Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-02

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.

Image:Elgaria kingii juvenile.jpg

Deleted based on a wrong text at Commons:Bad_sources#Morguefile.com. Since that, it was cleared out that images from Morguefile become free after modifying, and the mentioned text was corrected. Stas (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The morgueFile license page http://www.morguefile.com/license/morguefile and the license note on the image source page both say:

"You are free:
  • Remix - to adapt the work.
  • Commercial - to use this work for commercial purposes.
  • Without Attribution - to use without attributing the original author.
Under the following conditions:
  • Stand alone basis - You can not sell, license, sublicense, rent, transfer or distribute this image exactly as it is without alteration.
  • Ownership - You may not claim ownership of this image in its original state.

The next to the last provision is unacceptable at Commons. It prohibits, for example, printing the image as is on a tee shirt or a poster and selling the tee shirt or poster. Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody, without restriction except for optional attribution and Share Alike.

One of our colleagues commented at the DR that you are permitted to use the image for commercial purposes, but that there is no permission there for non-commercial use. I suspect that it could be successfully argued that permission for non-commercial use is implicit in the permission for commercial use, but I'm not certain of that.

Finally, there is the fact that the license is not irrevocable. Although the license agreement between the image creators and morgueFile is irrevocable, the web site is silent on the question of whether the license from morgueFile to users is revocable. That is also not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, "the next to the last provision" concerns unmodified images. This one is modified. Allowability of non-commercial use was confirmed to me by the administrator of this resource in e-mail. I think, anybody interested can check it himself. Stas (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
First, I'm not at all sure that cropping constitutes modification as intended by the somewhat vague license. Second, we still have the fact that morgueFile can revoke the license at any time. Finally, there is the question no one has asked -- is the animal alive, or is it stuffed? The source doesn't say and we must remember that taxidermy has a copyright in the USA and many other places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done for various reasons listed by Jim. De728631 (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sarayan river.JPG

Dear sir/madam,

I don't understand why this picture had been removed from the article. The blog from where it has been taken is my blog. Its URL is http://ruralsitapur.blogspot.co.uk/2014_01_01_archive.html . When it is my own work and I have all the proofs that it is mine how come it is a copyright violation. Its not just this, two other pictures have been removed despite the fact that they are my pictures and my work and I am pleased to put them on wikipedia under no licence. Please look into this matter urgently. I hope to hear form you. Thank you.

--Aadigeog (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Aadi

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, it was deleted because it appears without a free license at http://ruralsitapur.blogspot.com/2014_01_01_archive.html. Identity theft is common here and we have no way of knowing whether User:Aadigeog is the owner of the blog or an impostor. In order to restore the file the copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nicole Kidman - Berlinale 2015.png

It's not a copyright violation as I took the picture myself at the Berlinale last year. Is it possible to upload it again ? Thank you. GeorgeCadle (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Infografía José Manyanet.jpg

This infographics is own creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oros132 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 30 January 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The work contains a painting which appears modern and which appears at http://www.blanes.manyanet.org/index.php/en/escola/historia with an explicit copyright notice. It also contains a great deal of text, which also has a copyright. If the text comes from somewhere else, it is a copyright violation. If you wrote the text, it is unsupported information from an unknown historian. While Commons does not have a "No Original Research" rule, all of WMF does, so the work is unusable on any WMF project. Because you are unknown, it is unlikely to be useful for any educational purpose anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Hans Croon

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been received for the images:

All these have been restored. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:WILA cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received in ticket:2016011610007502 Mbch331 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Macrothylacia-rubi2.jpg This file is mine, like the same that I have in Flickr. I changed the license of miy Flickrs image to (CC BY-SA). Fturmo (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Fturmo

File:Macrothylacia-rubi2.jpg This file is mine, like the same that I have in Flickr. I changed the license of miy Flickrs image to (CC BY-SA). Fturmo (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Fturmo

✓ Done. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cerura iberica ous.jpg This file is mine, like the same that I have in Flickr. I changed the license of miy Flickrs image to (CC BY-SA). Fturmo (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Fturmo

File:Cerura iberica ous.jpg This file is mine, like the same that I have in Flickr. I changed the license of miy Flickrs image to (CC BY-SA). Fturmo (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Fturmo

✓ Done. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yamanaka1.png

I took this pic and would prefer not to have to dig it up again to reupload it. I own the picture. Why is it such a problem to get it undeleted? If the license information is incorrect I can fix it. Tduk (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Taivo, could you explain why you removed the {{Own}} tag from this? I don't see any reason why we are not following "Assume Good Faith"..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Uploader was Tduk, author Alex Lozupone. I saw no evidence, that this was the same person. And actually I did not remove the "own" tag totally, I simply struck the word. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So, Tduk, are you Alex Lozupone? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a quick look at all of my image contributions confirms that. Tduk (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Emblema QWERTYRIANS Tijuna.jpg

El archivo no es de mi autoría, pero solicité autorización al equipo QWERTYRIANS y ellos me autorizaron su uso, por eso, creo que se debería deshacer el borrado. DanielRav (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:KIMBALL JAMISON cover 1.jpg undelete.

. I didn't know it was a violation of copyright and i didn't do it on purpose. But leave it here(undelete) because theres no pictures about that when you search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriverJN (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Undelete a copyright violation? No. Not gonna happen. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:(c)JUNE DIANE RAPHAEL.jpg

This photo belongs to June. I am her publicist. Please stop deleting this picture, as it is owned by her, we have the right to use it, and she wishes to have it up there. We own this photo and the copy of it on IMDB. --SpokenReasonsFF (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@SpokenReasonsFF: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, or not directly created by you, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Birth Certificate of Ketevan "Keke" Geladze.jpg

I just don't think it's right for Wikimedia to insult and ban us just because we disagree with their reasoning behind deleting this document. This is censorship. Outside sources has verified this document as well the uploader who released this document and works for the government of that country. Please undelete the document. Thank you! 172.98.86.235 04:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to evade your ban. Please go away. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Djuma Lubassa "Ami Noble" The Sunday Post Boxer.pdf

SIr, Madam, The article was in the newspaper in 2009, here I am just built a new article using the same story in my own words to express the ample life of Djuma Lubassa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubassad (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 February 2016‎ (UTC)

The file in question has not been deleted (yet), so there is nothing to undelete. Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Djuma Lubassa "Ami Noble" The Sunday Post Boxer.pdf, but do make sure you read Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats first and address it in your response. Your comment above fails to do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Celestaphone_-_April_2015.png

File:Celestaphone_-_April_2015.png

The Flickr upload is the original, and only source, of this image. An image search would have proven this.

