get taken down.

Please let me know why/how this can be remedied.

Thanks, betty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettywilly (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Bettywilly (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose On the one hand, "Matt Frame" is the name on the Flickr account and the name of the Writer-Director of the film. On the other hand, anyone can open a Flickr account with any name and these images are very small -- the names are not legible. I would expect that if the Flickr user were actually the director of the film that we would have much larger images. It is also unusual for a film poster to be released with a CC license -- usually sale of posters, t-shirts, and the like are an important source of revenue for independent films..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Camp Death Poster Creative Commons Sharealike.jpg

Again..

Please, how is this a violation?

It has proper CC license, permission from the rights holder via Flickr.

Very disappointing how easily these things get taken down.

Please let me know why/how this can be remedied.

Thanks, betty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettywilly (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the Flickr page? Possible issues might be if the license was CC-BY-NC-SA (licenses with the "NC" or "ND" components are not free licenses), or if the Flickr page was not actually of the rightsholder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Flickr page is: https://www.flickr.com/gp/138045276@N03/GQb73y

I know this belongs to the rights holder because the rights holder is my boyfriend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettywilly (talk • contribs)

Bettywilly (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If it's obvious that the Flickr account is the rights holder, then no, we don't need OTRS. In this case… it looks like the Flickr account has only those two images, both of which were uploaded there one day before the upload here. I'm sure these are OK, but I do think that a COM:OTRS email might be the best approach for these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am ready to believe you, but how do you know that this account with only 2 files is the copyright owner of these posters? At first glance, it looks suspicious to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose On the one hand, "Matt Frame" is the name on the Flickr account and the name of the Writer-Director of the film. On the other hand, anyone can open a Flickr account with any name and these images are very small -- the names are not legible. I would expect that if the Flickr user were actually the director of the film that we would have much larger images. It is also unusual for a film poster to be released with a CC license -- usually sale of posters, t-shirts, and the like are an important source of revenue for independent films..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the revenue is important, it would make sense that only lower-resolution versions might be licensed. But in this case... I tend to agree the Flickr account is too new and lacking in other evidence it really is Matt Frame to accept the license there blindly. I would agree that a confirmation via COM:OTRS should be required. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Mensa de pie.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo was made by Joan Ramon Bonet (as credited in the photo) and given to the painter's daughter, who passed it to me. If you need her contact info I can provide it. Please, restore the photo. Ignaciotq (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a photo does not make one the owner of the copyright. In order for these to be restored to Commons either (a) Joan Ramon Bonet must provide a free license to OTRS or (b) the painter's daughter must prove that Joan Ramon Bonet transferred the copyright to her with an appropriate written agreement and then she (the daughter) must provide a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Enjeux et Défis de la Coopération Franco-Libanaise - Alexandre Schoulika - Mémoire Master II Géopolitique et Sécurité Internationale - Septembre 2015.pdf

Reason: This is my work !!! Alexandre Schoulika (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enjeux et Défis de la Coopération Franco-Russe - Alexandre Schoulika - Mémoire Master1 - Septembre 2014.pdf, the problem here is not that we doubt that it is your work, but that we don't think it belongs on Commons. We do not keep PDFs of writing unless the author is notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Pepe Iglesias.jpg

No veo el motivo por el cual se eliminó dicho archivo. La revista es de mi propiedad, la imagen ha sido escaneado por mi mismo. La editorial Haynes (página para la cual se realizó la imagen) ya no existe desde la década de 1960, hay varios archivos a los que les ocurrió lo mismo y no correspondería tal eliminación -a mi juicio- porque soy el titular de todas esas revistas debido a que mi padre fue empleado durante 30 años de esa empresa y recibía gratuitamente todo el material que editaba dicha editorial, que repito hace más de 50 años que no existe (ni el edificio ha quedado). Los autores de fotografías, edición e incluso el personaje de la portado, están todos fallecidos. Espero puedan rehabilitar dicho archivo. Gracias.--jorge horacio richino (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

??? I do not understand. The subject image has not been deleted and does not have any indication that anyone wants to delete it. You have not had a file that you uploaded deleted since 2012. What is it that you want us to do here?
I should add, that all of the reasons you give above for restoring an image -- whatever image it might be - are not valid. Copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, so anything created in the 1960s is still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No, a completely different image has been uploaded over top of the original one (and that may be a copyvio as well, although amusingly, the new photo shows up in several places which had a link to the old Commons image). I can't see the original, but it sounds like it was a scan of an artwork (where the copyright would last for the author's entire life plus 70 more years), but used a tag applicable to photographs which had a shorter copyright term in past years. It does seem as though the deletion was warranted -- like you, it doesn't matter that you own a copy of the book, you don't own the copyright (the right to make further copies) so you can't upload scans until the copyright of the original has expired (which can easily last 120 years or more). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: La foto no ha sido borrada, no ha sido marcada para su borrado ni hay ninguna incidencia registrada. Cierro la solicitud: Sin accion necesaria a realizar. Alan (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Internationale melody

After asking about an edit on English Wikipedia, ThurnerRupert answered me: 'hans beierlein was the worldwide copyright holder, and he states in this interview: "Mir hat dieses Lied einfach immer mehr gefallen als alle anderen – die Zahlungen dafür allerdings auch. Inzwischen besitze ich die Rechte nicht mehr, 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Komponisten gehört es der Allgemeinheit." which translates to "i always liked that song more than the others - the payments for it as well. as of today i do not own the rights any more, 70 years after the death of the composer it is common property."'

I am unsure if Hans Beierlein would be aware of French wartime copyright extension for pre-war musical works, but the interview would suggest his renunciation of any remaining copyright. I would like to ask any disinterested administrator, preferably German speakers, to determine if this copyright renunciation may undelete one template and seven files. If granted, I would like to improve the template as a better copyright license. If denied, we would just wait for October 2017 to undelete. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He also may have been referring to losing the rights in all countries (including Germany which was likely the target audience for the interview) which had a 70pma term on it, as opposed to just within France where the term is longer, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
hans beierleins business was and his companies business is to earn money from copyright. he had an office in paris, and earned money from songs published in france. you can be 100% sure that he is aware of every law and its effect concerning copyright in france. additionally, if the owner states "it belongs to the public" than it is a statement by itself. i tried to find a reference for this copyright extension to check if it survived the harmonization, but could not. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France refers to a dead link. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the general consensus was that harmonization did not lengthen any terms beyond 70pma, but if there were longer terms already existing, they were kept. France was mostly 50pma before harmonization, and added some wartime extensions to that. However, in the 1980s, they extended the term for musical compositions to 70pma. The real question is whether the previous wartime extensions applied on top of that new 70pma term. If it did, then harmonization did not reduce it, and they are still under copyright in France, I think. But if there is an argument that the wartime extensions did not apply to the extended musical compositions terms, that would make a difference. I'm not sure if that has been legislated or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
the french wikipedia article says: "Le cas des œuvres musicales .... Mais au 1er juillet 1995, date de référence pour apprécier l'existence d'un délai supérieur, ce régime n'existait plus depuis trois ans. Même pour les œuvres musicales, il n'était plus possible à cette date d'ajouter la durée de protection de 70 ans (introduite par la loi Lang de 1985), et les prorogations de guerre et la prorogation visant les auteurs morts pour la France (loi du 3 février 1919, loi no 51-1119 du 21 septembre 1951, loi du 27 avril 1916), parce que ce régime de superposition, qui avait été rendu possible par la rédaction de la loi 85-660, avait de toute manière été supprimé par la codification de 1992. " which translates to: no extension beyond 70 years. the extension to 70 years was abolished 3 years before the harmonization. the abolition made it 50 years + wartime extension, the harmonization made it 70 years. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That's... interesting, hadn't seen that, but... given Google Translate, it looks like that 1992 law was simply replacing references to older laws with references to the corresponding section of the new Code of Intellectual Property, then repealing the old laws. In other words, that sounds like a technical change but no actual change in the law... the wartime extensions made by the old laws are still in the Code of Intellectual Property in articles 123-8 and 123-9. If they were truly repealed, why are the terms still in the text of the law? The 2007 court rulings also seemed to imply they existed just fine, just that they could not be added to the new EU terms. According to the discussion at Commons:Batch_uploading/Works of Maurice_Ravel, the 2007 ruling even mentioned that the extensions were added on to the musical composition terms (as an example of an existing term which could have been longer than 70pma). However, that was not a substantive part of their ruling (i.e. they hadn't really considered all the facts surrounding that issue) so it's not a binding ruling. But that page mentions there is still uncertainty on the status, given the statement. In reading the exact text of the 123-8 and 123-9 extensions, it explicitly says that the terms are added onto the rights given by the law of 1866 (which was 50pma) as opposed to say referencing the rights given in Article XXX earlier in the law which they could have done, or even something like "law of 1866 as amended", which you could seemingly use to argue that the extensions therefore were not additive to any additional rights given since 1866. But if that is the case, why did the court mention that they were additive? It does sound like it's still an open question, as I'm not sure there was an explicit ruling on this aspect anywhere (which is a little surprising). I'm far from an expert though, so the question is if there is any other legal commentary or opinions, or failing that should we be conservative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how France has implemented this, but according to Article 10.1 of EU Directive 93/98/EEC, the directive didn't have the effect that any pre-existing copyright terms were shortened. In Sweden, the directive was implemented so that pre-existing works with longer copyright terms (mainly films and unpublished anonymous works) keep their original copyright term. Assuming that France implemented the directive in the same way, you'd calculate the French copyright term based on the old rules (70 years pma with war extensions for music, 50 years pma with war extensions for everything else) and compare this to the copyright term according to the new rules (70 years pma without war extensions) and use whichever is longer. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, but that is the question -- was the musical works term really 70pma plus extensions, or was it just 70pma? The extensions were originally applied to 50pma terms, and it's unclear if they actually were also applied to the 70pma musical works terms. If they were additive, I agree, the EU directive didn't affect them. But it sounds like it's unclear if it really was any longer than 70pma to begin with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
with the internationale everything is clear. 1992 the 70 years were abolished, the internationale was still covered by the standard 50yrs+wartime extension valid until 1996 or so. 1995 70 years came into place which prolonged it until 2002. if this is wrong all the cited article on the french wikipedia would be wrong. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the 70 years were not abolished in 1992. Here is the new (in 1992) Code of Intellectual Property which France promulgated, to consolidate and update all the previous laws. The 70 year term for musical works is still there in article 123-1. The law that you linked to simply replaced all references of the old Article 21 to the new Article 123-1, then repealed the old laws (since there was a new law which held the relevant text going forward). Articles 123-8 and 123-9 are the wartime extensions; the text still says they extend the terms from the law of 1866 though, which is the question -- read closely, it would seem the extensions still only extend the old 50pma terms. But then we have the 2007 Court of Cassation mention that the wartime extensions did extend the 70 year terms, which adds the doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
here the article about shortening, in case it would be applicable. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Lloyd George arms.gif

Please view Mabelina for avoidance of repetition but suffice to say that this coat of arms has every right to be displayed on Wiki. More information available if necessary. M Mabelina (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I also see it at http://empiretocommonwealth.webs.com/ministers03.htm . As per Commons:Coats of arms, each individual drawing of a coat of arms can have copyright, so modern images found on the web are likely under copyright and cannot be copied without the artist giving a license. Drawing it from scratch following the blazon is OK (if licensed), as is finding old representations where the copyright has expired. What license tag would apply to this image? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Carl Lindberg for your prompt reply and the matter of Wiki's legal understanding of the law of arms very much needs to be clarified. Let me advise you that in this instance (and others where I have uploaded COAs), the so-called artist, ie. empiretocommonwealth.webs.com/ministers03.htm or whoever has no more right to display this coat of arms than anybody else, SO FAR AS the arms are displayed correctly and the image relates to a relevant family member (ie. entitled to bear these arms under the law of arms in England and Wales). Armorial bearings are not even owned by the bearer of such images, since they are held via royal prerogative. Hopefully no need for a further lecture about the right to bear arms, but available upon request! M Mabelina (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. Commons:Coats of arms needs to be reviewed qv. High Court of Chivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 04:24, 01 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are Commons:non-copyright restrictions. The concept of "free" is strictly confined to copyright, and not other forms of intellectual property like trademark or laws about bearing arms. Obviously we would not want an incorrect emblazonment, but as many different drawings can still conform to the blazon, each of those emblazonments can have a different copyright status. It is the copyright which we care about, so the license tags need to document why the copyright is either expired or has been explicitly licensed. If we can't, then the files will get deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Again thank you Carl & it is good to liaise with someone who understands the subject. I recently had difficulty with my own family COA re Wiki, and as someone who used to work at the College of Arms I don't know with whom to broach the subject. Let me know how best to advise Wiki with regard to Commons:non-copyright restrictions solely in relation to coats of arms - Wiki's self-imposed policy is too restrictive (certainly at least within the bounds of English Law). Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. the point to be realised is that the so-called (from Wiki viewpoint) copyright holder of COA images does not in fact "own" the rights to that image no more than the bearer of those arms (they are "held" under royal prerogative and can only be subject to legal challenge if they are incorrectly displayed (but in my cases there is absolutely no doubt the arms are the correct ones, in all respects, whether appropriation, blazon, depiction etc...)). M Mabelina (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PPS. I trust you understand that my sole purpose here is for Wiki to achieve the correct policy, which would apply to all COA images under the laws of England and Wales (I can also advise regarding other jurisdictions, but let's deal with this one first?). Looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
While coats of arms long predate the existence of copyright and have their own traditions, the fact of the matter is that emblazonments (usually anyways) do qualify as artistic works under copyright law, and thus are also protected by the full force of copyright. The rights in that area are owned by the artist; the right to bear the arms is orthogonal but probably only affect use in England & Wales (and perhaps Scotland though they have separate courts for that). Copyright on the other hand is governed by international agreements and such rights are therefore enforceable in almost every country, so we can't ignore them. Commons is a "free" image repository; that concept is based around copyright (see http://freedomdefined.org ) since those rights are quite restrictive (also covering derivative works, such as for example another COA using a copyrighted element from another one). The "free" movement began as a reaction to the rapidly escalating reach of copyright and the lengthening of terms (which in many places, including the UK, last the artist's entire lifetime plus 70 more years). If there are any UK court cases which limit the reach of copyright when involving coats of arms, that would be of interest -- but failing that, we have to track each work's copyright status the best we can. Outside of copyright, we basically just want to make sure Wikimedia's own use is legal, but we generally use US law for that, which has no concept whatsoever of the "right to bear arms". As such, any deletions outside of copyright reasons would be either courtesy deletions, if the community feels there are particular circumstances which warrant removal, or where there is no educational use for an image (which would be outside our scope). But copyright will trump most everything else. Similarly, trademark and copyright can also overlap on an image, and the respective rightsholders can be completely different entities. As long as Wikimedia's own use does not violate trademark, we will host a trademarked image as long as the copyright is not an issue. But for works where the copyright also exists, we will delete them. There are probably some COAs (just like trademarks) which are below the Commons:threshold of originality and as such are not protected by copyright, but the threshold is quite low (particularly in the UK) so we would presume that copyright would cover the majority of emblazonments. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yours is a very good explanation of Wiki's thinking in this regard for which many thanks Carl. I shall certainly look into whether there have been any examples of UK Court judgements, if any, regarding copyright claims over COAs. Also I appreciate that American laws (in their various forms) do not stipulate about heraldry, so whilst gleaning further understanding of the application of the law of bearing heraldic arms under Federal Law please meantime see www.coaf.us (just in case it helps). It should be noted that no copyright was claimed by the so-called "image creators" of File:Lloyd George arms.gif, so where does that leave us: acceptable or non-acceptable for this type of COA image - will it be accepted? M Mabelina (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Copyright is automatic -- it does not have to be claimed; it always exists. Therefore, we cannot take copyrighted images off of websites, be they coats of arms or other types of works. Any modern work (last 70 years at least for the UK, often more like 120) is copyrighted. If you draw a coat of arms yourself, then you would own the copyright and could license that as "own work" (there are many examples uploaded). If you find a very old picture of a coat of arms such that the copyright on that representation has expired, that can be uploaded as public domain (which we use to mean "no copyright", though of course the separate bearer's rights never expire but get inherited). For every work, we have to identify why the copyright does not exist, or is licensed by the author. For images which are previously published on the internet, we even have authors follow the COM:OTRS process to make sure they understand what they are licensing (and also to make sure permission comes from the real rightsholder). Unfortunately, there is no real way around all of that -- so do not upload unless you know the copyright status specifically. Of course, it's always possible to draw your own (or base it off of other free coats of arms drawings which have been uploaded). For similar reasons, Commons does not have a copy of the official Canada coat of arms drawing (it is Crown Copyright there; it is uploaded to the English Wikipedia at en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and used under fair use); but we do have File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg which is a different drawing (and therefore a completely separate copyright) of the same blazon. Obviously, the right to use either drawing in Canada can be separately restricted, but that does not change copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Clindberg - yes I wholeheartedly agree with your correct understanding of the Crown copyright of the Canadian arms & I could add many more similar such cases, but this is irrelevant/inapplicable (because the Government of Canada specifically copyrights usage of these arms) to my thesis (pertaining to armorial bearings created by Letters Patent in England and Wales) in the matter at hand. M Mabelina (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to reload this image but I have yet again encountered a stumbling block (& have no idea how to remedy), and would much appreciate your guidance - snapshot of page so far as follows:

<Copy&past removed by Steinsplitter. (View)>

M Mabelina (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This is the latest (but have requested assistance, so please help!):
Description
English: COA of the earls Lloyd-George of Dwyfor
Date
Source https://griffinrampant.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/arms-of-david-lloyd-george-1st-earl-lloyd-george/
Author Arms and history of the countries of Europe - blog
Other versions User talk:Clindberg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 06:49, 01 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Have I been invited to reload this image (as it would appear) or ??

A file of this name has been previously uploaded and subsequently deleted. You should check the deletion log before proceeding to upload it again. A file identical to this file (File:Lloyd George arms.gif) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it.

Please advise M Mabelina (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Carl - I trust that this is not one-way traffic? Is it OK to upload the family COA of the Earls Lloyd George of Dwyfor or not? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For a modern representation you found on the internet with an unknown author, no it is not OK to upload -- it is under copyright. For a version you draw yourself, then it can be uploaded if licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
OK so be it, but me thinks there are double standards being applied here - if you would like I shall draw up a longlist of coats of arms which should be deleted from Wikipedia's pages forthwith? My intention is far from being difficult but quite the opposite (ie. to assist making Wiki the most relevant encyclopaedic source of info); so, perhaps and if agreeable, could you advise to whom I can either speak (by 'phone) or correspond (via email) if it really is the case that "For a modern representation you found on the internet with an unknown author, no it is not OK to upload -- it is under copyright. For a version you draw yourself, then it can be uploaded if licensed" is Wiki's authorised policy accordingly? Await yours, but I stress that Wiki's policy on COAs really does need to be sorted out (because right now it seems a complete muddle). Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. your adjudication that the Lloyd George family arms are copyrighted is wrong : the unknown author did indeed post the image on a free public blog and I agree their arms are modern (granted 1945), but perhaps you could give me a more considered judgement in the fullness of time? The arbitrary and haphazard apparent verdict you just gave only serves to add to a view that Wiki's COA policy is ill-considered. Till soon. M Mabelina (talk)
The arms are not copyrighted -- anyone can make their own drawing of the blazon, and each artist would own copyright in their particular version. If one author puts a free license on their work, we can upload that but not the other one. They can't stop anyone else from making a drawing of the same arms, just copying their specific representation. So you would have to find a version of George's arms where the copyright has expired (if you find a copy in a book from the 1800s that is probably uploadable). Or find someone to do a new drawing of the blazon, and upload that. We have many, many coats of arms authored by Commons contributors which are fine. I'm sure there are a few which are copied off of websites without permission -- if someone notices and nominates them for deletion, they should get deleted. There are also some countries where there is a specific copyright exception for official coats of arms (for cities, etc.) so we may have some copies of those. It's all about the copyright status for us, which can indeed be frustrating. Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia" -- and they do emphasize the free part, which sometimes does come into conflict with the encylopedia part. It makes it much harder to severely limit the amount of fair use material, but that is the goal of the project. Commons is not allowed to have any fair use material at all, so we have to chase the copyright status (even if in normal usage that seems secondary with coats of arms). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Much clearer - thank you Carl - so we agree that those arms aren't copyrighted, it's just that they're now not deemed "free", although forgive my curiosity but they were published on a free web blog - I am pleased to get to the bottom of this because it will avoid any doubt as to what is and is not acceptable for future purposes. Please advise - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. I suggest that any purported differentiation between arms and image in heraldic matters would not be upheld by any court of law, UNLESS it could be demonstrated absolutely clear in law that the resultant picture could be construed as being the artist's own work, otherwise, frankly, any heraldic painter so blatant (and possibly misguided!) as to claim that such heraldic art was his/her own work would more likely open him/herself to legal challenge (NOT the other way round, as I understand you believe might be so)....
PPS. and, I don't know whether to expand on this since surely it obvious that any such artwork would have to be really quite different to have any realistic claim of being original, AND this is simply not the case with the images I have uploaded. Please do let me know further about Wiki's rationale on this matter - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Have we got to the stage where it would be easier to admit that I was wrong in some cases and you guys were wrong in others and just reload the ones which are okay and forget about the others - otherwise we're gonna waste too much time... What do you think? Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The differentiation between the arms and an emblazonment would not matter in heraldic court, no -- the bearer would have the only rights to display them, per bearer's rights, regardless of who drew them. But in a copyright court the difference would matter a lot. You might be very surprised to see how little a person needs to customize a work to create a valid copyright. Something basic like the Scrope arms would not qualify, but if you are drawing say a lion from scratch -- that will always be copyrightable. There was a UK court case where the logo for en:Edge (magazine) was deemed to have a copyright because of the modification of the "E" letters. That would not be the case in the US, but the threshold is still very low -- anything even a little pictorial would have a copyright, unless it was copied from somewhere else. In most places, trademark and copyright can "overlap" -- the rights of both can apply in full, and the rights can be owned by different people. A use can be both a copyright and a trademark infringement, or one but not the other, depending on the circumstances. I don't know if UK copyright law would change the normal scope of rights in images of arms -- I don't think anyone here has brought such a copyright case up so I'm guessing they overlap -- but in the rest of the world, it would just be the copyright which matters. As such, Commons cares about who actually draws the arms -- we can't just take any representation we find on the internet; we have to know how old the drawing is, or who drew it. It is the same as any other drawing. Copyright makes a distinction between an idea (in this case, the design or blazon) and an expression of an idea (in this case, the exact representation). Ideas are not copyrightable, but you can have multiple expressions of the same idea, each with their own copyright. It is the specific lines drawn which create the copyright. Making copies of expression attributable to a particular author is when infringement can occur. The en:Idea–expression divide goes over this some, though it's not the best article. We would love to have a free version of the George arms uploaded -- but that particular version must either not be copyrighted, or the copyright needs to be freely licensed. For the version of the George arms on the website, it appears that is a modern drawing and thus someone would own the copyright. If someone can demonstrate a much older drawing where that was copied from, that could make a difference -- but sometimes even small differences can mean the newer work has an additional copyright on those new additions, like the "Edge" case. The details of copyright law can be really frustrating, but we can't get around them. There are many, many court precedents on such things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carl - I really am most grateful for your spending time explaining this matter and I am learning a lot - I hope you are too? Scrope vs. Grosvenor is the classic case always recited by Heralds to this day - largely because the Grosvenors lost but became the richest aristocratic landowners in Britain whilst the Scrope family (which was rich back then) won and now doesn't even have an hereditary peerage to their name... Nonetheless, with regards to this vexed matter of copyright, your example of en:Edge (magazine) doesn't prove anything about the law of arms. How to explain this? because I totally understand what you are saying but we are talking at cross purposes.

In a nutshell, there are many make-believe armorial images floating around globally, some of which look the same and are legally valid under different jurisdictions. In such cases, so far as the arms have been used correctly I cannot see how your image rights issue comes into play; I say this because any heraldic artist to be named would be well aware that their artwork was a reproduction of someone else's coat of arms. If there were no grant of arms for the image they created, then naturally it could be deemed as original artwork, but where there is a legally granted and proveable coat of arms how would you suggest this said artist could win such a case? The "E" in Edge is well understood, but when Letters Patent come into play (& I know this is a far-fetched and remote possibility) what type of court would disregard them (in any jurisdiction)? The type of arms I am talking about are ones which have the full weight of the Law behind them, not just some made up pretty picture - which of course would get crucified if the rightful bearer of such arms took objection to such display. M Mabelina (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Answered at my talk page... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
and which, for the sake of good order and your information, please read further discussions accordingly. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Jesse_Petrilla.jpg

Permission to publish was granted by the photographer back in 2012, what do you need from him in order to undelete? Martel10732 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was taken by Branimir Kvartuc who is represented by Corbis. In order to restore it, we will need Corbis or Kvartuc to send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

PSP Logo NEW-01 .png

I require the undeletion of file PSP Logo NEW-01 .png as I have mistakenly deleted it as I am still new to editing and publishing. --Ianlcyean (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC) 2/12/15

 Oppose File:PSP Logo NEW-01.png. was deleted because it is a Google copyrighted logo and is not "own work" as you claimed. It is unlikely that Google will consent to its free licensing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File: 01 CHRISTIAN COPERTA E LIBRETTO1.jpg

Dear Sirs, I'm the owner of the file in object. I made that image, that you deleted. Please restart the image. Thanks. Alina Di Mattia President of Listen Corporation 02 decembre 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backstage2012 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 02 December 2015 (UTC)  Oppose This is a copyrighted album cover. Since there are no Google hits on the album image, it is unlikely that the album or the artist is notable enough to be of educational value here, so it probably should not be restored even if the copyright issue can be solved.

Owning the album does not give you any right to put a scan of it on Commons. Unless you are, in fact, the producer of the album, and own its copyright, it cannot be restored for you. If you are the copyright owner, then you must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:51, 4 December 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.

File:Yentl Wiki.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted in ticket:2015120210006994 Mbch331 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mbch331: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:With his EBAI colleagues, from the left Hoang Lap Ngon, Luong Xuan Nhi, Giang (sculptor), Dao Si Chu, Nguyen Tien Chung & a friend (123hoang.wordpress.com).jpg

Dear Wikipedian team,

The reason for the undeletion request is used for references supporting my father Đào Sĩ Chu's article and definitely not for any other purposes.

Thank you very much for kind attention,

Đào Việt Cường (Vietcuongdao (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC))

 Oppose No matter what they might be used for, images on Commons must be in the public domain or freely licensed by their creator. There is no license on this image. It is possible that the copyright has expired, but in order to determine that we first must know at least some of the following: when, where, and by whom it was created, when the creator died, and where it was first published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Nepi y Pacini 1993 Fig 1-A Cucurbita pepo flor masculina y recorrido de las abejas colectoras de néctar.svg

Can this file be temporarily undeleted because visual analysis is key to this particular issue? The file was deleted by Jameslwoodward on the grounds that "This is certainly copyrightable under US law." I think this is a serious misinterpretation of US copyright law and it is important that this is addressed. Both for this case and future decisions. My reasons to keep this final were:

This image is not copyrightable under US law. Like simple maps, a basic representation of facts is not copyrightable. This applies to drawings. A representation of facts is copyrightable only if it contains "considerable skill and originality ... in the selection or elimination of detail, the size, shape, and density of informative legends, the establishment of conventions relating to color or design to topographical or other features (the case is re maps), and many other details of presentation." Sparaco v. Lawler 303 f.3d 460 (2nd cir. 2002). This image does not fit those requirements. The image is simple visually and the selection of facts that is representing is also very simple. The swirl in the drawing of the flower would not qualify as containing considerable skill and originality.

A simple representation of a plant's stem and leafs along with a selection of basic scientific facts regarding this plant is not copyrightable because there is no originality in its creation. Originality is not just one's thinking an image of an image and then drawing or computer graphing of this image. There must be some, even if very basic, complexity in the image's creation, otherwise ANY hand drawing or computer graphic would be considered as copyrightable and could not be duplicated. The quote above is from a case that is often cited in US legal copyright analyses and decisions. Similarly our decisions on copyright issues should also be consistent with major cases like the one above. Rybkovich (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Works of the Visual Arts"? Re technical and mechanical law - the Meshworks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. This case is another key case in current copyright analysis. These representation was not found to be copyrightable http://coolcopyright.com/application/files/1214/3558/7387/ToyotaMeshwerks.png. Basic breakdown of the case http://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/meshworks-inc-v-toyota-motor-sales-u-s-a-good-news-and-bad-news-for-creators-of-new-media-works.html
PS I understand that this could be much more straightforward under the law of other countries. But I am asking to re-consider this particular deletion because it was made on the grounds of US law, understanding of which is very important to these kind of cases. Rybkovich (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is copyrightable and I think it must be protected, I consider your file as a derivative work. Forgetting the science, the two drawing side by side are too similar and clearly one is a modified copy of the other. And it is too complex to be below TOO, in my opinion. When a scientist want to make a free licensed work, he clearly license it, otherwise we don't respect his work nor his rights. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for my English. As I have said on the deletion request page, there is no enough art on that drawing in order to be protected by any copyright law regarding artworks. The drawing is similar to this one, the female flower, clearly not an artwork. I may have missed the correct license, as I understand cc-licenses must be used only on copyrightyble (it's ok to say "copyrightyble"?) works, because they are licenses that modify a copyright protection. I'm not 100% sure but it looks like the majority of the scientific community consider this type of work like a "public domain" work similar to cc-0. There are editors that claim copyright protection so it becomes a social more than a legal problem, that is the reason some people like to explicit public dedication or cc-by of their work, so they don't have to deal into these eternal discussions. --RoRo (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, it seems a little bit more complicated than just a schematic drawing. At least some choises are creative and not purely technical. Secondly, while the author may be Italian the paper is published by a Britisch publisher so the country of origen could very well be the United Kingdom. Normally you don't publish a scientific paper before you send it to a scientific magazine. Natuur12 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Rybkovich, the Meshworks case, which you cite, is way off point. That was a case of creation of a mesh representation of an existing automobile by measuring a large number of points on the car and then having a computer calculate the mesh. For what it is worth, I agree that there can be no copyright in that process -- it's analogous to the Bridgeman decision -- a simple mechanical copy of an existing PD work has no copyright. On the other hand, I have no doubt that if the mesh had been created de novo, as part of the process of designing the car in the first place, then it would have a copyright, just as the clay sculptures that are used for design are copyrighted. In the case at hand we have considerable creativity in deciding how to represent the various parts of the complex innards of a flower. Also note, that while I think this is above the ToO in the US, its country of origin is the UK, where the ToO is much lower. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right the Meshworks being way of point in this case I mentioned in reply to Christian Ferrer statement that "Technical and mechanical drawings are included in Works of the Visual Arts." Rybkovich (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

--- I withdraw my request. I looked into the case law and there is a different standard for science illustrations then for artistic work or simple maps. Even the most juvenile types of illustrations are copyrightable. Rybkovich (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Alexander Garnet Brown.jpg

PD. NOTBURO. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alexander_Garnet_Brown.jpg&diff=179812559&oldid=176378129 --Elvey (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Alexander Garnet Brown was Canadian. While we have no information on whether signatures have copyrights in Canada, we know that they do have copyrights in the UK and that Canadian law often follows the UK. (see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag#United_Kingdom). Therefore, since there must be a significant doubt over the status of this, it should remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, James. Withdrawn.--Elvey (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination: per nom Alan (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

No subject

Coloque esta imagen y la saque de internet, porque no habían motores de búsqueda para colocarla, por eso que la subí — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayron salvo (talk • contribs) 01:44, 03 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No filename provided. Yann (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:הלובר פרמידת הזכוכית.JPG

Hello,

I would like to know if this picture can be "rescued" from deletion . It appears that on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid#Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid_7 it was the only one picture kept (on the last section), because the Louvre Pyramid was considered as De Minimis and it illustrated tourists in Paris. But on Commons:Deletion requests/File:הלובר פרמידת הזכוכית.JPG the pyramid has been considered as not De Minimis, and the fact that the picture could illustrate tourists in Paris (for example with a partial cropping of the Pyramid, not a complete deletion of it) was not considered as useful nor in scope. Because there was two different and opposite decisions concerning this picture, I would like to get other opinions, if this picture could be undeleted or not. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't have a problem with the Pyramid, but I don't think the image should be restored. First, it's not a good illustration of the subject Tourists in Paris -- we have much better illustrations for that and it's not a subject that needs much illustration anyway. Second, and much more important, it shows identifiable people. Although Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France gives several exceptions to the general rule that you can't take or publish pictures of people in public places, there are only five people here and they are clearly the central focus of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim Steinsplitter (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Queen Elizabeth Flats - before demolition 1.jpg and File:Queen Elizabeth Flats - before demolition 1.jpg

Here is an e-mail from the photographer, Donald Booth:

Dear Edward

Please find photos attached. They were taken in 1993, shortly before the blocks were demolished.