--Toosmoke (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done The reason for the deletion was that it was as cc-by-sa-nc on Flickr. I see that it now is cc-0, which is a valid commons license. As such I've undeleted the image. Basvb (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Debbie Rochon.jpg

This image was deleted as a copyright violation after the original had been overwritten with another image (stylized image from Rochon's web site). The original image (cropped from a CC-BY video) was clearly not a copyright violation. I think you'll find if you look at the image history that there has been an edit war over the image for a while. Ideally the image should be semi-protected from a repetition of the overwriting. I wrote as much to the deleting admin, but he seems to have ignored repeated requests for several days now. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't find the CC-by link on the original video page. Could you give me a clue? De728631 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Click "more"; the CC-by icon appears at the bottom of the popup with a link to the license. Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Done: Deletion was related to the copyvio overwrite; the original is properly licensed. Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bezbozhnik u stanka US 1930.jpg

Please restore the following image:

Reason: Altenmann is engaging in an edit war on Wikipedia. The page there has been protected. The user started trolling here. First by tagging the above image above for deletion then by nominating other images in the category Category:Bezbozhnik. Check out:

The image was uploaded and complied with {{PD-Russia}} as it existed at that time. @Taivo: closed the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik u stanka US 1930.jpg, but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning, nor how the image is different than any of the other magazine covers listed in the same category. Please restore the image. Evrik (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, all images in category:Bezbozhnik should be inspected. There are more copyright violations. The covers are usually not anonymous and many of them (but not all!) are still copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that all of Bezbozhnik is PD. Am I wrong? Evrik (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I see no reason why the deleted image should be restored and the other two cited here should be deleted. These are 1930s works of art. That is far too recent to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years and no proof is given that they were anonymous works -- please remember that just because we do not know who the creator was does not make the work anonymous -- it must be proven that it was never known. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
How can we check on the copyright renewal of theses Russian works? Evrik (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There is and never has been any "copyright renewal" required anywhere in the world except in the USA before 1964, so there is nothing to check. In Russia, works are under copyright for 70 years after the death of the creator. As I said above, a 1930s work is far to recent to assume that the creator died before 1946. There is a special rule for anonymous works, but using that rule requires that you prove that the work was actually anonymous -- the fact that we may not know who the creator was does not make a work anonymous -- that must be proven, which is almost impossible as a practical matter and certainly more so for drawings from artists whose work could easily be recognized. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
C'est la vie. Evrik (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No evidence that the picture is in the public domain. The death year is needed.
User:Jameslwoodward wrote that There is and never has been any "copyright renewal" required anywhere in the world except in the USA before 1964 but this doesn't seem to be correct. There seems to be some kind of renewal system in the British s:Copyright Act 1709. This was abolished in the w:Copyright Act 1842, I think. The s:Copyright Act of 1790, which introduced copyright to the United States, was greatly inspired by the British 1709 act. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adding to my store of background knowledge, Stefan. While historically interesting, it's irrelevant for any Commons purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The author was identified as being Nikolai Kogout, who died in 1959 (though I see other sources which say 1951). Russia retroactively restored works to 70pma so it is still under copyright there whichever date is correct. So, it should not be restored. The second one (File:Bezbozhnik - Forward to the complete collectivization, November 1, 1930.jpg) was identified as being by an author who died in 1937, so that one appears to be fine (Russia was 50pma on the URAA date so also no U.S. issue). The last one... has author initials, one of which is "N. K.", so that could easily be the same author as the first, and should probably be deleted as well. Since the authors were named, it is unlikely to qualify as an anonymous work. If there is no author named on the poster, then anonymous work status becomes far more likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


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

la pantera de la bahia y el teniente penate

hola,este archivo es de mi propiedad,soy el autor,de esta obra y soy la persona de la foto pido por favor sea conservado,muchas gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel Aragon‎ (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You have uploaded many images which have been deleted as problems, but none with this name. The closest one is File:La pantera de la Bahia.jpg which is out of scope since it has no identification of the person shown and also violates COM:ADVERT.
In fact, all of your uploads have been deleted or nominated for deletion for one reason or another. Please understand that Commons is not Facebook and personal images are not permitted unless and until you become an active contributor of quality images. Even then, our rules allow for only one or two personal images. If you continue to upload problem images, you will be blocked from editing on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Datuk award to undelete.jpg

Mistake--Peace n Mercy (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please provide more than a single word to explain your request, and please link to the file you wish to be undeleted. You have no deleted uploads, and there's never been any file named File:Datuk award to undelete.jpg. Do you mean File:"Datuk" award in February 2015 Malaysia.jpg? That file has not been deleted, so there is nothing to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Как же пользователи смогут узнать больше об альбоме рэп группы, если фото альбома удаляется? Я же выкладываю для информации, а не продаю что-то, кому-то. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodinio (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You do not tell us which of your uploads you want undeleted, but it does not matter because all but one of them are clearly copyright violations. There are many images that it would be good to have here, but we keep only those that are freely licensed. If that means that some subjects are not properly illustrated, there is nothing we can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:РАФ-22038-21.jpg

Ticket:2016012410005285 contains information purporting to establish authorship. Please provisionally undelete to enable further investigation. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Yann. Looks OK now that I see the camera serial in the EXIF. Good enough for me. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cobalt Co50 Valkyrie.png and File:Cobalt CO50 Valkyrie.png

Hello, can someone please undelete these two files with an {{OTRS-pending}} tag? The uploader, Vsider2, has contacted me off-wiki and confirmed that permission was sent to OTRS (I am simultaneously talking to OTRS to get a ticket number).

I was the deletion nominator and I will keep an eye on this throughout. Thanks! Ariadacapo (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
…fast! thank you Yann! Ariadacapo (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done per Yann. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Naavu manushyare - Niranjana.pdf

What is the reason for deleting the file? An OTRS is already sent for all the books put together. Please check talk page of the file. Now do you need one more to be sent for each book separately? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2016 (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) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission added. --Yann (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Art_McDonald_2008.jpg (and File:Arthur_B._McDonald-small.jpg?)

Ticket:2015121110016297 contains a license for this photograph. Could an admin please check/undelete... are File:Art_McDonald_2008.jpg and File:Arthur_B._McDonald-small.jpg just different versions of the same file? If so, please restore largest/best version. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Victims of Putinism

It seems to me, that Great Britain considers Alexander Litvinenko to be a victim of Putin's regime. Am I right? — Николай (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: This page is for files. Beside, this category doesn't exist. Please discuss this with Butko. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:1MJ8 XkaC4o.jpg

Фотография получена мной от персоны, о которой я готовлю статью. Какие действия надо совершить, чтобы фотография была оставлена? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kondoliza (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We will need a free license from the author you named, Наталья Рубинская, via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Adfe.png

It's not a vialotion of copyright--87.48.120.99 08:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It is certainly a violation of copyright. It is an organization's logo and there is no evidence here of permission from the organization. More important, however, Google does not find this logo on a search for images related to "ADFE" so I doubt that it falls within commons scope because it is the logo of a non-notable organization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Charasmarane cover page.jpg

Please refer to File:Tejaswini Niranjana CC-BY-SA Declaration.pdf, This cover page of the book, Chirasmarane is number 10 in that list.