I used to drive these buses on that route past the blocks, hence why I took the photo.

"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International."

When you’ve added them, can you send me the link so I can see how they fit into the page.

Regards

Donald

This e-mail has been forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please can both images be restored. Thanks. edward (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: otrs team will restore when permission recived Steinsplitter (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Irene Chrysovalantou.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi,

When uploading this icon of the Saint, I was not able to find who is the iconographer and I've normally seen Orthodox icons being fair use. Unfortunately I'm not sure who is the iconographer. Giooo95 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not sure I understand -- you say that you don't know who the iconographer is and, apparently based on that, you want the image restored? Although the subject is ninth century, it is entirely possible that this icon is recent, so unless you can prove that the iconographer has been dead for 70 years, it cannot be kept on Commons. Note, by the way, that "fair use" is never permitted on Commons -- there can be no fair use for a repository. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Yasser Hareb.jpg File:YHareb.jpg File:Avatar-hi-res-300x255.jpg

These files are under Category:Media by source Also Yasser Hareb, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work of http://yhareb.com/yasser-hareb/?page_id=20 has sent previously an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Also he has agreed to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Could you please check it out and advise? If that email sent by Yasser Hareb is not enough, please provide me with the format and I will provide it to you. Awaiting for your feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badis1988 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: File will be restored when OTRS ticket processed. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Querweltein Unterwegs Schweißen Verbindet.jpg

On 24.11.2015 the copyright holder Stephan Thiemonds, submitted an aggreement to OTRS to share the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, it will be undeleted automatically when the e-mail is received and processed. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before it is processed.

 Not done: per the unsigned oppose above. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Schmidt1.jpg

Hallo,

ich habe vor über 2 Wochen (10.11.2015) alle geforderten Informationen bzgl. Rechte nachgeliefert. Ich würde gerne wissen, warum meine Dateien nach wie vor gelöscht sind bzw. deren Wiederherstellung beantragen. Es handelt sich um folgende Bilder bzw. Pdfs zu dem Artikel "Jürgen E. Schmidt":

Danke, Purzel5385 (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Purzel5385 (27.11.2015)

 Oppose In each case, you are not the author of the file and there is no indication that the author has given permission. I have listed the author next to each file. Each single file can be restored if its author sends permission to OTRS.

In the case of the manuscript, it may or may not be in scope, see COM:SCOPE. However, it certainly requires a license from the copyright holder who may be named in Schmidt's will or may be one of Schmidt's children. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:AF-Rochat.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

The sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this media work agreed to send an OTRS request in the next days, with his agreement to publish the mentioned content under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence. --Ge culture (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, it will be undeleted automatically when the e-mail is received and processed. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before it is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thank you for your feedback Jim, the OTRS processing delay was the reason why I have requested a temporary undeletion :) --Ge culture (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Hudeearal

『墓標なき草原』のカバがインタネットで たくさんありますが、楊海英教授を紹介するため、 楊海英教授に許可されています。 この写真は楊先生の許可の下で 撮った写真です。削除しないように お願いいたします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudeearal (talk • contribs) 01:09, 03 December 2015 (UTC)

楊海英教授の本のカバですが、 楊教授を紹介するために、 許可されています。 楊教授の下で撮った写真なので、 削除しないようにお願いいたします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudeearal (talk • contribs) 01:12, 03 December 2015 (UTC)

楊海英教授の本の『墓標なき草原』のモンゴル語訳のカバですが、 楊教授を紹介するために、 許可されています。 楊教授の下で撮った写真なので、 削除しないようにお願いいたします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudeearal (talk • contribs) 01:13, 03 December 2015 (UTC)

楊海英教授の『チベットに舞う日本刀』という本のカバですが、 楊教授を紹介するために、 許可されています。 楊教授の下で撮った写真なので、 削除しないようにお願いいたします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudeearal (talk • contribs) 01:14, 03 December 2015 (UTC)

楊海英教授の本のカバですが、 楊教授を紹介するために、 許可されています。 楊教授の下で撮った写真なので、 削除しないようにお願いいたします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudeearal (talk • contribs) 01:16, 03 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hudeearalさん，写真の著作権者からフリーなライセンスでの提供について同意を得ていらっしゃるのであれば，「COM:OTRS/ja」をお読みになって許諾をお送りください． --KurodaSho (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed here. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:MontanaBlack.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright holder (Ralf Maurer / Foto Schattke Buxtehude) has sent his declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 30th of November, 2015 and agreed to publish the image under CC 4.0. Reason hh (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, it will be undeleted automatically when the e-mail is received and processed. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before it is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Touch_Bank_Card.png

The usage of the picture Touch_Bank_Card.png is not limited by any legal rules since it is a scrinshot from the website www.touchbank.com Please undelete it. Thank you. IvMaRusIvMaRus (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't read Russian, so I am relying on Google Translate, but I see nothing on that page, or on the web site's Legal Information page, that says that anything on the web site is freely licensed. Since there is no free license, everything there is subject to copyright and cannot be kept on Commons.

Please note that as a general rule, almost everything on the Web has a copyright and almost all screenshots are copyright violations. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Lady bird transformation v2.jpg

The artist who has the copyright has given his consent to use the images of his work on the 18th November


Dear ralf sander,

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#: 2015111810017221].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team 4.12.2015 gsan — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.153.125 (talk) 21:11, 04 December 2015 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Schmalz Vakuumtechnik Sauggreifer.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: see my talk page Brackenheim (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 Oppose The talk page discussion suggests that {{Grandfathered old file}} would be appropriate. I think that is not correct. For a file to qualify as a grandfathered old file (a file uploaded before the OTRS permission system started), it must have some semblance of permission in the file description. This one says:

Source = Own work (Original text: Erstellt hat dieses Bild die Agentur Via 4 Design aus Nagold, die mit der Einstellung in Wikipedia einverstanden ist.)
Created was this the agency Via 4 Design in Nagold, which has agreed to the setting in Wikipedia.
translator: Google
Permission = Deutsch: stammt aus unserem Produktkatalog und dient der Erklärung von Vakuumtechnik
comes from our product catalog and is the explanation of vacuum technology
translator: Google

I think there are two problems here. First, the copyrights are owned by a corporation, not an individual. Therefore, the corporation must give the license. There's nothing here which tells us that the uploader is authorized to do so. More important, though, is that this is very clearly permission for use in Wikipedia -- as we all know, that is not sufficient. Commons (and most WPs also) require that permission be for use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose. A limited permission was not sufficient in 2005 and is not now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Apparently the agentur agreed only with a publication in wikipedia. No evidence that the file was freely licensed by the copyright holder. Steinsplitter (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Мikhail Grigoryevich Solovyov.jpg

media comes from [2], created by a Red Army photographer --Kges1901 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The original file name was a mixture -- it was changed. I don't see a source (except WP:RU), an author, or a date. Without some evidence that this is in fact PD-OLD, we can't keep it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No sorry, that is not correct. The 70 years starts with the death of the photographer, not the creation of the image. The photographer could still be living.
If the photographer intended to be anonymous, then the 70 years starts with the first publication of the image, but in order to use that, you must show both that the image was published more than 70 years ago and that the photographer intended to be anonymous -- merely being unknown to us is not sufficient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sophie Tilson Headshot.jpg

I do not understand why this file was deleted. I read through wiki's rules on images specifically related to images hosted on Flickr and made sure the right, right's permissions were checked by the subject. If I am missing something, I would appreciate someone telling me rather leaving vague messages and deleting. Mathieas (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mathieas: The indicated source on Flickr is now marked as CC-BY-SA, but at the time it was deleted it was apparently marked with a NC (or non-commercial) license, whihc is not allowable on Commons, and why it was deleted. The change to a CC-BY-SA license would be fine, and let us undelete the image, except.... the image has been published various places on the internet for over a year now, and was uploaded to Flickr at the same resolution back in January by a photographer who claims an 'all rights reserved' copyright. Given that, we really need a verification of the permission per COM:OTRS, to make sure that you actually own the rights needed to license the image. Revent (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The file was uploaded by the person in the photo, who I believe owns the rights as it is a commercial headshot used for publicity, for use in the article. I don't know what else I can do to satisfy wiki requirements. --Mathieas (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission by copyright holder needed. Steinsplitter (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Watson & Sons Building.gif

{{PD-1923}}InfoDataMonger (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If the date is correct, then it should be fine. What is the source though, to verify publication on that date? Looking at the Google cache, you didn't supply a source ("own work" means that you are claiming to be the copyright owner), and an incorrect license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and as a UK work, we'd need to know if 70pma has passed for the photo/drawing (if that author is mentioned). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 Support The drawing is marked 1893. The rule on unknown authors in the UK is 70 years after publication. Since publication was, presumably, 1893, it looks OK. The copyright claim on the source page is bogus. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
OK,  Support then. I do see a version http://www.historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=watsonsonsco (some of that text might have been copied to the Wikipedia article, though it's close to a listing of facts). I see the same (I think) copy embedded in this PDF, which says it was a promotional brochure, and I don't see an author signature. I guess it was from advertising. At least the middle building of the three still exists. So {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: ok Steinsplitter (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Deh Cho Bridge in Ice 2.jpg

This is a creative commons 2.0 license, and I have not modified the file in any way - it is not derivative. Arrecife (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Per https://flickr.com/photos/30940113@N03/8335374412 , it is a CC-BY-NC-ND license. Commons does not accept licenses with either "NC" (non-commercial) or "ND" (non-derivative) in them, as it makes them non-free. You have to have the ability to make derivative works, and use a work in commercial contexts, for a license to be considered "free". See Commons:Licensing. We accept CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, and of course CC0, but not any of the others you can use on Flickr. While it is true that you did not commit copyright infringement by uploading it, the work does not conform to site policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Carl. Steinsplitter (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:PhilippTseitlyn1953.jpg

This image is owned by me - I am the heir of this photograph. I was not sure how to give it the correct license when I uploaded, as I didn't see anything in the wizard with regard to heir licenses. How do I specify that I am the heir and therefore own the image when I upload it?

Thank you. Sfed5 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the photograph is recent (1953), it is almost certainly still under copyright. I guess that you mean that you are the heir of the subject, the person in the photograph. That does not make you the owner of the copyright. The copyright is held by the photographer or his heirs and in order to restore it we will require a license from the photographer or his heir.

If, I am wrong, and you are actually the heir of the photographer of this formal portrait, then please tell us that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I am the heir. The photograph was taken by the subject's daughter - my grandmother. She passed ownership of the photo to me. Please advise. Sfed5 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like a low resolution, poorly done scan of a studio portrait. If you actually own the photograph, please scan it at high resolution, either with all of the borders showing or none. Then upload it again, using the same file name. Interesting man, your great-grandfather -- a Red Banner and two Red Stars. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I wish I had known him... I've made a higher quality scan with no borders, as you specified. Is there anything specific I should do when uploading again, regarding specifying that I am the heir and owner of the photo? I wasn't sure how to do it the first time around and I'm not sure how to do it now. Thank you very much for your help! Sfed5 (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Upload the new image with the same file name and the following details:

author = [your grandmother's name]
source = family album
permission = Uploader is author's grandson and heir

In the license section put the template {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} -- it's not "self" because you are not the author. All of that gets done after you finish with the upload wizard by editing the description on the file page. I'll check it tomorrow. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed help. I followed your instructions but am still unsure if I did everything correctly. If anything is still wrong, please let me know. Sfed5 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Sfed5, you did everything exactly right except that you uploaded it to WP:EN instead of Commons. Please do it again here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Please follow Jim's instructions :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

image:Onda de Choque.png No originality, simple representation of a sonic boom

Request temporary undeletion necessary of argument This image should not be deleted. Its a diagram of sonic boom. Its composed of a symbol for the air plane which is PD-ineligible and the symbols for sound waves which are PD-shape If airplane is considered to be original so then should the people in the nikkon logo in Commons:Threshold of originality. Both are simple, common representations. The combination of the pd-shape and pd-ineligible are not original in a depiction of sonic boom. Rybkovich (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose

  • The file has no license.
  • The image depicted does not actually appear in the cited source
  • The image certainly has a copyright. The argument that combinations of simple geometric shapes cannot have a copyright is incorrect. All artworks are combinations of simple things. You would not argue, for example, that File:Tableau I, by Piet Mondriaan.jpg did not have a copyright. Note that Commons thinks it did -- it was allowed here in January 2015, immediately after the expiration of pma 70.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Re copyright -the nikken logo of two people in a box is not copyrightable while just as simple representation of an airplane in a circle is? The Mondriaan is a complex combination of shapes and colors so the originality argument comes from how the complexity of the combinations. This complexity is not present in the Nikken on Commons: Threshold of originality. Seriously without knowing that Nikken was ruled uncopyrightable would you think it was under your standards?
I understand the source issue but why license if the image was considered uncopyrightable?
agree to disagree Rybkovich (talk)

The trouble with all ToO arguments is that they are very subjective and, in my opinion, the USCO is very inconsistent. The Nikken case is clear, but look at http://no-solicitors-sign.com/, both of which have copyrights. I think the Nikken logo is more original than these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the copyright registrations for the 'no soliciting' signs include the wooden frames. Note that the titles, as appearing in the register at copyright.gov, are identical to the file names on that website. Looking at COM:TOO#United States, the United States Copyright Office seems to be a lot more permissive when it is text and a lot less permissive when it is not text. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I agree but I can come up with a good argument why it should be copyrighted based on word placements relation to word meanings. PS do we automatically delete an image if its registered? Rybkovich (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jim. Re sonic boom argument. If you see the case excerpt below for my maps undeletion request. The case's decision is made on the grounds that an image depicting existing physical characteristics of a building site including its shape and dimensions, the grade contours, and the location of existing elements is not an original. It is just that a set of facts. It is a representation without originality. The same reasoning applies to basic illustrations of scientific concepts - the uploaded image of a sonic boom is as basic as one can get. I don't see how this is not straightforward and how us playing safe applies in this case. The image depicts a scientific concept, it is very basic, there is a .00001 percent likely hood that someone would claim to be an author of it and file a case. If we balance this against it being a scientific image that does have a role in education and likely will be used as an example of sonic boom. How can we balance the two and go with the minimal copyright concern? PS In this case the temporary undeletion will really help with evaluating the request. Here is a similar one http://ricuti.com.ar/No_me_salen/ONDAS/img_ondas/Ap_ond_15_3.gif. It would be considered an infringing derivative if the one in our case is copyrightable? Rybkovich (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me to be likely to be so simple it's ineligible for copyright. Except for the airplane icon (which is almost certainly too generic to copyright) it's just a simple graphing of some pretty basic physical facts. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: a regular COM:DR can be started if needed. Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Image:Nepi y Pacini 1993 Fig 1-A Cucurbita pepo flor masculina y recorrido de las abejas colectoras de néctar.svg

I missed the correct license, it's {{PD-ineligible}}. Sorry for the inconvenience. --RoRo (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose As I said in closing the DR, " This is certainly copyrightable under US law." Also note that although Rybkovich argued against deletion in the DR and requested undeletion here two days ago, he subsequently changed his mind. You also argued for undeletion in that undeletion request, while Natuur12, Christian Ferrer, Yann and I opposed it. The question of whether the image was eligible for copyright was explicitly considered then. I don't see any reason why we should reconsider it now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I did not change my mind since I nominated it, the same drawing made for a logo or more simply in a no-scientific purpose will be considered as an artwork and will be far above TOO. I don't see why it will become free simply because of the word "scientific". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer. I think you misunderstand. I said that Rybkovich changed his mind, and that you, Yann, Natuur12, and I all opposed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: see Jim's comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

please dont delete this please its not copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleficent065 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: See my comment Alan (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Letters of Amulo and Agobard.JPEG

The uploader did not tag with a license. I will put in the {PD-old} if its undeleted. The file was a page out of a book that looked similar the linked books. It appeared very old and these were the results of the name when I searched for the title. http://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&version=1.2&query=%28gallica%20all%20%22amulo%20agobard%22%29 Rybkovich (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Support The deleted file is a photo of a page from Lettres d'Amolon et d'Agobard, archevêques de Lyon, circa 900-1000 C.E. It's {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}. —RP88 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If the text was written by en:Amulo and en:Agobard, them, um, yes, that is PD-old with a vengeance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Sometimes I wonder where our common sense is? This document is over 1,000 years old, It's true that it didn't have a license, but {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} is pretty much obvious. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Perry.jpg

This was put in the request for restoring the image Image:Ella_Guru,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg which was restored but File:Perry was overlooked the same arguments apply and are below. Seestucksite (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Image:Ella_Guru,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg The deleting administrator says, "you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion" but won't restore the image. (I think this image should also be restored on the same basis: Image:Perry.jpg ) See the following from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natuur12 You deleted an image by Ella Guru here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ella_Guru,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg on the basis there was no statement of permission. The page has gone now, but I believe there was a link from it to the Stuckism site where permission is given for this image. See: http://stuckism.com/GFDL/Guru.html A similar situation applies to other Guru images e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ella_Guru,_The_Bride.jpg There are two links given. The second is to Guru's site (as stated on your deletion page for the Crisp image) but the first is to the Stuckism GFDL page giving permission, ie. Summary from http://www.stuckism.com/GFDL/Guru.html permission = See this page for a lot of images released under GFDL: http://stuckism.com/GFDL/index.html This situation has arisen before. See higher up on the same wikipedia page where the Crisp image warning was posted for more examples of images that were threatened with removal from wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kipof~commonswiki Also higher up on that page is a deleted image Perry.jpg which I believe refers to another Guru image "Grayson Perry" also released under GFDL at the bottom of this page. Perhaps someone could make a note of all this somewhere so that this situation does not keep on occurring. The problem seems to be that there are two links under the image on the wikipedia page. The second goes to the artist's site (where there is no permission given) but the first goes to the Stuckism site (the group which the artist belongs to) where the permission is given. Administrators on wikipedia seem to see the second link but not notice the first link. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 

  Dear Seestucksite,
  I did notice the link but the problem is that the link states the following: GFDL applies to this file only, not the original image.. You can't release just release the low res version of a file and not the high res version but if you believe I was to stricky you are free to ask for a second opinion at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely you should follow official policy as at this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing Gold seal policy v4.svg This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. It says: "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 

      To be honest, I am not sure if the policy is correct and the addition seems to be quite recent. (That's probably why I missed the update since it was discussed in a VP instead of using a RFC and I don't remember seeing a notice at an administrators noticeboard). Before this update closures could either be delete or kept. Depending on how the deleting admin interprets com:PCP. I can't stand behind this policy change and I think there was not enough consensus to implement it. I would have just left the DR for someone else if I knew about this change but I will not undelete them. Please make your request at com:UNDEL or just ask any other admin to restore it but I will not preform admin actions I don't agree with.
  And yes, based on this newly provided info you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion but stuff like this can be prevented by adding all the relevant info to the permission field at a file page. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seestucksite (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 

 Support I think. We had always allowed the low-resolution thing, and the Creative Commons FAQ even said that was a common practice, but then someone brought up the question in depth to them and they now have a FAQ answer which indicates they don't think it's legally possible to do that. Their position makes absolutely no sense to me, and if authors want to do it, I don't see a reason to disallow it, particularly when it comes to non-CC licenses like the GFDL. Although I don't think there is any language in the CC licenses that would make it special -- they claim their interpretation is simply based on copyright law itself. I don't understand that -- authors should absolutely be able to license only a portion of a work, which is what the low-resolution portion amounts to. Authors, I'm pretty sure, have always been allowed to slice and dice their licenses as they see fit (by geography, by type of use, whatever). I don't see where (in the law) they are restricted to licensing all or nothing. I think the interpretation is about the term "work" -- but if there is any copyrightable expression in just a portion, that to me is still a "work". So if authors think they can under copyright law, I do think we should allow and respect that. The only question here is if the license given on the non-author's site is genuine, but I don't see a real reason to doubt that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't oposse undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC) • Support given that the file is covered by the copyright statements on this page. Many licences use the word 'work' which is a term defined in copyright law. For example, paintings are 'works' while sound recordings are not. Photographs are 'works' in some countries but not in other countries. If the copyright holder includes a specific statement that a licence applies to 'this file only, not the original image', then it would appear that the copyright holder has licensed all material contained in the file to which the copyright holder holds the copyright (whether a 'work' or not) but that other material is not licensed (whether part of the same 'work' or not). The licensed material seems to be freely licensed to me. Note that this appears to be {{GFDL-1.2}}, not {{GFDL}}. The page only writes 'GFDL' without specifying a version number, but links to version 1.2 of the licence, so we will have to assume that the material is available under version 1.2 only (and also {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC) ________________________________________ 

 Done: as per above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Windows Neptune login screen.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is not eligible for copyright. I modified the original file to remove all non-free media (above the COM:TOO in US). The initial image is here. The rest is derived from:

The same situation is in File:Windows 8 pre-login.png (DR). I see no reason to delete it. Rezonansowy (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Your version of the original does not match the original, so it is out of scope. If it did match the original, it would be a copyright violation, even though you might have found the individual drawings and photographs elsewhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't get this argument. If you have an article on someone and there's no free photo of this person, you can create a sketch of this person to illustrate him. Besides IMO it doesn't matter in this case. I changed only login avatars - so it's not essential for OS GUI. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll try again. If your image was close enough to the original to be useful, then it would be a copyright violation. If it was not that close, then it is misleading, because it is not actually what the page looks like, so it is out of scope. Either way, we can't keep it.
A person is a different case, because a person's likeness does not have a copyright, so your hypothetical sketch would be a derivative work only if you copied another likeness of the person. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely in scope, because the entire GUI has been not changed, however it's (GUI) simple enough to be under the Threshold of originality in US. --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
So I  Support per my above comments. --Rezonansowy (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
And the alien? Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hm. I tend to disagree that the Windows 3 logo is free, but it went through a DR it looks like (just that it was renamed and the file redirect has since been deleted). There really isn't much else in the original image though other than the user icons. Putting that logo somewhere where it didn't exist in the first place would be a trademark violation, but if it is there... hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Народный референдум Харьковской области 7.03.2014.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Народный референдум Харьковской области 7.03.2014.JPG was deleted as file without permission, but this file was tagged as {{PD-UA-exempt}} and {{PD-trivial}}. These licenses don't require permission Butko (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose {{PD-trivial}} certainly does not apply -- there are at least three sentences of text, and only one complete sentence is required for copyright in the USA. I don't think that {{PD-UA-exempt}} applies either -- it appears to be a government form, and forms are not included in "laws, decrees, resolutions, court awards, State standards, etc." Finally, it is a very poor scan, so I think it is probably out of scope as unusable for any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:SilkeSchmidt2015.jpg

this is my Own work file - don't understand this delete ??? Tschmidtleiden (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. The file description says that the photographer is Ron van Megen and the file appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Whether or not Tschmidtleiden is Ron van Megen, in order to restore the image, van Megen must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:PTDiploma1.jpg

Can you please provide details as to why this file was deleted? Did I do something wrong in the upload? The document in the photo is a historical family document which belongs to me, and I made the photo. Sfed5 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The deletion reason was "no license"; Google Cache on the image page indicated a "no source" tag. But, it was marked "own work" and with a license. Normally, those should mean the file should not be speedy-deleted. However... if the photo is basically a copy of a document, then there is no real copyright in the photo itself, and we would just be concerned about the copyright in the document -- which you would not own and can not license. The photo would at least be a Commons:derivative work and more likely just be considered a copy of the document. I can't see the file, but that might be the guess. If the document is out of copyright, then it should be fine. I think this probably should at least be undeleted in order to go through a regular deletion review instead of speedy, and to see if there are issues in the document (which is very possible). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose First, with only the file name and the description "Medical Diploma", it is not useful for educational purposes. While that can, of course, be fixed by the uploader, it is not clear that it is within Commons scope.
Although I can't read the language, it is clear that there is enough text to put it under copyright in the United States as well as in most other countries. Scanning a copyrighted document does not create any copyright for you to license, so both your claim of "own work" and the license you put on it are not correct. It can not be restored here without a free license from the institution that issued the diploma. 20:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that institutions that issue diplomas own those diplomas, and not the people that earn them? If I go to medical school and earn a degree, my diploma does not belong to me and my posting my diploma, which I worked for and paid for, would be a copyright infringement? Sfed5 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, design is property of state, university, school, ... (Creator). You can buy a picture I painted, but intellectual property will be mine. The money you have earned working but the ownership rights is not yours, only his contract value. Regards. Alan (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, thank you. In that case, how about the following: 1. The institution issuing the diploma was the Kuban State Medical Institute, which no longer exists. 2. The country under which this diploma was issued (Soviet Union) no longer exists. Sfed5 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
IMHO a similar case about USSR for example: Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union. Successor country has ownership. Alan (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
None of that matters. If you buy a book, you will own the book, but you do not own the copyright -- you cannot make copies of that book without a license from the author. If the author dies, his heirs own the copyright, usually for seventy years. If he has no heirs, then it is an "orphan work", which no one owns, but no one can use.
If a corporation or other institution closes, then everything it owned was sold, including the copyrights. Even if you can't find the owner of the copyright, or it becomes an orphan work, it still is not yours and you are not free to make a copy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You own the physical diploma, but the copyright of any artwork or literary work (i.e. multiple sentences) on the diploma do not belong to you. Similarly, owning a book does not mean you own the copyright to the book, i.e. the right to print more copies. I don't know if any exists on this image -- if there is just basic short phrases or mottoes and no artwork, there may not be anything copyrightable to begin with. Or if the artwork/text had been used as-is for many decades, copyright may have expired. In a situation like the diploma, it can seem silly to worry about any copyright, but if there was a copyrighted emblem, and someone extracted that emblem from your photo and called it public domain (or whatever license), that wouldn't be correct. In most cases, you would be able to publish images of your diploma as that would be fair use, but labeling it OK for all uses, including commercial, is a bit harder (and is what a "free" image means). As for the country no longer existing, just apply the laws of whatever country the institute is now located in (or where its location now is). I assume that would be Russia. If the institution no longer exists... ugh. Often there is a successor entity where all such rights get transferred... was it not part of the Kuban State Medical University, or is that different? In most situations, someone buys or inherits the rights, to the point that copyright law almost never has a way for the rights to evaporate in that way -- you have to wait until they expire, which is very frustrating but is usually the legal situation (called "orphan works"). In Russia, that is likely 70 years after they were first published per current law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's very clear - thank you. In that case, I give up. This can be archived. Sfed5 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kerbal Space Program - Rocket launch.png

The file has been deleted for allegedly violating copyrights. However, i uploaded the image directly from the "screenshots" folder from the game "Kerbal Space Program" which is installed on my computer. I am the creator of that image and i uploaded it myself, which means that there was no copyright infringement. The image in question is a screenshot that i took while playing a game and it cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet, because it is stored only on my computer, proving that the image is, in fact, my own work.--JeanJVS (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Game screenshots are copyrighted by the game creator. Yann (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Carmen Espegel.jpg

Deshacer borrado de File:Carmen Espegel.jpg Realizada tramitación "Declaration of Consent" by José Ignacio Ferrando Álvarez-Cortinas con "permissions-commons" Date: 2015-12-07 13:38 GMT+01:00 --Lprietoc (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, kindly undo erase File:Casa de las Hormigas.jpg Already, it has been done the process for the Consent Declaration by Joaquín Mosquera, with "permissions-commons" Date: 2015-12-06 18:57 GMT+01:00 --Lprietoc (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: see jim's comment Steinsplitter (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:E Harvest.PNG

This is a mistake as full rights have been attributed. Here is the evidence:

From: Olinga Ta'eed [4] Sent: 08 December 2015 13:16 To: FutureVision2015@aol.com Subject: IP on Wiki Entry

I wish to confirm that you have our permission to use all the diagrams available to use on the following site:

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

In particular the disputed diagrams Harvest.PNG which comes from our brochure (https://drive.google.com/a/cceg.org.uk/folderview?id=0B0ZjMfC4YqmvckUweVRIdEtSNkE&) and front cover of our CCEG magazine (http://issuu.com/seratio/docs/social_value_and_intangibles_review_929adaa177aea2) are, like the rest, approved for use on the wiki page under Creative Commons License. Indeed, the whole of Social Earnings Ratio is already registered under Creative Commons 4.0 as stated on your wiki and available here: http://find.jorum.ac.uk/resources/18904 and also http://www.cceg.org.uk/#!research/cmp.