It is relicensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 by Tejaswini Niranjana. Please undelete it. --Ananth subray (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claimed that this was your own work. Now you claim it was your father's work. I see that he was a writer. Was he also the illustrator who created the cover of the book?. If not, how is it that you think you hold the copyright to the cover -- that would almost always be held by the illustrator or the publisher?
In any case, in order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder of the book cover via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Prince-Ali-Al-Hussein.jpg

Image is clearly marked Public Domain and the subject of the picture is the owner/author of the image. This image was wholesale deleted without discussion. [[1]] Photo came from Prince Ali's personal Flickr Page:[2]. PeterWesco (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done "Public domain Mark 1.0" is not sufficient as a licence to upload a file at Commons. Such files need to have a clear statement why they are in the public domain and that this is a permanent status. Please see Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:paulinavega.jpg

solicito la restauracion de la imagen y de que revisen bien y sepan que no estoy violando nada, si ustedes consideran que estoy violando los drechos del autor rencomiendeme paginas ppara yo oder subirlas legalmente — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmacias0230 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Just another file grabbed from the net. --Denniss (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Although it appears at http://pageant.wikia.com/wiki/File:Miss_Universe_2014_Paulina_Vega.jpg as CC-BY-SA, that appears to be License Laundering. It is a Getty image, cropped from an image about 2/3 of the way down http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/miss-universe-pageant?sort=mostpopular&excludenudity=true&mediatype=photography&phrase=miss%20universe%20pageant&family=editorial. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Photo by Rodrigo Varela, Getty Images. Thuresson (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tchou-Tchou - Foire de Savoie, 2014.jpg

After uploading a "new version" of this file, Lev. Anthony (uploader) asked for the deletion of the "old version" but these files are totally diffrent : not the same scene and taken 1 year later. I think each version should be kept.

Thanks. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I’ve not asked for deleted the old version, she is still available in previous versions here... I’ve asked for the deletion of the redirect, which had been deleted. My originla project was to take the same photo beacuse the previous had been taken by my phone, so it wasn’t a great quality, but the train was inside due to the weather. I’ll try to take another photo of it when it’s outside and upload it under another name.
Good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The older photo should probably still be available under the old name, especially if it was used. Looks like the file was overwritten with a new image, then the file renamed to reflect the new image, then the resulting redirect deleted. If someone wants to upload the older version under the old name, that should be fine -- nothing stopping it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
But if someone wants a new image under a new filename, it's best to simply upload it under that name to begin with, and not obliterate an existing file in the process, so restoring the original image under the original name would also be fine by me to preserve the original upload history better. I guess I  Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: History split, overwritten version (not deleted by consensus or for a specific policy reason) restored to original filename. --Revent (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:OrbisPictus_p_004.jpg (at the moment redirect only)

Please undelete this page. It is not possible to read the book anymore! I can click from page 1 to page 2 to page 3, but when I there click on page 4, I'm redirected to page 2 again. It is impossible to reach page 5 and onwards! --92.72.194.37 01:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:No Rastro da Espoleta 3.jpg

The picture is just a poster that represents the film. As many movie articles in wikipedia have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorvinicius07 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The poster is non-free by default and copyrighted to the film company or the original artist. Unless you can provide evidence for a free licence we cannot restore the image. Especially in the English Wikipedia you may find such film posters but they are being kept at the local Wikipedia server under a fair use claim which is not allowed at Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Salt_Bridge_Movie_poster.jpg

This poster is designed by me for the Salt bridge film and I have the full right to use on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit.jha3 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 07 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. A permission to publish images on Wikipedia is not enough. See Commons:Licensing for an introduction. Thuresson (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mike_Scala_in_New_York_City_2015.jpg

I have received copyright approval from the artist to use this image. I can supply a scan of the letter granting the rights if requested.

--Mikescala1415 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)2/7/16

Well, do you have a letter of permission from the photographer? See Commons:OTRS for the proper procedure. Thuresson (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mike-giving-back03.jpg

I have received permission from the artist to use this image. I can supply a scan of letter granting rights if requested.

--Mikescala1415 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)2/7/16

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:AZy1CSba.jpg

I have received permission from the artist to use this image. I can supply a scan of letter granting rights if requested.

--Mikescala1415 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)2/7/16

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mike Scala on tour in Dublin.jpg

I have received permission from the artist to use this image. I can supply a scan of letter granting rights if requested.

--Mikescala1415 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)2/7/16

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LogoProjeqtor.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright holder released image under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 International copyright license. OTRS Ticket 2016011610016805. Clarkcj12 (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@User:Clarkcj12 Done. Thuresson (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Thanks, have updated image page. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted, OTRS added ticket to page. --Revent (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Dr. Strangelove