Yours faithfully

Professor Olinga Ta’eed

Director Centre for Citizenship, Enterprise & Governance


www.cceg.org.uk www.seratio.com

Mobile: +44 (0) 7798 602987

Bureau 112 | UN Innovation | Green Street | Northampton NN1 1SY UK | tel: +44 1604 550100 | e-mail olinga.taeed@cceg.org.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Social Earnings Ratio (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 December 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Although the permission given above ("approved for use on the wiki page") is not sufficient for Commons or WP:EN -- we require permission for use anywhere by anyone for any purpose -- that is not the problem. The reason this file was deleted was that it is out of scope -- we do not keep images of short pieces of text. If these facts are needed in a WP article, they can be set forth there in ordinary Wiki markup. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: See Jim's comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Stephen Duneier.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken of me by my son with my camera. I don't understand why it should be deleted. Rebmobnray (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two good reasons for the deletion. First, although you claimed it is your "own work", it actually is your son's work. Second, it appears at http://www.bijaadvisorsllc.com/presentation-slides.html with an explicit copyright notice. In order to have it restored to Commons, your son must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: See Jim's comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:qvor.jpg

This is the original photo of the owner of the Wikipedia page. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiabetMalkovich (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 December 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It is the only contribution you have made to Commons and one of only ten edits you have made to all WMF projects. It has no description and no categories. Commons is not Facebook. While we allow active contributing users to have an image for their user page, you are not yet an active contributing user.

Also, it appears without a free license at http://vbox7.com/play:95d710f5ba&pos=vr, so even if you become an active contributing user, the photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: See Jim's comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Lassy Bouity standing with Senator Rand Paul in Houston, July 17 2015.JPG

This is my own image. It was taken by me using a Canon EOS T3 and my photographer friend Scoot Wemhoff in Houston TX. I hold all rights.--Adamsthedigital (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose It appears at http://www.lassybouity.com/ with "© Photo Scott M Wemhoff". Since your comment above says that you are not Scott Wemhoff, it is clear that it is not your "own work" as you claimed in the upload. In order to restore it here, Scott Wemhoff must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: see Jim's comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Panmunjom

Commons:Deletion requests/File:38th Parallel.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panmunjeom from South by pcamp.jpg were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg, but the case referred was reversed later. I don't have access to those two deleted files but it might worth checking again. Liangent (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Support I'd like to ask Carl to comment here, but my opinion would be that the problem is the building in the North. You cannot violate the North Korean copyright on the building with a photograph of it taken from a public place. The North Korean FOP law does not specify that that public place must be in North Korea, so according to North Korean law, the image does not infringe. The building, as architecture, cannot be published anywhere else, so there is no copyright anywhere else that this image might infringe. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The original undeletion is at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-07#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:070401_Panmunjeom3.jpg. Sounds like it was considered a simple building as much as the FoP situation. As for FoP... eugh. It's not a problem in the US either way, so the originals could be uploaded to en-wiki (though the 38th Parallel.jpg name has since been taken by a non-free image there). There are not many cross-border FoP cases, and the one case in Germany (on a photo taken in Austria which is OK by Austrian law but not German) basically implies that each country would use their own law as if the photo had been taken in their own country to determine infringement. That is just one case though -- some countries could in theory take foreign law into account. For Commons it is more complicated -- what country's law do we use? I think there was one case in some of the Balkan countries were a photo was taken from a FoP country of a building on the other side of a river located in a non-FoP country, and I think it was kept on the grounds that the photographer would expect that their photographs would be OK since that was the country they were in, and if a building was put in plain view of an area of a FoP country, then photos of that building from the other country would be legal in that other country, and that was enough for us. I'm not sure if we always apply the flipside of that, though these deletions did. Would South Korea consider that a copyright violation? I have no idea on that one, really. It's more a matter of what policy people think is right, as there are hardly any actual legal precedents to go by. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Actor sequitur forum rei and per the arguments above. Steinsplitter (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Guihulngan City Hall.jpg

I was sending the permit the same time when I contributed the image. If your sheriffs and site-nazis like P199 or Natuur12 would but as much effort into verifying sources as they do into getting a hard-on with their little power nonsense games, Wikimedia would surely be a better and friendlier place. I truly believe 6 weeks are more than enough to read a permit. --DINS-COM (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Per deletion discussion, it will be restored when permission is received AND processed. If you don't want to wait for your email to be processed, please provide licences when uploading in future. Abusing other editors here isn't going to accelerate the process, in fact such as above may result in you being prevented from uploading further images. We are understaffed on OTRS, so delays are inevitable. If you are the creator of the images, you shouldn't need to email OTRS anyway. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Nascuti_pt_a_alerga_(coperta).jpg

Titularul drepturilor de autor pentru imagine, Paraschiva-Cristina Preda le-a eliberat deja sub licenta „Creative Commons cu atribuire și distribuire în condiții identice”. --Laura Galescu (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose You have uploaded eight files, all of which have been deleted. None of them have that name. Perhaps you mean File:01. Nascuti pentru a alerga.png?

If that is correct, I see no evidence that the publisher, Preda Publishing, has released the book cover under a free license. In fact, the same image appears on their web site with "Copyright 2014-2015 Preda Publishing S.R.L. Toate drepturile rezervate". In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of Preda Publishing must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:H.R.Leelavathi.jpg

It looks like the picture was deleted by mistake. Please undelete it, it's not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by December stud (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 December 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose With some exceptions, none of which are relevant here, every created work has a copyright until it expires. This image appears on several web pages in a larger size, at least one of which has an explicit copyright notice. It cannot be restored here without a free license from the actual photographer. In addition, there is the question of whether it is in scope. At 77x96px, it is really too small to be useful for any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Backafestivalen2015.jpg

Bilden är tagen av mig. Hur går jag vidare?

Videkvist (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://static.wixstatic.com/media/cf85d6_206545e24d4345308c0eba6061868fe7.jpg. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, usually the photographer, send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Warum Gelöscht?

Hallo zusammen, die Rechte zu den Bildern zu Colin Jamieson und The Dynamite Daze habe ich. Das sind die offiziellen Bandfotos und ich bin der Bandleader. Unser Bandfotograf ist Thomas Eckl aus Bahnbrücken der die Bilder zu unserer Verfügung gemacht hat. mfG Diddy D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercharge (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 December 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, who is probably the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:John Blum NYC 2012.jpg

Dear Andrea Marañón,

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#: 2015120510013757].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarapromo (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The permission received at OTRS is both insufficient and not directly from the copyright holder. Please follow the instructions in the e-mail from OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Erich-Meder jung.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang Bacher (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment The file has a {{No license since}} tag on it, but has not been deleted, so this is the wrong place to discuss it. However, in the file description you claim to be the heir of the estate of the subject. That does not give you the right to freely license the image. The copyright is held by the photographer's heirs. Unless the photographer, Georg Reichert, died before 1945, in order to keep it on Commons, we will need a license from Reichert's heirs.

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Yann (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:THIS_WEEK_southwales1998.jpg

I, Terry Jackson, hereby affirm that I am User:Caerhys. I lived in the property Cae Rhys where the This Week newspaper was conceived in 1988. Copies of the newspaper sit in the National Library of Wales archive as evidence of its 17-year existence (1988-2004). Contributions to the newspaper were made on the understanding that content was copyright-free or 'open source', though this wasn't a phrase in currency at the time. It would have been declared CC BY-SA had Creative Commons licensing been invented or better understood when the newspaper was publlshed. The concept of copyright ownership is therefore inapplicable to File:THIS_WEEK_southwales1998.jpg, which to all intents and purposes is open data available to anybody now under CC BY-SA.

Under these circumstances I'd like to request that the file be undeleted so the This Week story can be told and retold as a notable event in the history of newspaper publishing and its uniqueness to Wales better understood.

Terry Jackson 13th December 2015 --Caerhys (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Per OTRS#2015120110021782 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2015103010012508

The above files are all covered by Ticket:2015103010012508, where the sole heir to the (deceased) original artist, who also took the photos of the works, releases them under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. Storkk (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please close OTRS ticket. Alan (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Paarse Vrijdag Baarns Lyceum 2013 Neeltje Knaap.jpg

Please undelete File:Paarse Vrijdag Baarns Lyceum 2013 Neeltje Knaap.jpg as per OTRS ticket:2015121510009734, where the identity of the uploader is confirmed. Discussion can be found on File talk:Paarse Vrijdag Baarns Lyceum 2013 Neeltje Knaap.jpg. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please close OTRS ticket Alan (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 18.43.51.png

I created the content whilst at school. As a volunteer, I still own the intellectual property to the content I created, as I didn't explicitly resign these rights during or after my tenure, and I have the right to make this file public. As the content is my own work, I don't believe it can be copyright infringing. Jamiehm (talk)

 Oppose Your only deleted upload is File:Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 18.43.51.png, "Front cover of the Summer 2015 version of the Bedford Modern School's Eagle Magazine." I assume that you both took the photograph and created the magazine cover. Unfortunately, policy requires that in these circumstances, the school must send a free license to OTRS, or, if the school is unwilling to do that, it must at least send an e-mail saying that you are the sole creator of the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll contact them and see what they have to say. Sorry I screwed up the form, I submitted it via mobile and it didn't seem to carry the correct file name forward. Jamiehm (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Villanova Club Crest.jpeg

I am on the team, its our team crest and it is being used in a respectful, legitimate fashion.

--Aaron.ewine (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we do not know who Aaron.ewine actually is, or if you are actually authorized to freely license this logo, policy requires that an authorized official of the team organization send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:GEFS MD-11 Landing in Mediterranean.jpg

This file is under the public domain and is ineligible for copyright.

--Kwu5765 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image has a very clear watermark "Image (c) 2012 GeoEye". It is certainly eligible for copyright. What is it that makes you think it is somehow in the public domain? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Mallzee Logo.jpg

Hi, this file was deleted on copyright grounds. Here it is on the company website http://mallzee.com/#/ I argued that it should not be deleted, and provided examples of previous similar cases were the files were kept.

Re LOGO. I would argue that it's not copyrightable.

Normally do we not take into account previous decisions in similar cases? I think we should, as these provide further input of our community's take these kind of rule interpretations. And if we feel that our previous opinions do not apply in this case, why? Rybkovich (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I see no previous decisions nor previous discussions about the images you cite, as they have not been yet nominated for deletion. The fact that a user put on its the {{PD-textlogo}} template is not a consensus nor a discussion. Me, I see a letter, yes, but also an attempt of design/drawing. Personaly I see a people behind an open book : this is a designed idea : a design. It is complex enough to be an artwork IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Well I see no discussion as indicating that editors did not find issues with those files. Rybkovich (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose the logo seems to be from the UK. (correct me if I am wrong) And it is out of scope unless there is an corresponding article about the company. Natuur12 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallzee - Cipra is based in Lichtenstein. Is UK law significantly stricter then other EU countries, so much so that we can think of them as two different standards, and hence we should not take Cipra logo into consideration? Also in making the final decision we should give weight to the facts that there is a wiki article on Mallzee and that an inclusion of the logo would be a valuable addition for the purpose of the article - relevant and important information for the reader. Finally it is very very unlikely that Mallzee would raise any complaints. Rybkovich (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, this logo can be uploaded at the English Wikipedia. (I googled them and Wikipedia didn't show up at the first page of the search results, strange). The en-wiki article states that their office is located in Edinburgh. Where did you find that they are located in Lichtenstein? Lichtenstein isn't a part of the European Union like the UK (but they are a member of the EEA) so I do not know how similar their copyright law is. Copyright law in the European Union is harmonised to a certain level but this doesn't apply to countries who are not a member of the European Union. Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Lichtenstein is were Cipra is based. I brought that up regarding whether or not we should consider our approval of uploading the Cipra logo in this case. Re EU i mistook Lichtenstein being a member of EEA to being a member of EU. Why would one consider the logo to be "out of scope" if there is an article regarding the company on Wikipedia? (asking not arguing). Rybkovich (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I overlooked the article so since it it there I would agree that it is in scope. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The UK historically has much stricter standards, yes. There was even a court case where simple text with an extra notch taken out of one letter was given copyright coverage... historically, their courts have taken "original" to mean "originating with the author", and not implying any amount of creativity at all. If that was the first time that exact shape appeared anywhere, it would be "original" per UK law. (Also how the en:Australian Aboriginal Flag was declared copyrighted in Australia.) That may be changing now that the EU standards are being imposed via the EU directives, but this one might still qualify -- the handbag graphic might be enough in the US, even given the shape of the M. It's close. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I see. Would be very interesting to read the opinions. I have had trouble finding published UK cases where the thinking is explained in detail (i'm in the US). Rybkovich (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The case on the Edge logo is here, paragraph 10. I should have said that they added a notch to the two "E"s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm the closing Admin on the DR. I deleted the logo principally on SPAM grounds. Note that WP:EN article was created by a group of probable sockpuppets. I suspect that the article violates the WP:EN conflict of interest policy.

If this had been a US company, then I would have pointed out that fonts, even very unusual fonts such as this, cannot have a copyright, so the logo would be OK. The UK, however is completely the opposite. Not only can fonts have copyright, but publishers of works have a special 25 year copyright in the typography, so instead of {{PD-text-logo}}, we might have {{(c)-text-logo}} in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Someone pointed out that the logo might be from Liechtenstein instead of the UK. We do not have any information about the threshold of originality of Liechtenstein, so it is not possible for us to determine if the logo is free in the source country or not. If Liechtenstein is the source country, then the uploader needs to show that the logo is below the threshold of originality of Liechtenstein. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No, Rybkovich was simply comparing this logo to one from Cipra, which is based in Liechtenstein. This company is definitely based in Scotland.

@Jameslwoodward Re SPAM grounds for your deletion. The issue been previously raised and resolved on Dec. 6 Rybkovich (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is still open. A company with 23 employees is not notable as we define it here and probably will eventually be removed from WP:EN as well. If you disagree, then I suggest you start writing, because I can name hundreds of startups that are larger and have more press mentions and are almost all not on WP:EN or here. The fact that a very small company is good -- of necessity -- at PR does not make it notable.
The images in the DR were uploaded by one of a group of nine sockpuppets who uploaded a number of images to Commons. All but one of the images have been deleted or have DRs on them for various reasons. The one exception was a user who claimed "own work" in a webcam image taken from the web. Since a webcam image has no copyright, it was not deleted. So, at best this puppet master is very inexperienced; at worst, this is all a game. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Amit niranjan sinhaFile:Example.jpg

Amit Niranjan Sinha is economist and smart guide for Civil Services and UGC net. He write many famous book like Bharat ka arthik awam samajik vikas,UGC net Economics(both medium),Bihar and Jhrkhand samanya gyan,Sikkim ,Asom and seven sister general knowledge,Banking jagrukta and more....Published by many Famous publication like Arihant, Gk ,career launcher,Diamond etc). — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 106.215.129.79 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment There has never been a file with that name on Commons. Since an IP address user cannot be the uploader, I have no way of finding what file you actually would like undeleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Eso1101b.jpg

Although I myself still have money to file copyright infringement because people were writing clearly stating the name of the author alone page file , the file is not my own work and the connection is broken çıkmaka . However investigate and click the first option , the ESO author i file (Public Domain , Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license ) below . This would be a very good reason to be reinstalled --İnternion (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I'm not sure I understand -- I think the EXIF had a CC license, but there's no indication of any free license on the source Web Site. After a little searching, I found the image at http://www.astronomidiyari.com/?p=3267, but there's no free license there..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:01, 16 December 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.

File:JuliusDobos2010.jpg

This request is to undelete the referenced image. Responding to my email of September 6, 2015 to The Creative Shop, inc., Ms. Sylvia Nori kindly pointed me to this page, listing image files available for media- and public use, including the edited version of the photo in question. The page is clearly maintained by The Creative Shop, and can be used to source the image file in question. On the same page, you will find information describing the CC BY-SA 4.0 license of shared images. A simple google search reveals that the exact same images have been used by printed press and online media.

The file was deleted as an error, given a complex history of its copyright ownership. You can read more about it on this talk page.