As stated here and further explained here. See also here. I don't understand what is the problem: the trailer obviously precedes Terry's lyrics, does not include any song and is not copyrigted. @Hedwig in Washington and Krd: FYI. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand either what the problem with the photos were? Can User:Krd explain further? Thuresson (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Does this change things, or am I misinterpreting? Storkk (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
sigh... link times out. I meant to link to the fourth item from the search previously linked. Storkk (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If the trailer was published before the movie, technically the movie is a derivative work of the trailer. If the trailer had no copyright notice or was not renewed, then it is not subject to the copyright of the movie. Unsure if the trailer could be considered derivative of the book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Mick Terry's applications for copyright relate to books but to the lyrics of songs he performed publicly. His first application for such lyrics was in 1971 [3] and he seems to have made 24 other applications since, including in 2009 the lyrics of the song Dr. Strangelove. On the other hand, the theme music of Kubrick's 1964 film is a rearrangement of When Johnny Comes Marching Home by Laurie Anderson, for which the composer applied for copyright in 1964 [4]. I don't understand how a 1964 copyrighted music or a 1964 copyrighted film can be considered derivative of a 2009 copyrighted text. The opening credits of the film state clearly the music is by Laurie Anderson and the screenplay is by Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern and Peter George, based on the book Red Alert by Peter George [5]. Beside, the trailer of the 1964 film (from which all photos in the deleted category are taken) is not copyrighted, does not include Laurie Anderson's music, nor any song. — Racconish ☎ 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it not in copyright because of lack of a notice, or lack of a renewal? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The question of a derivative work are whether there is expression present from a previous work which is still under copyright. If the trailer predated the film, then the trailer is not derivative of the film (the situation might arguably be different after 1978, but that was the situation before, unless the film was registered for copyright before the trailer was distributed). If that is the case, a copyright on the full film should not affect the trailer. As you mentioned, screenshots do not contain text or lyrics or songs, so they could not be derivative of those works. The trailer itself might still have those elements though, and might also still be derivative of the original book. If a cartoon, screenshots could still be derivative of the character copyright, and but that is less likely in a case like this. The original DR seems to link a 2009 copyright of lyrics, which is nonsensical, though it's possible the query results changed since the link was made. Storkk above seems to reference the renewal RE0000513771 which is of the film itself, renewing LP0000026988 from Dec. 31, 1963. The trailer though was dated 1964 in the filename. When was was the trailer sent to distributors? If in 1964, that would probably make it a derivative work of the still-copyrighted film, since the full film's federal copyright would have started when it was registered if that was prior to it being published. I suppose if there was no copyright notice, you could argue it was just a copy of portions of the film and as such the lack of notice did put those into the public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on Peter Krämer's work on the subject [6], the theatrical trailer was released in 1963 while the film distribution was postponed to 1964. The trailer includes original material not included in the film, such as appearance of Kubrick himself [7] or original work by Pablo Ferro [8] [9] and was not copyrighted per standard practice at the time [10]. In Coming Attractions: Reading American Movie Trailers (University of Texas Press, 2004), Lina Kernan considers this trailer "served as an important innovative “other” simultaneous to the more staid roadshow productions, exemplifying more playful uses of montage and specially shot trailer footage" (p. 260). In any case, a deletion based on the 2009 lyrics is "nonsensical". — Racconish ☎ 07:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Racconish: you've mentioned song lyrics a bunch of times. I may be being a bit dense, but could you please clarify why you're bringing song lyrics up? Storkk (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) OK It was the original DR's link to the copyright office. I'm not sure how lyrics are relevant. Storkk (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Racconish: I don't want to put words into Hedwig in Washington's mouth, but I suspect in the original DR, he meant to link to the fourth item from this list instead of to the lyrics. I would agree that deletion based on the lyrics would make no sense. Storkk (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: There isn't much doubt that the trailer is in the public domain. Reading links provided by Racconish above, and although I can't find the exact date, the trailer was certainly published before the registration date (1963-12-31). WP says that A first test screening of the film was scheduled for November 22, 1963, the day of the John F. Kennedy assassination. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Prima marcia.jpg

motivation: photo shotted in 1961, 24 september, more than 50 years ago, no one asked copyright ever.--Paolomacina (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC) motivo della richiesta: fotografia stattata nel 1961 (era ovviamente il giorno della marcia, il 24 settembre), cioè più di 50 anni fa, per il quale non è stato mai chiesto il copyright. --Paolomacina (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The assertion that no one has asked about copyright is mentioned at Precautionary Principle #5. This image would be in the Public Domain only if the photographer had died 15 years before he took the photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Helen Arney voice.flac

Ticket:2015113010021096 releases this file under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Storkk (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Please fix the permission. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:CanedoFC.jpg

Marekcech (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Horst-Joachim Rahn.jpg

We got a permission in ticket:2016020910010715, the photo is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. (Please ping me once you're done.) Thanks, Yellowcard (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Yellowcard. As above. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Anders Breivik.jpg

The image found on Flickr here uses an approved Attribution 2.0 Generic license (cc-by-2.0). There are many images uploaded by the same author on commons shown here which use the exact same licensing. The author himself, Thierry Ehrmann, uploaded his own portrait to Wiki-commons through his own Wikipedia account (Thierryl69) using the exact same license as his other works on Wikipedia here.

The original image that was uploaded was reviewed successfully by a FlickreviewR robot. The original image was put up for deletion, and the result was to keep the image. It was then put up for deletion again, even though no new information for its nomination was provided, and, due to Wikipedia's policy of favouring many biased editors with a certain POV over a small numbered amount of editors illustrating common-sense, the image was deleted under the guise of 'consensus'. Discussion here.

The chief point behind this file's deletion was that certain editors did not want an image of this person available on Commons due to the fact that it's not a photo but a painted portrait. They felt it would 'idolize' him, which isn't a reason under Wikipedia policy, diff here [11]. The second reason was that the Flickr page mentions ©2012 www.AbodeofChaos.org at the bottom. This is meaningless, as Commons doesn't recognize if the uploader has changed the copyright on the image (There is even a template for this on Commons, Template:Flickr-change-of-license). Also, this Copyright tag is shown on all the other images that have been created by the author that are on Commons, as shown above in the link. There is no good reason then that this file has been deleted.

I have continuously pointed this out and re-uploaded the image multiple times only for it to be deleted because of the 'consensus' reached in the most recent discussion of the image, the case forever rested. By that same stupid and flawed logic, the image should not have ever been nominated for deletion after the first discussion was to keep it.

There are no other free alternatives illustrating the subject in the image. He is permanently incarcerated. Therefore, this image is of importance. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Importance of the picture or the subject is a red herring. The image was deleted on copyright grounds. The photograph you link to on Flickr is obviously a derivative work of the painting (are you claiming the Flickr user is the artist?)... which itself is almost certainly a derivative of one of the many Reuters courtroom photographs. We would need to establish either that Thierry Ehrmann was the photographer, painter and original photographer, or that he was the photographer and painter of the painting, and not working from the a Reuters photograph. Storkk (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The most recent deletion of this (at File:Portrait of Anders Breivik.jpg) was because it was a re-upload of an image that had been previously been deleted as the result of community discussion, and your comments on the talk page of the new upload made it extremely clear that you were attempting, deliberately, to sidestep the result of that decision. You just said here that you repeatedly re-uploaded the image, despite the decision at the DR. If you disagree with the decision at a deletion discussion, you come here, you do not simply attempt to force your point of view across. Doing so is disruptive, and doing so repeatedly will eventually result in a block. Opening a new DR, or an undeletion request, is asking for a wider discussion. Simply re-uploading the same image is not.
The concern here is not if Thierry Ehrmann has freely licensed his image on Flickr. Whether or not he did so in the past, he has clearly done so now. The concern is if his painting is a derivative work, if it was directly based on another copyrighted image. Since it is highly unlikely that Breivik ever himself modeled for Ehrmann, this is a legitimate concern. We do not have to 'prove' that the painting is a derivative work, the burden of proof is on the person wanting an image to be kept to demonstrate it's copyright status.
In this specific case, I think it's fairly likely that the painting was directly based upon this press photo, which was widely published at the time of the trial. See, for example, where it was published by The Sun. A TinEye search indicates well over 200 uses of this specific photograph, and the pose is almost identical.
I don't think we can reasonably assert that this painting is not a derivative of a copyrighted work.
@Storkk: It does indeed seem likely that the Flickr uploader painted the image, working from someone else's photo (likely the one I linked above) Revent (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I'm not familiar with what constitutes a derivative work or rather how much a work must have been altered to still be considered a derivative work of a supposed original. But this image image and the one that Revent linked are not the exact same or even similar. The only similarity in both is the tilt (angle) of his head. Even the facial expression is different. --Ritsaiph (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First:There are three potential copyrights in play here:

  • The potential copyright for the Flickr image. As a photograph of 2D art, the Flickr image does not have its own copyright, but, in any event, the Flickr license would cover it.
  • The copyright for the art. If the Flickr user is the artist, this is also covered by the Flickr license. If not, then we need a license from the artist.
  • The copyright for the photograph from which the art was derived. As Revent says, "it is highly unlikely that Breivik ever himself modeled for Ehrmann". Therefore the art was created from a photo and is itself a derivative work. Therefore we need a license from the original photographer.