--Tatsiana n (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support I'm convinced by the links provided, when click on image license info.txt you can read "The images within this folder fall under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license." and the nominated image is indeed in the folder. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If the file is undelete, it can be useful to put this link in the file page to avoid potential future misunderstanding. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If this file is the one in that directory, then yep,  Support. It looks like those files were put in that directory the day after deletion here, which does seem like they were trying to satisfy the licensing requirements (and that should be good). And yes, that licensing link would be necessary to add to the file page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Please fix description/permission and categories as required. Yann (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station

Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station was deleted with the following log

08:22, 3 November 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station (> Bangalore Cantonment, Roland zh (Diskussion) 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

Bangalore Civil and Military Station was the British controlled Bangalore under the Madras Presidency and existed till 1949. Bangalore Cantonment refers to the section of Bangalore, which was the erstwhile Bangalore Civil and Military Station. However, the term Bangalore Cantonment is still used, while the Bangalore Civil and Military Station was in use only till 1949. Hence request undeletion and restoring of files that existed under that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 01:54, 06 November 2015 (UTC)

@WestCoastMusketeer: Hi,
It would be useful to give a list of files you want to be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If all the files that existed within that category before deletion could be restored. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 01:54, 09 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 03:33, 09 November 2015 (UTC)

@WestCoastMusketeer: Deleted files in commons can be identified by their filenames, not by a category they belonged to. Please, give us a list of files to proceed. And please, sign your messages. Ankry (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I had requested a category which was deleted to be restored Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station, files were not affected

The following files to be included under this category

Regards "WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)"

@WestCoastMusketeer: No need to restore it, IMO. Just recreate the catogory, when not empty. Ankry (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Looks like no action needed here :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Brasao20151119 143100.jpg

Símbolos oficiais são de domínio público no Brasil. Arquivo cedido pela Prefeitura municipal de Iraquara --MidiaBahia (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment That is not quite correct, see {{PD-BrazilGov}}. It must be shown that the work was published before 1983. That is probably true in each of these cases, but unless it can be proven, they cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[moved the following from my talk page -- JLW]
O arquivo removido faz parte do acervo da prefeitura municipal de Iraquara, e foi publicado em 1969 (em papel) e versão digital em 1999 pelo portal da Prefeitura do município: www.iraquara.ba.gov.br
Peso que restaure o arquivo para que possamos atribuir a licença correta a ele. --138.121.2.26 17:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
[ends]
How do you know it was published on paper in 1969 -- do you have a copy of the document? Is it on the Web? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: no reply to jim's comment. Not done for now. Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kuiseb pass.jpg

All these pictures has been made by myself! I published them already at Treckearth.com in 2007. If that is a licencing violation ( my own pics?) - delete it, so what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Beilhartz (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The first image appears at http://pt.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/Namibia/South/Khomas/Solitaire/photo640773.htm, credited to "Shepstone" with an explicit copyright notice. The others are similar. If you are the actual photographer, you can either (a) upload the images again with the same name at full camera resolution or (b) send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you go to the user page on trekearth, the real name is given as Hans Beilhartz. If that is indeed the same person as the uploader here, then no, there is no violation and they are fine. The problem though is people do take photographs off the internet all the time and upload them -- we delete hundreds or thousands a day. It's rare, but someone determined may even name an account here the same as a username on another site they are targeting. Since accounts here are essentially anonymous, we have no way to tell the difference sometimes -- it can be difficult. To deal with this, there is the COM:OTRS process, where authors can license previously published pictures individually, or just privately confirm they are the same person to validate all their uploads (if the email comes from an identifiable address). Alternatively, if there is a way you could alter the user information text on trekearth to indicate that you are the Wikipedia user of the same name (showing you have control of that original site), that would work too. Or, upload higher resolution versions (showing you have access to the originals not previously published). We are trying to avoid situations like Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#My_image_being_used_on_here, where someone illegally uploaded someone else's photo and claimed credit, and the (probable) original author found out and is understandably complaining. The unfortunate part is occasionally we step on some legitimate photos, where the author simply circulated them elsewhere first. If so, no there is no problem, but we just need some way to verify it ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per carl. Steinsplitter (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:Chaeng Watthana Government Complex

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chaeng Watthana Government Complex

The rationale for deletion was "We cannot assume that the user thought he was licensing the images CC-0." However the user has explicitly tagged the images with "cc0". See here here here here here. So why cannot we assume that he thought he was licensing them CC-0? This appears quite illogical to me. --RJFF (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose None of the images you cite above are marked CC-0. They are all marked with the [Public Domain Mark label] which is not a license, but a label that, according to Creative Commons, is intended for images that are very old. It can be changed at any time. While it is certainly possible that the user thought he was using CC-0, which is also allowed on Flickr, we cannot assume that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per COM:PCP Steinsplitter (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by PhiJai

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, The files for which I am requesting undeletion have unduly been targeted by wikimedia. There is really no licence issue on these photo files. They have been uploaded by Alain Falgayrac Moallic himself, the adoptive son of Marc Moallic, the man whose biography those family photos were illustrating. Alain Falgayrac Moallic if the only legal successor and rights owner for Marc Moallic, and all the family photos as well as his drawings (Marc Moallic was an artist and cartoonist). Alain Falgayrac Moallic himself filled the form about license authorisation when he uploaded the photos, and he is the owner of the rights on those documents. Sorry to bother you with that. Best regards, PhiJai PhiJai (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Scoopfinder. Steinsplitter (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Geraldino - Solo - mit Gitarre

I made the picture

Nuernberg, 19.12.2015 --VeraMpunkt (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@VeraMpunkt: Please send an e-mail to the OTRS to confirm you are the author and want to license your work under a free license. Make sure you follow the instructions regarding in sending an e-mail to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Красный Партизан

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: In OTRS received permission from the copyright heir holders: ticket:2015121110008037 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please feel free to add the ticket number to the file pages. De728631 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Selfies from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saidsp ayoub

(I was argueing for these in the DR but when I wanted to submit my edit, it had been meanwhile closed.)

We need images like this, of women in modern Muslim female headgear in normal everyday situations. Most of what we have are village grannies, abuse victims, or protesters. The deletion nomination was the usual shortsighted, toxic anathema against “personal images”, which is pretty much meaningless: Yes, these personal images are in scope and should be undeleted. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There may be other concerns about these photos, enough to keep them deleted, such as, maybe, unclear copyright status (is the uploader the model or the photographer, or neither?; are all these five images sefies?), but those were not addressed in the nomination, nor in the closing statement. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
File:Adrae's photo.jpg is of very poor quality. File:Sista.jpg is better, but still small without EXIF data. What about the subject consent? The rest is useless selfies. Yann (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These images are not realistically useful for an educational purpose IMO. Unused personal images are mostly out of scope regardless of religion or origin. If no, so all personal images are in scope for there is no reason to favor one religion or lack thereof. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Tangent: Curiously enough, the only two remaming uploads by Saidsp ayoub (talk · contribs) are apparently those least appropriate for Commons:
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I deleted these two: certainly not own works, no permission. Yann (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Mohun Bagan Logo.png

I really don't know why Yann got this deleted as it was created by me only so, how can it be a copyrighted work. Actually it's a logo of a football club so it's got to be a lookalike of the 'original' logo. You can't have the picture of a dragon where a picture of dinosaur is required. So, think about, I think it should be restored. Regards, Realmmb (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you did not create the original logo, so no, it was not created by you alone. Please see Commons:Derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
But, @LX: I already said that a logo can't be completely different. By-the-way can I upload that copyrighted image any way. I tried to read a helping article on uploading copyrighted images but the language wasn't lucid, so can someone help. Realmmb (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you cannot upload derivatives of non-free copyrighted logos without the consent of the logo's copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Ultrasound Spirometer.jpg

The deletion was wrong since it was assumed that I am not the copyright holder. I am the creator and the copyright holder. (Stan3000 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC))

If it was previously published on the web, we need COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holders, presumably the Ganshorn company. The same probably goes for File:Body Box.jpg, as that looks to be a crop from an image here (image URL [5]). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Non-transferred DC plasma torch.png

According to Google there are five hits: first with credit to en.wiki, second is PDF from 2014 with credit to en.wiki also (last page of PDF), third and fourth are articles from 2014 (picture was uploaded on en.wiki in 2012), and fifth also with credit to en.wiki. There's no talk page with discussion before deletion with any evidence.--Ma▀▄Ga 12:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:88.jpg

Я залил фото людей которые умерли, и память о которых я хочу схранить. Больше ничего. Пожалуйста проявите больше здравого смысла. а не рамки своих ограничений. Надеюсь на взаимопонимание. Гончаренко Александр Владимирович. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гончаренко Олександр (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No file by that name. Could you be more precise? Yann (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:N91763xz20081.jpg

The subjected material is not proven to be of copyrighted material, it is therefore unwarranted that such action be taken for this file. The administrator acted upon unreasonable grounds by deleting it. To delete a file it needs to be proven that it is a violation of copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Com539Ni371 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Before you go all Perry Mason on us, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with basic principles of copyright and our project's policies. Since the ratification of the Berne Convention, essentially all recently created content is automatically protected by copyright. Commons only hosts content that is verifiably free, and it is up to the uploader to show that the content is free – not the other way around. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per LX. Yann (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Fixed film poster.jpg

Full permission has been granted for use by the creator and there is no copyright infringement whatsoever. SephHaroldson (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@SephHaroldson: Where is the permission? If the permission is sent by e-mail, please forward the e-mail to the OTRS. Regards, ★ Poké95 02:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Permission has been sent by email on several occasions in the past week. Users need to refrain from deleting images 24 hours after upload if the OTRS cannot process information within this time.SephHaroldson (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@SephHaroldson: The only thing we can do is to wait for the OTRS to process the e-mail. You may ask for its status at the OTRS's Noticeboard. ★ Poké95 02:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: 2015122110002498 Yann (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:HEBERTO CASTILLO JUAREZ - COYOACAN 24-03-09.jpg

Antonio Heberto Castillo Juárez (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

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

File:Why I Hate the Left Teaser Poster.jpg

Full permission has been granted for use by the creator and there is no copyright infringement whatsoever. SephHaroldson (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@SephHaroldson: Where is the permission? If the permission is sent by e-mail, please forward the e-mail to the OTRS. Regards, ★ Poké95 02:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Permission has been sent by email on several occasions in the past week. Users need to refrain from deleting images 24 hours after upload if the OTRS cannot process information within this time.SephHaroldson (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@SephHaroldson: The only thing we can do is to wait for the OTRS to process the e-mail. You may ask for its status at the OTRS's Noticeboard. ★ Poké95 02:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored with {{OTRS pending}}. De728631 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:HK3DM Welcome.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I represent the owner of this museum to provide this photo, which has already shown in our website: http://www.hk3dm.com.hk/museum-experience/hong-kong-theme ND-128 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    • Then please see COM:OTRS for the process we need for this sort of thing. (Otherwise, anyone could upload previously published stuff & say they were licensing it, since it's trivial to copy it.) When you send the email described there, use your account that is associated with the institution. - Jmabel ! talk 07:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran with Ashraf Ghorbani&Mohammad ali khalili Human rights lawyer from iran.jpg

It is Our Self Informations and PHOTOS , Why you Think it is Copy write??? Khalili&ghorbani

mo.a.khalili@gmail.com --Makh2009 (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • @Thuresson: you were the deleting admin, and the URL where you said you think this is copied from is cut off in the log. Could you please provide that URL here? - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Makh2009: there are two ways to clarify the situation; if the other website where this was posted is under your control, you can indicate the license there; otherwise, COM:OTRS is really the way to make it clear that you are now releasing rights on something first published elsewhere without such release. - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Fichier:CITRANGE-designed-by-Quentin-de-Coster.jpg

Dear Lomita,

You decided to delete the image of Citrange (and several others pics I uploaded) without relevant reason. You have to know that I am the owner of this photo and and I am totally allowed to use it where I want. So please cancel your action. If you need more detail about the copyright of this picture, feel free to contact me.

Best Regards,

Quentindecoster (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 19.12.2015 Quentin de Coster

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:LeonardoVillalobos MissVzla2013.jpg

La imagen puede ser usada por cualquiera en cualquier lugar, además de tener proporcionado un enlace a la página del archivo en Commons donde aparece la información de la fuente y autor de donde proviene la foto (este articulo web: http://www.noticias24.com/fotos/noticia/12544/las-mejores-imagenes-de-la-alfombra-roja-del-miss-venezuela-2013/) (~~Albert Cardozo~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Cardozo (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 December 2015‎ (UTC)

The file has not been deleted, so there is nothing to undelete. That said, it probably will be deleted, unless you provide some actual evidence to support your claim that the copyright holder of this photograph has agreed to publish it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. Your claim is explicitly contradicted by the "Todos los derechos reservados" copyright notice at the source. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg Sir, Can i know the reason for deletion. links of leading newspapers also given there. if you can suggest me it will good. thanks

Sir, Can i know the reason for deletion of page Riaz M T. links of leading newspapers also given there. if you can suggest me it will good. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athiraapple (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 December 2015‎ (UTC)

  • I can't tell from this what was deleted. But usually if something appeared in the newspaper, then it is (1) under copyright and (2) not free-licensed, so usually having been in a newspaper in anything like living memory is a pretty good indication that the image is not suitable for Commons. See COM:SCOPE. - Jmabel ! talk 07:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Estructura-tridilosa-para-grandes-claros-Heberto-Castillo-Juárez.pdf

File:Estructura-tridilosa-para-grandes-claros-Heberto-Castillo-Juárez.pdf Antonio Heberto Castillo Juárez (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The file has not been deleted, so there is nothing to undelete. That said, it probably will be deleted, unless you provide some actual evidence to support your claim that the copyright holder(s) has agreed to publish it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. In this case, the copyright holder is likely to be one or more of the following: the publishing company of the depicted book, the photographer(s) of the photographs appearing on the cover, whoever created the other graphics on the book cover, whoever designed the book cover as a whole, and/or the person who created the 3D rendition of the book. Also, for any future undeletion requests, please note that you must provide a reason for the request. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:DISCO VIVENCIAS IMER HEBERTO CASTILLO NOVIEMBRE 2011.jpg

File:DISCO VIVENCIAS IMER HEBERTO CASTILLO NOVIEMBRE 2011.jpg Antonio Heberto Castillo Juárez (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As with your previous request, the file has not been deleted, so there is nothing to undelete. That said, it probably will be deleted, because despite your claims on the file description page, you clearly did not create this photo; it was created by Hector Rivera. If you have any reason as to why the file should not be deleted, you need to state your case at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Antonio Heberto Castillo Juárez, instead of blanking out the notices pointing to that discussion. And once again, please note that when making an undeletion request, you must provide a reason for the request. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Robert De Niro - 1976.jpg

The image was deleted based on a conclusion which seems contrary to law. The rationale given in part: "Of those [AP news photos] that were published, most would have been in newspapers or magazines with a single copyright notice covering the whole issue."

However, a newspaper or other publication only owns a copyright to photos which were taken as a work for hire. AP and other news services which took the photos for the media could have been the only legitimate owners of a copyright, assuming they distributed them with a proper notice. In addition, they would have eventually had to be officially registered and later renewed. Therefore the rationale for deleting this image also implies that every publication which published the AP photo owned a copyright to it, which could never be possible.

Another rationale for deleting the image is that since "AP did not publish works itself, but only provided them to others," they could not own a copyright in any case. However, per the definition of publication under copyright law, publication occurs upon "distribution" or "offering to distribute" to the media.

Some feedback on this would be helpful, especially since it could affect the PD status of countless other news bureau photos from UPI, Photofest, Associated Press (AP), and others. --Light show (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

For works first published 1964 or later, copyright registration and renewal was not required (the only thing the Library of Congress looked at). For a 1976 photo, that would be irrelevant. If a work appears in a collective work (such as a magazine or newspaper), a single copyright notice on the magazine or newspaper would be enough to cover all works inside (except for specifically advertisements, which needed their own notice). A copyright notice did need to be on *all* copies actually distributed (unless it was a relative few that were missing it), so by itself a magazine notice wouldn't necessarily mean that copyright still exists (or even existed at the time it was published). Wire photos however by definition are going to be difficult to claim no-notice -- the physical copy would have been printed at the newspaper and never distributed itself. Also, lack of notice by third parties may not have lost the copyright, so even if copies left the newspapers before 1989 (which we'd also need to show), it's not clear a judge would rule that copyright was lost. We really need evidence that the original copyright holder distributed a copy without notice. (That definition of publication is only in effect from 1978 and on; before "general publication" was construed by the courts as distribution of copies to either an unlimited set of people, or for an unlimited purpose, or if the right of further distribution was not limited.) Is there evidence that copy in particular changed hands, and when? A wire photo (if that is what it is) almost never would have such evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Carl has covered most of the bases here, but a couple of specific points:
  • "A newspaper ... only owns a copyright to photos which were taken as a work for hire". True, but not sufficient. A newspaper licenses photos from the wire services and carried a copyright notice covering them under the old law. They generally also have a notice under the new law, but is not quite as essential.
  • Note that Light show is mixing quotes and facts from two different copyright laws. Under the pre-1977 law, copyright was not established until publication and distribution by a wire service to publishers was not itself publication. There is a lot of case law around this.
  • The USCO FAQ quoted above is based on the current law, not the pre-1977 law which would have been applicable if this image appeared in 1976.
  • Nowhere has Light show shown that this photo was published without notice before March 1, 1989. Given the fact that wire services watch the copyright status of their images carefully, we generally assume that notice was properly applied.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, and somewhat unusual for news photos, the back of this one indicates it was a publicity photo printed early in 1976, in the Amusement section, page 4, at 2" x 2 1/2", and was to include trivia about the forthcoming movie, which was released later that year. And it's worth noting that per the experts, "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted." --Light show (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Getty Images has a very similar photo. Their copy is credited to "Michael Ochs Archives / Handout". The fact that a copy ended up in the hands of the Michael Ochs Archives is not dispositive, however, they do describe the photo as "Robert De Niro performs a scene in The Last Tycoon directed by Elia Kazan in 1976 in Hollywood, California.". If these are actually frames from the movie, they're still protected by copyright (The Last Tycoon has notice and was registered #LP47578). —RP88 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: com:PCP Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Hisham al-Huwaish.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi. File:Hisham_al-Huwaish.jpg was deleted with reason as "No license since 5 December 2015". The license of the image was confirmed by a reviewer (User:Ibrahim.ID) as PUBLIC domain. If an item becomes public, how can it ever stop being so? It has already been common and available for anyone in the world to use! It is also still shown as a public domain image in Flickr. Regards. beTTaHarmony (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Public" is not the same thing as "public domain" -- by default, copyright on modern photographs typically last the photographer's entire lifetime plus several more decades. If a Flickr user copied it from somewhere else, the license there would not necessarily mean anything. However... that certainly does look like the photographer's account. Most of the photos there are all rights reserved, but that one does have the public domain mark. That does seem as though it is PD-author (if that is the correct source image). I can't see the history on the file to see if the license was vandalized, or something like that, which got it deleted. But if that is the source, it seems legit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Carl. If an item is shown with the public domain mark, there is no reason to assume otherwise, unless someone steps forward and claims copy right. Please undelete it. --beTTaHarmony (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there are a huge number of files on Flickr marked "public domain" which aren't (nor even close). But, that does appear to be the photographer's genuine Flickr account, which makes that one different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
So, is this request going to be reviewed and answered decisively? How long should I wait before trying something else? --beTTaHarmony (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The official [Commons:Flickr files/Guide] states "Public Domain Mark ( it is accepted in wikipedia or Commons too)". --beTTaHarmony (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you need to ask the photographer to license their work under CC0. Public Domain Mark 1.0 is not a license, it is only used to mark images that are already know to be out of copyright. Commons experiences this PDM problem always. CC0 is a license and waiver that can let the author/copyright holder of the image release their work to the public domain. PDM doesn't let the author release their work to the public domain, as PDM has no effect on copyright. In a nutshell, CC0 is a legal tool, while PDM is not. See [6] and [7] to see their differences. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
PDM declared by the author is basically {{PD-author}}. I think it would have the effect of saying "I place this in the public domain" since it comes from the author. CC0 would be nicer of course since it's a more explicit statement, but PDM in that situation is still a legal tool. It's really no different than say {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} when used by an institution on modern photos (which does happen). We are wary of the PDM tag when used on other people's photos on Flickr (or anywhere else), but if it comes from the author, I don't think it's a significant difference (at least enough to cause deletion). The only reason would be if you doubt that is the real author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong. PD-author is not PDM, and PDM is not a legal tool. As I said above, PDM is just used to mark images that are already known to be out of copyright. I am not in doubt (as I didn't saw yet the image stated above), I am saying the fact. PDM is not and will never be a legal tool. Hence the name mark in the PDM. If you will ask the admins, you will see that their answers are the same as my answer. So contacting the photographer to license their work under CC0 is still needed. I recommend to go to the two links above to see the differences between CC0 and PDM 1.0. Regards, ★ Poké95 01:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, PDM is used for old images, while CC0 is used for new and own works. ★ Poké95 01:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Except that the author used PDM on his own, new work. That is not meaningless, even if CC0 is more intended for that situation. If the photographer wanted to make it public domain, and didn't understand what "CC0" meant, then that is probably the predictable result. Yes, it's equivalent to PD-author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
But still, legal rules still apply. PDM has no effect in copyright. Maybe we can assume that the photographer used PDM to release his/her work to the public domain, but we still need to follow the legal rules. As I said above, PDM is not and will never be a legal tool. The only way to solve this problem is to contact the photographer to license their work under CC0 (or CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, as PDM does not have any effect in copyright, so if the copyright status is unchanged, the photographer can still license it under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). I know what you want to say, but we cannot override the legal rules about copyright. I recommend you to raise this issue (again???) at COM:VPC. And again, PD-author is not PDM. This issue has been discussed many times, and they decided that PD-author is not PDM. Regards, ★ Poké95 03:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The author declared it public domain. That is PD-author. What form does PD-author take to you? Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Then the author must declare it using CC0. I know what you mean, but the author used PDM, and that is the problem. There is only one solution: contact the author to license their work under CC0. This is not only to confirm that the author is really declaring in the public domain, but also to protect the rights of the copyright holder. PDM means that you are sure that the image is old enough to be out of copyright. But the author thought that PDM is a tool to release work to the public domain. So using PDM will not and will never change the copyright of an image. It is in the author's choice whether he/she will license their work under CC0, or remain it like that. If he/she remain the image under PDM, it is still "All Rights Reserved". Do I need to explain again what PDM means and what is CC0? Regards, ★ Poké95 09:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It should change it as much as stating "I place this file in the public domain" does. For better or worse. It's not as neat and tidy as CC0, but it's not meaningless either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please, admins, I'm still waiting here......... --beTTaHarmony (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The author's intent is clear, and as an admin, and would have no problem with undeletion. Still, User:Pokéfan95 is probably technically correct: the author didn't do this right. @1beTTaHarmony: is there any reason not to ask the author to clarify as User:Pokéfan95 requests? - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for being there. I contacted him days ago, but he has not responded. --beTTaHarmony (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: @Pokéfan95: The author has just changed the license to CC0. Regards. --beTTaHarmony (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@1beTTaHarmony: Great! Now let's wait for the file to be restored/undeleted. Thanks, ★ Poké95 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


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

No subject

This photo was taken on Saturday July 25 2015 by me and I uploaded this onto my Flickr account. Yesterday I uploaded this onto Wikimedia and I declared that the image was not mine as it was uploaded onto Flickr. If you closely look at the username who posted the photo on flickr it is exactly the same as this account on Wikipedia. The image was taken at Crossharbour Asda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaseyap (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 December 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: ARR on Flickr. Yann (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Chianciano museum corner daylight.png

I request undeletion because I am the copyright holder as I took the photo this summer in september when I was on holiday in Tuscany and went to the museum because of the Biennale event. And seeing as I had edited stuff on the wikipedia page I also went to see if I could take a better photo of the museum from the outside. Therefore I ask you please to undelete it. Athenaathena07 (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC) 23/12/2015

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons. I'm guessing this refers to File:Chianciano Art Museum daytime corner view.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This image has been published at the museum's website so the question arises how it got there. And you can see from the file's properties that it was last modified in 2014 so it's rather unlikely that you took this in September 2015. De728631 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Tadeusz Adam Łoboda.jpg

Osoba na zdjęciu jest ze mną spokrewniona, a autor zdjęcia wyraził zgodę na jego publikację. Zdjęcie pochodzi z jego prywatnego archiwum.

Person on this photo is related to me, also author of this picture gave me his permission for using it. Picture come from his private archiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izabela i Dorota Łoboda (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 December 2015‎ (UTC)

This is obviously about File:Tadeusz Adam Łoboda.JPG. We would need a confirmation from the photographer Mr. Wlizło that he agrees to publish this image under a free licence that allows for making derivatives of the image and to use it for commercial purposes. A suitable licence would be Creative Commons 4.0 International (English, Polish) or something similar. Please ask the photographer to write an email of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Once this has been done we can restore the image. De728631 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:PS 4021 Truppe.jpg

  • I never understood how a photograph, that obviously must have been taken before the invention of a digital camera, can be deleted using "EXIF-Data" as a reason. (In the german Wikipedia, 1994 is mentioned as the year, in which consumers would obtain the possibility at least, to realize such fotos "1994 wird auch als das „offizielle“ Startjahr der Digitalen Fotografie in Deutschland angesehen,.... " - but only for people willing to invest a fortune in a camera) My picture cannot have been the first and only photo on Wikipedia of an older analogue picture? To me it doesn't make sense to question the origin just because of this whereas in the case of all digital pictures nobody seems to bother. Even if digitals are far easier to copy... For me it's just additional effort.
  • I have always been the (only) owner of the original film as demonstrated with the attachment at the OTRS-email #Ticket:2015122410009726. This original film was in my own camera and I stood myself behind the camera when this aircraft took off. Please ask for more pictures of the same takeoff-run, if you are not convinced. I can also confirm that the image had never been published.

You will be happy to hear that I will upload a scan of better quality afterwards as a new Version. Cheers and a merry Xmas--Anidaat (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Support - File was deleted based on vague suspicions disseminated by a user with which the uploader has a conflict going on, and a logical conclusion by the closing admin which also has a very logical explanation: It is much easier, and much less damaging to the medium, to photograph analogical pictures using digital devices than to scan them in the old way. I myself do that countless times. As Jim stated here, the EXIF information is irrelevant, the image predates EXIF. It should never have been used as an argument for deletion. The suspicions have not been confirmed in any way but, quite the opposite, the historial of the user and other situations support his claim about the ownership of the original copyright. Support undeletion.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Wibberley_in_wetsuit.jpg

Ticket:2015120910025399 covers this file. Author should be Kevin Wibberley, and license should be {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{GFDL|migration=redundant}}. Thanks. Storkk (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Swedish Christmas card.jpg

Original artwork by me from 2008. Deleted by De728631 (talk · contribs) of unknown reason. He's stating its copyrighted even though i have waived all copyright. Anyway, no big deal for me. Undelete it if you want the image, otherwise dont. Have a nice day. AlphaZeta (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@AlphaZeta: From the information you provided it was not clear that you are the original artist, and especially with works that have most likely been published before we need to be on the safe side. At Commons (and Wikipedia) "own work" first of all refers to a photograph and what is depicted therein may have a different copyright status. But in this case that's no problem. Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as outlined here. Then we can restore the image and let our volunteer email team evaluate the mail. De728631 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
At upload I checked the box saying its my own work, and I then stated I was the copyright holder. Never been any problems before, you can see on my user page I have uploaded my artwork before. But I can see your side of it. Annoying but am not really too bothered about it and its not important enough to start a big OTSR process, it can remain deleted. Case closed. AlphaZeta (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The claim was that the card included works from others -- even if you added your own copyrightable material, if you used someone else's work as part of it, then it's a derivative work and that component would also need to be licensed freely. I can't see the image to really tell. On the other hand, if the upload is consistent with other works from the author which are assumed to be OK, and the work is not actually derivative of someone else's work, then we wouldn't necessarily need OTRS. That is for situations where works exist on the Internet, and we can't tell (given that user accounts are anonymous) if the uploader is really the author. But, if there is other evidence in the uploads or anywhere else which removes that doubt, then it should be OK. OTRS is one (common) way of removing such doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It's totally consistent with AlphaZeta's other work here. @De728631: was this just deleted on the basis that it was such good artwork you couldn't believe he was giving it away, or what? What non-free content are you saying it derives from? - Jmabel ! talk 07:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There was a name in the EXIF data that was different from the artist's signature in the Christmas Card. So this made me think it was just a derivative scan of someone else's work. However, feel free to restore the file if you think it's ok. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I've undeleted for the moment, if only to see the EXIF data. @AlphaZeta: can you explain the "M. Philip" on the card vs. the author "Michael Gustafsson" in the EXIF, so that De728631's question is addressed? I'm not yet closing this, but assuming there is a reasonable explanation for that discrepancy, this file should be kept. And, AlphaZeta, if the same difference will occur for many files, you might want to mention it on your user page so you have something to point at if this comes up again for a different image. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Philip is my middle name, which i've sometimes used as a signature. See bottom of my webpage. AlphaZeta (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
That was my guess. Thanks for clarifying. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mild afterglow.JPG

i do not understand why this was deleted. it was my own work, apparently copied to another website and then someone claimed a liscensing problem? it is my own photograph. should not have been deleted.--Paulisawoof (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