COM:PRP requires us to delete if there is a significant doubt about the status of an image. The burden of proof is entirely on the uploader to convince the community that there is no such doubt. I think this is even clearer -- that there can be little question that this is a copyvio.

Second, calling the DR which was closed on 21 October 2013 a precedent is disingenuous and misleading. It addressed only the question of the Flickr license and was closed summarily on those grounds without any discussion of the issues above.

Third, the comment "There are no other free alternatives illustrating the subject in the image" shows Ritsaiph's inexperience here. Our first and overriding concern is for copyright and the importance of an image is completely irrelevant. There are many copyrighted images that we would like very much to keep but cannot.

Fourth, Ritsaiph has admitted above that he or she has "re-uploaded the image multiple times". Such behavior is an arrogant and blatant violation of Commons rules and is grounds for blocking the user from editing on Commons. UnDR is the only way that a deleted image may be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, I agree with Sheriff 'woody' woodward. I have been naughty and am well overdue for a virtual spanking. --Ritsaiph (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as above. Ritsaiph has been blocked indefinitely for his generally uncooperative battlefield mentality as seen in his above comment which was made after several warnings and blocks. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ulozto logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I would like to request the undeletion, because there is no copyright violation. I am the employee of Uloz.to cloud a.s. and I have the right to use this logo. I can prove it to you by sending official e-mail or I can request a sign from my boss (the owner of the company). I hope that will not be necessary and my request will be confirmed as soon as possible. Best regards David Mayer Uloz.to cloud a.s. Hugomarino (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that works owned by organizations must be freely licensed by an authorized official of the organization via OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at uloz.to. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:M.K. Hobson - Author Photo - 2015.jpg

Hello. I personally own this photo and thought I had provided all information to verify that. It's an official author photo licensed under creative commons and should be restored. Please advise if there's something additional I need to provide. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobsoloff (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Although I'll assume here that User:Hobsoloff is actually M.K. Hobson, we have no way of actually knowing that. Identity theft is fairly common here, so policy requires that unless an image is

  • "own work",
  • comes from a freely licensed source, or
  • is PD,

we must obtain a free license from the actual copyright holder or licensee, usually the photographer, via OTRS. Unless the free license comes from the photographer, the OTRS message will also have to include a copy of the written license agreement between the photographer and the sender of the OTRS e-mail.

Since you are not the author, as claimed in the file description, you must either agree to change the license to CC-0 or the photographer must be named. CC-BY cannot work unless the author is named. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ernest_McLean.jpg

To who it may concern, My name is Tracie Diamond. My uncle was the guitarist Ernest McLean. I obviously give permission because I took and uploaded the photo of Ernest McLean. Please restore the photo as soon as possible.

Regards, Tracie Diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traciediamond (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

This photo is available at Flickr without an acceptable license. Are you Flickr user Osotracie? Can you change the license of this particular photo at Flickr? Thuresson (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose User:Traciediamond,unfortunately we have no way of knowing whether Commons User:Traciediamond is Flickr user Osotracie. We see a great deal of identity theft here. As Thuresson suggests, the easiest way to deal with this would be to change the license on Flickr. An acceptable license on Flickr would be CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Info The Flickr page has not been updated yet. Thuresson (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

I do not know why this image of the BeatBuddy guitar pedal was deleted. I am the original creator and owner of this image (viewable at http://mybeatbuddy.com/product/beatbuddy), and am releasing it into the public domain under the CC license. You can email me at lionel@mybeatbuddy.com for more info. Thanks! --SumQuidnunc (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This has a © Copyright Music Connection Magazine. All rights reserved. So a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay…I am the original creator of the image, and have proof of this. They used the image in a promotional campaign—I think their application of copyright on my image was unintentional, but I am in contact with them and will have them send over the COM:OTRS as soon as possible. I will myself send over a copy too. --SumQuidnunc (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Yann, left you a message on your talk page. Let me know if this is sufficient. --SumQuidnunc (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Kamara Gamma - Pretentions.jpg

Necesito que me restauren el archivo indicado en el asunto y también estos dos:

File:Kamara Gamma - Reflection Time.jpg File:Integrantres de grupo Kamara Gamma.jpg

Ese grupo musical pertenece a la familia, la página en facebook.com https://www.facebook.com/kamaragamma/photos/pb.1561791394068996.-2207520000.1454706333./1561793427402126/?type=3&theater fue creada por nosotros. Estas fotos estaban en el documento https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamara_Gamma.

Es la primera vez que escribo en la Wiki, por favor ayúdenme con los datos que se necesitan para validad estas imágenes con la correspondiente licencia que exige Wikipedia.

Slds --efrenba (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose These images do not appear to be "own work" as you claimed when uploading them. They all appear to be disk covers or perhaps part of a disk booklet. At least one of them has an explicit copyright notice.
In order to restore them to Commons, we will need free licenses from the creators of the three pieces sent directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Have received the following message by email from Efrenba (no idea why I sent it to me).

<quote>

I dont know why you say "These images do not appear to be "own work" as you claimed when uploading them", you speak without base.
File:Integrantres de grupo Kamara Gamma.jpg The Nelson Rodriguez father's picture was taken by me in the north coast of Habana, Cuba. I can show you some raw pictures about that. The Nelson Jr.'s picture was taken in a photo studio by a professional and of course it was paid to get the rights.
File:Kamara Gamma - Reflection Time.jpg This is the cover of the second album of kamara Gamma licenced by Amazon.com. The cover design was made by Nelson Jr. who sent it to Amazon.com with the songs, cover designs, descriptions, etc., they printed the cover, made the phisical CD and sell them in his website.
File:Kamara Gamma - Pretentions.jpg This cover was made by a professional of EGREM (Cuban Record House), this CD was licenced by EGREM in 2000 by a period of 5 years and after that, all rights were granted to authors (Nelson & Nelson Jr.)
What other proof do you or The Wiki need about these photos?

</quote> — Racconish ☎ 08:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

efrenba Hi,
Please upload the original pictures with EXIF data for your pictures, and each picture for a photomontage. For album covers, we need a formal written permission from the publisher. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vlc-0.9.4-big buck bunny.png

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vlc-0.9.4-big_buck_bunny.png was resolved as Kept in 2010, considering that the Windows UI is de minimis and too simple. However, High Contrast speedyly deleted the file, ignoring the previous concensus. Have actualy this screenshot enough non-free Windows elements to make the screenshot non-free? If not, please restore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the Windows UI can be cropped. If it is possible, I  Support the undeletion. Also, it is clear that High Contrast violated our deletion policy. They should have opened a DR first before deleting. --★ Poké95 11:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 Support I'm the Admin who closed it as Keep in 2010 and I still think it should be kept. The image from the movie (the movie is CC-BY) overwhelms the tiny MS icons, which may not be copyrightable in any case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Restored and cropped. Yann (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Restored previous version, no need to crop (at least the VLC UI). --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Site plans for a ancient roman winery (I think)

Jim can you please put up one or both files? Our issue is in application of two seemingly contradictory legal standards so its important to see the image. The images are of locations of what appear to be wine barrels/tanks inside a roman times house/storage.
My comment:
"Re Domus Cella and Planimetria files. These are not copyrightable in the US "To the extent that the site plan sets forth the existing physical characteristics of the site, including its shape and dimensions, the grade contours, and the location of existing elements, it sets forth facts;  copyright does not bar the copying of such facts." Sparaco v. Lawler 303 f.3d 460
I am assuming these images are form a book published in Italy. I don't know italian law. But Italy is a civil law country, and in general in european civil law countries a work is generally regarded as original if it is the author's own intellectual creation and it expresses the author's personality. In this sense it is similar to the US standards. These maps are simple representations of a floor plan of the same building. In the broader picture the buildings relation to the river is included. A straight forward site planing outline is used, so a solid argument can be made that there is no expression of author's personality."

Jim's note on the deletion decision:
"Rybkovich, 17 USC 101: "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans." [emphasis added] 17 USC 102(a):"Works of authorship include the following categories: (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;" As you say, facts cannot be copyrighted, but expressions of facts beyond simple lists of dates will always have a copyright. Under US law, maps and drawings are clearly treated as expressions of facts. The cited case is strange -- the site plan in question had a copyright, so the Copyright Office thought it was copyrightable."

The types of images - diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans - are listed in the statute to indicate that these kinds of works can be copyrighted. Because these can be copyrighted does not mean they can be copyrighted in any instance. Each work has to pass the minimum originality standard. Here the images consist of lines representing walls and circles representing barrels. Per the Sparaco circuit court standards, such simple drawings are considered to be a basic conveyance of facts without any originality in expression. Their barrels' relative location to each other and to the lines representing the walls of the building are straightforward representation of facts of relative location in the actual site. "To the extent that the site plan sets forth the existing physical characteristics of the site, including its shape and dimensions, the grade contours, and the location of existing elements, it sets forth facts;  copyright does not bar the copying of such facts."

In regards to the site map in the Sparaco case being copyright registered. The plan contained drawings of the site as it is and of additions to the site. As a whole the plan remained copyrighted, but the copyright was violated only to the extent that the copying included future sites planned by the plaintiff. Copying of the parts of the plan depicting already existing aspects of the site did not constitute a copyright violation.

In our case the basic drawings depict only facts about the site as it is. Because the drawings do not include depiction of any future plans such as restorations of the site as it is or of major renovations, its uploading is not a violation of copyright and hence of our commons policy. PS how do we interpret these drawings under the Italian/civil law standards? Rybkovich (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Two comments: First, as you say, this is an evolving part of the law. As far as I know, only the one circuit has held that a plot plan is not copyrightable. Second, in general the "sweat of brow" has more weight in Europe than here. Note, for example, that databases can be copyrighted there -- Feist would have gone the other way there. It follows that plans such as this would even more likely not be PD in Italy. COM:PRP requires us to delete where there is a "significant doubt" -- I think that standard is met by the uncertainties here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As a comment, sweat of the brow is probably just used in the UK and countries directly derived from its law -- Europe in general does not use it at all, and as such is forcing the UK itself to change. Database protection is through a sui generis database right unrelated to copyright (protection lasts for 15 years). Italy should follow the EU directive norms, which requires a work to be the author’s own intellectual creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The database right is a neighbouring right, and neighbouring rights are not based on originality, so I'm not sure why you are discussing databases in connection to originality. The database right was specifically created because the politicians thought that it is useful to protect databases which do not meet the threshold of originality. A database which meets the threshold of originality is protected for 70 years p.m.a. whereas a database which doesn't meet the threshold of originality only is protected for 15 years from publication. A map appears to count as a database, so the copyright of a map which meets the threshold of originality expires 70 years after the death of the author whereas a map which doesn't meet the threshold of originality expires 15 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Jim can you or another administrator please temporarily undelete the images? Regarding the US, the issue of copyrightability of basic maps is not evolving. The case I referenced is from 2002 and like Feist is one of the often cited cases on the map/database issue. Re Italy - Italy is a civil law country and in the civil law systems of the European continent, a work is generally regarded as original if it is the author's own intellectual creation and it expresses the author's personality. I found a very informative paper on the issue of map copyrights both in US and Europe http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=jitpl. I agree to disagree on the application of the standards to the images in question, but I do want the fellow editors/administrators to be able to examine the images and make their own decision on if/how these standards apply. Rybkovich (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Marked both images as {{Temporarily undeleted}} for the purposes of this discussion. The files will automatically be re-queued for speedy deletion in 30 days unless this discussion is closed as undelete and the templates are removed from the pages. It's worth noting that the first image was itself in the past repeatedly overwritten... at least one old revision appears to itself be a copyvio from google maps. Revent (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Kalebarraka

There were about 5 files of audio interviews deleted because the license was wrong. An OTRS ticket has been sendt so they could be undeleted.--Coentor (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We delete about 2,000 files every day. We cannot find deleted files from the category they were in -- we need the uploader's user name or the file names. It would also be helpful to have the OTRS ticket number. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Coentor, please give the list of files and the ticket number. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Uf! It wasn't me. The list of files was in the OTRS e-mail. I'll ask the uploader to reply here.--Coentor (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Ticket#: 2016012810017943 and those files:

--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose If I understand correctly these are from Kalebarraka - Ràdio Godella, which has a web site, http://www.radiogodella.com/. I would therefore expect a license to come from an e-mail address at that site, but this e-mail came from a gmail address. We see so much identity theft here that we do not usually accept a gmail license from organizations. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I talked with the radio station. They will send and e-mail this week.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment solved. Thanks.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Attila, Ildebrando D'Arcangelo.jpg.