file should not have been deleted. it is my own work, apparently downloaded and reuploaded at another site. Should have looked at the upload dates before deleting my contribution. thank you.--Paulisawoof (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. If a work appears to be from elsewhere (i.e. it existed on the Internet before the upload here, in the uploaded resolution) we do generally require permission be sent via the COM:OTRS process. The supposed source is "br.freepik.com" website, which looks like it has arbitrary uploads of its own. That particular account there is for "stockvault", which is yet another sharing site for photographers (stockvault.net). It looks like the latter site uses the first one to direct links back to its own site. If you try to download the picture from the br.freepik.com site, it redirects to a http://stockvault.net/photo/136479/mild-afterglow URL. If you go to that URL, the photo cannot be found. However, I *do* see an Internet Archive capture of that page from October 18 2012 here, which does predate the upload here, and it is credited there to "Paul Isawoof", same as the username here. I can't tell if it was available at the same resolution, which is pretty large here. On the other hand, the user does have a number of uploads, including some with the same type camera as the image in question (if the Google cache is showing me the right one).  Support, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The file history say the file was uploaded as "own work", Túrelio added a link into "other version", Geagea added {{LicenseReview}}. I found the image in the category Category:License review needed, then following the link I nominated the image for deletion as there was written "3 anos atrás" and "Gratuito para uso não comercial". As there was a link here in the file description I assumed it was the source, and did no check with google searh image. I just do now the search and if the result by dates is reliable the image should stay deleted as it was there before to be here. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
I am presuming it was uploaded by the same person at stockvault, and then a year later, to here. The presence on freepik was simply part of stockvault's marketing I'm guessing, and not any action by the author -- it was copied from stockvault to freepik. "Own work" makes perfect sense in that case, and such things do happen. I'm basing my vote on the fact it seems to be the same camera the author used for several other (uncontested) images, uploaded as TIF so the uploader presumably had access to the RAW image. The only reason to delete is if you suspect the uploader is not in fact the author. The original stockvault upload had the same username as the uploader here. It was an understandable deletion given the original evidence -- the photo was indeed on the net prior to upload here -- but given a closer look I tend to believe the "own work" claim. The reason for the policy is that pre-existence on the net can remove the assumption of good faith on own work uploads, but you can also look at other factors like the user's other uploads to see if they do seem to be the same person. If so, then the license as given is still valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding TIF file, I absolutely do not say that this is the case here but it's possible to convert a .jpg file into a .TIF file in one or two click with almost of image editors, so TIF don't mean RAW. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure. Do you really believe that is what happened here though? Do you think those other TIF images (which do have RAW-like sizes) were also copied from elsewhere? That's the more relevant question. If not, and it's the same camera, then we think the uploader is the author and this image should be fine too. We can use common sense for these things ;-) It does sound like the user got very frustrated, yes, which is a shame, but it doesn't make sense to just delete one of his uploads -- if the others are fine, so should this one be. Hopefully the user can re-think those actions after a day or so, though they may still be kept of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • One thing is sure the question is the same for some other of his uploads, exemple File:Athens Wall.jpg 8 June 2013 = [9] 11 sept. 2010 --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the argument is "he seems to have RAW files", well, it's quite easy : if the uploader have a RAW file, he can send it to whomever he wants as evidence. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment A little detail: Precautionary principle is an official policy on Commons.  Oppose to undeletion. Alan (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. That applies if there is a significant doubt. I simply don't think this one is a significant doubt -- simply seems to me that an author uploaded images to a different site before they uploaded here. The question that matters is if the uploader is in fact the author... in many cases, finding examples elsewhere on the net does create significant doubt; I just don't think it does in this case. It's not an automatic rule that we delete such files, if there is other evidence (OTRS or other facts in the user's uploads) which show the author is the uploader (or at least enough to remove the significant doubt). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, I tend to agree with Carl --- this appears to be a simple case and I don't see that OTRS would prove anything -- we'd simply get an e-mail from the same person saying the same things. On the other hand, I note that the user has asked for deletion of all of his uploads and has vandalized at least one of them -- see File:Lake at dusk - 1.jpg. So, that's conundrum -- here the user wants undeletion, but elsewhere on Commons he wants deletion. I'm inclined to restore this and refuse deletion of all the others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the user got frustrated at being accused of copying his own files without permission, and made DRs of the rest of his stuff out of frustration. The above approach is probably good. If they come back after having time to think about it, and still wants their stuff deleted (no guarantee), we can deal with it then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Carl: Jim’s suggestion seems to be the best way to procede. These are good photos, well in scope, and there’s no reason to doubt their authorship, regardless of the uploader’s tantrum-like behaviour. And of course this should never had happened: Deletion of suspected copyvios has a human element in the loop to avoid this kind of blunders; if that human acts unthinkingly, the safety is off. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mild_afterglow.JPG (and possibly others)

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mild afterglow.JPG it is assumed that the authorship of that file as uploaded to Commons was faked and that its genuine author is Freepik.COM’s user "stockvault". A cursory clance to this user’s portfolio of supposedly self-authored photography and graphical artwork cries «license laundering» really, really loud.

Maybe this DR should be reevaluated, as also other DRs likewise based on the preposterous notion that Freepik.COM’s user "stockvault" is anything remotely legitimate. While at it, care should be taken to verify upload and creation dates of both versions of suspected files, whose accuracy has been challenged (even if at the wrong venue).

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I should have checked what’s already being discussed at COM:UDEL before opening a new thread. Oh well. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: There seems to be no reason to believe the copyright does not belong to Paul Isawoof, as claimed when the file was uploaded here. Per Carl Lindberg, mainly. Darwin Ahoy! 22:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Nokia Lumia 920 white.JPG

It's my own image. Why has anybody deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoloveiYegor (talk • contribs)

✓ Done: Restored with what seemed do be the only copyrightable item blurred. The others seem to be below ToO, per other files kept in Windows Phone Darwin Ahoy! 12:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Tunisia Unrest - VOA - Tunis 14 Jan 2011 (2).jpg

The file has been transfered from VOA including its original caption. The caption indicates that the photo is created by an VOA employee. Other files from that photos stream with the same caption have been transfered too, if I recall correctly I toke 3 of >10 photos from the photo stream. The three photos are created with an iphone. Files with no author or press agencies mentioned in the caption have not been transfered. I argued in the past that sometime - maybe in 2013 - VOA added an "AP" watermark to every photo on their site. That watermark is not necessarily reliable for older photos. Just try some URL manipulation for removing the watermark [10]. --Martin H. (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Martin H., original photograph didn't even had the watermark. Darwin Ahoy! 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Artwork by Phung Tien Son.jpg

I TOOK THE PHOTO MYSELF HOW COULD IT BE A VIOLATION Linhkhanhcam (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If you take a photograph of someone else's copyrighted work (in this case presumably by Phung Tien Son), then the photograph is a derivative work, and we would need a license from both the photographer and the author of the underlying work in order to be "free". 14:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Tseytlin1939.PNG

Requesting undeletion of File:Tseytlin1939.PNG. This is a family photo of my great-grandfather. The photo was taken by his wife, my great-grandmother, and passed down to her daughter, my grandmother, who gave the photo to me. The photo is in my possession and I am the heir. Sfed5 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Hi Sfed5, as the file was deleted for not having a source, and you now explained what it was, I’m restoring it on COM:AGF. However, in such cases, sending email to OTRS is the best practice in order to provide evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish a file under a free license. Such evidence should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or a language specific address). Darwin Ahoy! 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Perry.jpg

Permissions are given on this page: http://stuckism.com/GFDL/Guru.html The image "Perry" is at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 22:51, December 15, 2015‎ (UTC)

Seems like it has been deleted several times before, though maybe they were different images. But... we have File:Grayson Perry by Ella Guru.jpg. Was this just a duplicate? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carl, the version from 16:27, 2 April 2008 is indeed a duplicate of that file, but all the others are unrelated and clear copyvios. I'm closing this undeletion request, as there seems to be nothing more to do here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Darwin Ahoy! 19:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:VTech logo.jpg

Hi, I think this should be OK. Simple font. Yann (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to agree -- it would certainly be OK in the USA -- but my understanding is that any typography in the UK has a 25 year copyright? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Section 54 of the UK act says, I'm pretty sure, that using a font in its usual way is not an infringement of the typography copyright -- that mainly applies to illegally copying the font files themselves, or using the content to make another font file, and that sort of thing. I'd guess using a standard font in a logo doesn't cause it to be derivative either, and it would also not be "original", so should be below the TOO even in the UK. Specially modified fonts (the Edge case used a stretched font and modified the E letters) can be different I guess (or has in the past). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the 25-year term for typesetting a work of literature, as opposed to creating a font? Also, the European Union requires a 70 years p.m.a. copyright term for anything which meets the threshold of originality, and any shorter term is typically for a neighbouring right. Neighbouring rights are typically not based on originality but on other things. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
They do have a 25-year "typographical arrangement" copyright yes, which is unrelated to typeface design, but it does look like section 55 of the 1988 Act does have a 25-year term on a font as well. They would appear to not be protected as computer programs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
-Since the company is from hong kong and was founded in the 70s. Should we assume that UK copyright law applies? This is the argument from the original delete request. If so UK has very strict copyright law that minor derivation font may be copyrighted. As an example Carl Lindberg stated that the font in this logo was found to be copyrightable EDGE This logo looks pretty modern, would UK law still apply if it was created after HK became a part of China? Rybkovich (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't currently have a section at COM:TOO for Hong Kong. Presumably the relevant law in Hong Kong was either unique to Hong Kong or derived from the laws of China or the UK, but over time China has been harmonizing the laws of the Hong Kong with those of China. Given that the UK has a low threshold of originality and that China has an even lower threshold of originality ("As long as the work is independently produced by the author, originality will exist ... there is almost no threshold in the originality of a piece of work in China, even the minimum creativity is not necessary" per DeBund, a law firm in Shanghai), Hong Kong probably has a low threshold as well. —RP88 (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Hong Kong's law essentially a dupe of the British law as written when Hong Kong was handed over to China? In Chinese court cases, the outcome often seems to depend on the wishes of the government or of other influential people (who may or may not have paid bribes), so I'm not sure how much we should trust Chinese court rulings. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hong Kong's legal system is definitely based on English common law, although of course amended or added to by local Hong Kong legislation. The legal system of Hong Kong is guaranteed to be separate from that of China's until 2047, however there is nothing that prevents the Hong Kong legislature from adopting similar or even identical laws (either by reference or by incorporation) as laws in China. As China's influence has grown in Hong Kong, this is becoming more frequent, and I imagine this will continue. It is my understanding that current Intellectual Property law of Hong Kong largely follows the UK model. I don't know the status of the threshold of originality in Hong Kong, my general point was that to the extent that the Hong Kong threshold differs from the UK's, it is probably towards an even lower threshold, not a higher threshold, since China's threshold is lower than the UK's. This logo would likely be above the threshold in the UK, and thus likely above the threshold in Hong Kong. —RP88 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, On what do you base that this is above UK threshold? Yann (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim and Carl. Yann (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Bandeira de Iraquara Bahia Brasil.jpg

Peço que restaure o arquivo deletado pois foi dada a licença correta, sendo símbolos oficias brasileiros de domínio público no Brasil. (a maioria das páginas usam arquivos com essa licença) Além disso não tenho nenhum tipo de ligação com o usuário bloqueado Sigajefinho (talk · contribs) --OCivil (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also for File:Brasão de Iraquara Bahia Brasil.jpg (request removed from UR by mistake).-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: See Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Iraquara. No proof was presented that the deleted images were the work of the Brazilian Government (or the institutions covered by that license) previous to 1983. And, as explained in that DR, it is quite improbable that such proof would arrive. Darwin Ahoy! 12:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:BioMA logo 2013.PNG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have now created a page with the license for the logo, http://www.biomamodelling.org/logolicense/ The logo is not copyrighted, done in a research project, specific to the framework, already used in other pages: https://twitter.com/BioMAFramework http://components.biomamodelling.org/

The logo was in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioMA I would add the reference to the license page below the logo (or whatever else needed: sorry, I did not get fully the steps to be undertaken) if the file is undeleted and I am allowed to do so. thanks, Marcello Marcello donatelli (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please note though that it is still copyrighted but you have now granted a free licence for everyone to use the logo. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: By De728631. Darwin Ahoy! 12:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Tat_1977_Erstausgabe_Boulevardzeitung.png

Please undelete, rights holder has given permission (see Ticket#2015121610011194). --Peteremueller (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peteremueller: Which licence did Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund select for this image? We can restore the file peding a check of the OTRS ticket which usually takes a few weeks, but it would be useful to know the licence in advance because the PD-textlogo you used would only apply to the paper's logo. De728631 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks. MGB used a pre-formulated text saying "We agree to publish these works under the free licenses GFDL (all versions) and CC-BY-SA (all versions)". --Peteremueller (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I have now restored the file with the appropriate licenses. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Braidus-photo-promo-HD-(1).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Detengo i pieni diritti di amministratore sull'immagine El Braidero (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment - Hello, the file was deleted as copyvio because it has been previously published at http://www.freethetone.com/en/artists/andrea-braido.html , which has a notice of copyright stating: Copyright (C) Free The Tone,Ltd. All Rights Reserved. In such cases, sending email to OTRS is required in order to provide evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish a file under a free license. Such evidence should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or a language specific address). After this step is completed, the file may be restored.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Tom Wilkinson & Sissy Spacek.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was uploaded by me many years ago. I had constructive back-and-forth with commons administrator at the time proving both my identity as copyright holder and my right to offer it to wikipedia copyright free. This file has now been deleted twice within the last month. Both times by an unidentified delinker so I have no way of clearing up this random and unwarranted deletion of my media file. Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks CopyrightholderITBphoto (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. You uploaded this file at Commons on 16 December 2015 while another account named Fotofixer17 had previously uploaded File:Wilkinson_&_Spacek.jpg in 2012. Moreover Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tom & Sissy.jpg and this conversation should have told you that we do not accept derivative works like screenshots. Even if you took the photo yourself you would have to proof that you were the original photographer at the film set and did not make a copy off the movie screen. And even then it would most likely be the production company or the distributor that would hold the copyright for all parts of this film and not you. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Inside the chapel of Saint Paul.jpeg

--Bashar Khallouf (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC) I don't need this image

It is not deleted, though I think it should be -- I have created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inside the chapel of Saint Paul.jpeg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to undelete here (for now, apparently it's a copyvio). Darwin Ahoy! 19:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Walter_Marcolini.png

181.111.59.79 11:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops! It looks like you forgot to mention the reason you think the file should be undeleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose The image is a crop of a single person from a 1960 team photograph. The stated source is http://www.ecbloguer.com/capsulas/?p=45657 which has an explicit copyright notice. Although I don't read Spanish, Google translate did well enough with that page so I'm pretty sure it is an image from Colombia, where the rule is 80 years pma or 80 years from publication in the case of anonymous works. Either way, this will be under copyright for at least another 25 years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Darwin Ahoy! 23:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

File:General Hershy Bar on Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood CA 1979-81.jpg

File:General Hershy Bar on Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood CA 1979-81.jpg

AND

File:General Hershey Bar on Hollywood Boulevard in front of Grumman's Chinese Theater 1979-81.jpg

were both deleted

this was deleted. i am a new wikipedia poster/editor. i had two pics of general hershy bar aka general hersheybar who i knew from living in hollywood ca in 79-83. i took the pics, scanned them, and have posted them on my website or tumblr. within a day (i suppose it was a bot) these were flagged for deletion and deleted, before i could reply or defend them. i added some information to the general's page as well. the pics also resolve the naming issue with this guy. the page needs a move to 'general hershy bar' now. i was going to try to do this. this is based on the pics i posted to the commons.

this guy is a street artist who is dead. he's reasonably famous in his world/genre and has been in films. i thought since he largely donated his time to anti-war street theatre that i'd donate my image rights to put up an image of him for 'all time' in the wikipedia. so i am bummed to have this rejected.

there is no scam here, there is no agenda beyond helping in memorializing the general and learning wikipedia functions to be able to contribute more in future.

thanks.

please let me know how i can reinstate these pics... Diatom.phage (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
Both files are (c) Matt Sweeney, so we need a formal written permission from Matt Sweeney for undeleting them. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
See also [11] and my talk page. Yann (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • you got my permission now in email to the permission email on the wiki commons and i added the link to my website showing that diatom.phage is matt sweeney / mudstonephoto.

the http://mudstonephoto.tumblr.com/post/87239226627/3358-hollywood-1979-1983-matt-sweeney and http://mudstonephoto.tumblr.com/post/113907473606/general-hershey-bar-on-hollywood-boulevard-in

are the two images that were put on the commons and deleted subsequently. these links show that they are previously published by matt sweeney/mudstonephoto/diatom.phage and JMabel requested/suggested i put up a notice on the mudstonephoto.com site showing the name equivalency and I did that here... http://www.mudstonephoto.com/sharepics/wikimedia/WTF.user.diatom.phage.png

so that should be all the documentation to get undeleted? thanks much. sorry for newbieing out. Diatom.phage (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As the deleting admin I don't oppose undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-12&oldid=358738468"