I took this photo with permission of Teatro Comunale BOlogna where this photo was taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelleasplaysjazz (talk • contribs) 13:28, 08 February 2016 (UTC)

The file was deleted because the metadata credit it to a certain Lorenzo Gaudenzi. Please send an email from an account associated with this name so we can verify your identity. For the instructions see COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:HenryAbnerPortrait.jpg

Please provisionally undelete to allow further investigation pursuant to ticket:2015112010013748. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@User:Storkk Done. Thuresson (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Zwaluwen-header.png

This logo is owned by my football club, which I represent as committee member. The club owns the rights (as the copyrightholder) to use it's own logo. Mennodemol (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
Mennodemol, the club should send a formal written permission via COM:OTRS, then the file can be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Maurizio Pirovano.jpg

Good afternoon, I want to request the undeletion of this file, since on the 1st of February I have sent you all the documentation. If the documentation is not correct could you please tell me were to fix it? Thank you in advance. Bassmau

If you sent documentation to OTRS it may take some time for the volunteers to process your request. Thuresson (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gabriel Davarshvili Original Rabbi Certification's.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: First of all, I would like to know if the user that removed the file can read Hebrew, because if he could not read Hebrew, then he is unable to estimate the value of this content. Removing the file without reading it is inappropriate. If he does know Hebrew, I would like to specify:

1. These credentials, written in The early years of the twentieth century, each signed by leading rabbis of Judaism. One of them, Is Rabbi Chaim (Halevi) Soloveitchik the founder of the popular Brisker approach to Talmudic study within Judaism.
2. They indicate using the Hebrew as a language that was not spoken in Europe during this period, about the long path to graduation as a rabbi
3. The Certificates contains Stamps indicating the place of origin of the student's arrival and Courses will take place at the time ,that today it is already a different country due to the changes after the Second World War. Those changes indicate about the emigration of Jews for the purposes learning and back to their communities in Europe.
4. Further, we can learn from credentials on the evolution of the rabbinical training process at the time.
5. Those certificates allowing high quality platform for the value of "Rabbi Gabriel Davarshvili" – One of most important rabbis in of Georgian Judaism, and shedding light on values such as Georgia Judaism, Diaspora Jews, the Jews of Europe, rabbinical studies in the Diaspora, Jewish rabbis of Georgia and more.

Along with the greatness of Rabbi singed below and authenticity of the document in order to train them rabbis, is beyond value.

For the above reasons, I'd like to return the file at once.

Thanks, 77.125.246.114 19:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel: The file was deleted by Jameslwoodward after having been nominated for a week. The authors listed are "Brisk Chaim Soloveitchik, Eliezer Rabinowitz Minsk, Benjamin David again, Friinar Brisk." We do not have an OTRS from any of them and it's a text document, out of COM:SCOPE. Source was given as a scan of family documents ('of the father'). The only google hits I get on Rabbi Gabriel Davarshvili are here, they both refer to this document which means that the Rabbi is non-notable as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This was deleted after a formal deletion procedure, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabriel Davarshvili Original Rabbi Certification's.pdf. The uploader chose not to take part in the discussion. Also, a certificate is a primary source and should not be used as a source for a Wikipedia article. Thuresson (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thuresson, Commons' scope is not limited to things relevant to Wikipedia articles; most of Commons content is "primary" material; so I don't see what you are driving at. Author's permission is likely irrelevant, because I suspect that by the nature of the document it might not be copyrightable. Whether the document is significant is another issue (which Ellin Beltz raises), on which I have no opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Ellin said it well in the DR, "Text document, old enough, but out of scope, else we'll have everyone's baptismal certificates, wedding licenses and such uploaded." As noted above, because this is primary material it cannot be used in WP, so the reasons given by the anonymous requester above are not valid. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have a definitive opinion about this document, but I disagree that vital records would be out of scope just because the person is not famous. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line, then? Can I upload my birth certificate? What makes one acceptable? Why duplicate a public records function, except in cases of clear public interest such as Category:Birth certificate of Barack Obama? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, recent birth certificates do not have much EV, but old ones (19th century and before) may have in their own right, even if the person is not famous. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Working on pottery wheel.jpg

This is my own picture. I made it in 2015 at Russian pottery feslival "Polyana" Caaman (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The decoration on the vase has a copyright. Therefore your image is a derivative work and infringes on the vase's copyright. The image cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the potter via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this should pass as a utilitarian object, but the EXIF data says it was copied from Facebook. I would support if you can upload the original picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yann, I agree that the shape of the vase cannot be copyrighted because it is utilitarian, but the surface decoration is not utilitarian and would be copyrighted in the USA.
"If the object has an original printed or embossed design on its surface, there will be copyright in that design even though there is no copyright in the 3D shape. This might apply, for example, to a cup with embossed surface decoration." Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. No permission from photographer anyway. --Yann (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Craig Olejnik at the Fan Expo Canada.jpg

Good day

I believe that this image does not have licensing issues and is not subject to copyright restrictions Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottelme (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have copyrights until they expire. Almost everything you find on the Web is copyrighted and unless there is an explicit free license on them, images from the Web cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AntonioMacedoArtistaPlasticoPortugal.jpg

This is a foto from António Macedo, the artist of the article, and we have the right to use it; it was taken by him and duly autorized to publish.

Please undelete it

Best Regards

mkthora (we are a user authorized by the artist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkthora (talk • contribs)

 Oppose @Mkthora: You need to ask permission from the artist to release their photo under a free license compatible with Commons. Please send the permission to the OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokéfan95 (talk • contribs)
 Oppose It's not quite that simple. It is very unlikely that the subject of this image, Antonio Macedo, actually owns the copyright. If the OTRS email comes from Macedo, he must include a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which gives him the right to license it. If he does not have such a written agreement, then the OTRS license must come from the photographer. In any case, the e-mail must come directly from Macedo or the photographer -- forwarded e-mails are not acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Karl-Heinz Steffens © Stefan Wildhirt.jpg

File:Karl-Heinz Steffens © Stefan Wildhirt.jpg--Office Karl-Heinz Steffens (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, A formal written permission from Stefan Wildhirt is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Camille56

These pictures were deleted yesterday. I did not see that the deletion was requested. That is why I did not answer to people who requested the deletion.

  • File:Bernard Roy 60 ans.jpg This picture is scanned from a book (page 112) which is in public domain in Tunisia. Its name is "Petite Histoire de la Tunisie" from A. Pellegrin. It has been edited in 1951. If you have any further question, please let me know
  • File:Henry Normand.jpg This picture is in public domain in Tunisia because it has been shot in that country in 1901 when Henry Normand received the tunisian decoration Nichan Iftikhar. At that time, he worked in Kairouan
  • File:Caveau Dr Normand.jpg This picture is in public domain in Tunisia because it was shot in Le Kef in 1960. That is why it is in black and white. I scanned it. The tomb which is shown has now be destroyed.
  • File:Venier.jpg This picture is scanned from a book whose pictures are in public domain in Tunisia. Its name is "Bambochades tunisiennes" from Sicca Venier. It has been edited in 1984.
  • File:Batailles du 4e RMZT.jpg It was suspected to be copyright violated because some of the notes of the map were very small. In fact, to do this map, i used the file Western front 1915-16.jpg I found on Wikipedia Commons and I added notes concerning tunisian army fights during World War 1. That is why there is no copyright violation
  • File:Batailles du 4e RTT.jpg It was suspected to be copyright violated because some of the notes of the map were very small. In fact, to do this map, i used the file Western front 1915-16.jpg I found on Wikipedia Commons and I added notes concerning tunisian army fights during World War 1. That is why there is no copyright violation.
  • File:Batailles du 8e RTT.jpg It was suspected to be copyright violated because some of the notes of the map were very small. In fact, to do this map, i used the file Western front 1915-16.jpg I found on Wikipedia Commons and I added notes concerning tunisian army fights during World War 1. That is why there is no copyright violation
  • File:Ancienne ferme française.jpg This picture is my own work. I took it near 1987 and I scanned it. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot
  • File:Champs de blés vers Sakiet.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot
  • File:Citernes byzantines du Kef.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot
  • File:Controle civil du Kef en 2011.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:Dar el Djir au Kef.jpg This picture is my own work. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:El Kef et sa Kasbah.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:Gare de Bou Rouis.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:Ghoula.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:Médaillon Roy.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:Musée des arts et traditions populaires du Kef.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot
  • File:Monument 38e DI.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot
  • File:Tirailleurs tunisiens.jpg This picture is my own work. I reduced the size because a larger size was not necessary for the page. But I can upload the original size if necessary. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.
  • File:Pont sur l'oued Tessa.jpg This picture is my own work. I took it near 2000 and I scanned the image. It has been deleted because I was suspect of copyright violation on previous pictures. I do not know how I can prove i made this shot.


Camille56 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Camille -- what a mess. This is what happens when you claim that images are your "own work" when the clearly are not. If our colleagues agree and these are restored, you will need to edit each of the file descriptions to add the information above or they will be deleted again.


Tunisia is 50 years ‘’pma’’, so these are all {{PD-Tunisia}}

Tunisian works published (not created) before July 5, 1984 are PD. This is from a 1984 book, so we will need the exact publication date and place:

The following are "own work" based on File:Western front 1915-16.jpg which is PD, so they are OK

These are claimed to be "own work", which I believe to be true. That can easily be proven by Camille uploading them again in the original size, using the same file name. Commons always wants the largest possible images.

These are claimed to be "own work", which I believe to be true. They're not available larger, but I think we should Assume Good Faith.

With the one exception (File:Venier.jpg), I  Support restoration of all of these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehension, Jim. Concerning Venier.jpg, I read in Tunisian regulation summarized on Commons: "Before July 5, 2009, a photographic work was protected for 25 years. Pictures created before July 5, 1984 have already been placed into the public domain." That is why I thought that this picture was in public domain.--Camille56 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As I just noted above, works published, not created, before July 5, 1984 are PD, so we will need the exact publication date and place for the 1984 book. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Previous Tunisian law for photographs was 25 years from creation, not publication. However, the U.S. copyright would be restored for any Tunisian photograph created 1971 or later. Also, photos would have needed to be published before 1989 to have lost their U.S. copyright in the first place. So publication is still important. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Carl, in the light of your comment, would you please correct and clarify {{PD-Tunisia}} and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Tunisia? My comment was based on "Pictures published before July 5, 1984 have already been placed into the public domain", the last line of the latter cite. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. Camille56, please fix the source as necessary. --Yann (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Damyan Iliev.jpg

The deleted file is a photo of my great-great-grandfather, which is owned by me and my family and which I scanned and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons personally. Therefore I want to request the file to be undeleted.--Peseca87 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that your family owns a paper copy of a photo does make them the owner of the copyright. The copyright is almost always owned by the photographer or his heirs. Unless you can produce a written agreement from the photographer transferring copyright, the photo cannot be restored on those grounds. The date shown in the file description is 1939. That is far too recent to assume that the photographer died before 1946, but if you can prove that the photographer died before 1946 then it can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Reopened. The following is from my talk page:

"I'm sorry for not explaining the case thoroughly enough, but when I said that the photo is owned by my family, I also meant that we're the authors of the photo. To be specific, the picture is taken by my great-grandmother - the daughter of the person on the photo. It is currently kept in the personal family archive by my grandmother, who is practically the daughter of the photographer and that's where I got it from on paper, before I uploaded it here. What should we do in order to restore the file?--Peseca87 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that your grandmother is an heir of the photographer, she can license the image, using the procedure at OTRS. Although it is best if she actually sends the message, you could certainly help her with it if necessary. Some grandmothers and even great grandmothers are very Internet savvy, but many others are not..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Entrevista a Josep Lluís Doménech, membre de l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua (720p).webm

Mistakenly marked as speedy deletion by INeverCry and deleted by Ellin Beltz, who probably didn't looked at the discussion page. You can check INeverCry's talk page and also the very file's talk page.--Coentor (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources go on File Templates, not description pages. Despite that, source given for the first one was "|source=La Veu del País Valencià", I could keep cutting and pasting but we can only go what is on the file template of each file. The files were found on YouTube. That a website takes videos from YouTube and adds them to their site or blog, doesn't give the website or blog the right to change the license. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The account who uploaded those files to Youtube was... LaVeuPV. The very same website I linked.--Coentor (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do they use a Standard YouTube License? Are they unaware that YouTube offers a CC-BY-3.0 license? INeverCry 19:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea, because I'm not part of that media, but files can be licensed as many times as they want, so everthing is Ok. Besides, they have the free licese in their website, that of course, must be more important to them than Youtube.--Coentor (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ssit.jpg

I have added File:Ssit.jpg to wikicommons which is a free source collected from my friend and it is not subjected any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ప్రత్యూష్ (talk • contribs)

@ప్రత్యూష్: Hi,
We need a formal written permission from the photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which apply here, all images and other created works have copyrights until they expire. So, as Yann says, if we wanted to keep this image, we would need a license from the photographer. However, this image is too small (153x160px) and too blurry to be useful for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2016 (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:Romi_Paku.jpg

Está foto de Romi Paku fue sacada de un sitio que comparte una licencia libre y proviene de Wikia.Si desean revisar la procedencia les dejo el siguiente enlace:http://es.bluedragon.wikia.com/wiki/Archivo:Romi_Paku.jpg

Rauhan (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment This image had not yet been deleted, but had a {{Speedy}} tag on it which pointed to the source site. The source is indeed CC-BY-SA and I have added {{Licensereview}} to the image file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Shivaa.jpg

nobody will take a copyright in hindu images of gods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjeevan315 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose While Shiva is, indeed, ancient, this representation of him appears to be modern and, if so, has a copyright which belongs to the artist. We cannot keep it on Commons unless (1) you can prove that the copyright has expired or (2) the artist sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Engine Shed.jpg

also: File:Library & The Engine Shed, University of Lincoln.jpg

Reason: This image is copyright free and free for public use JEM111 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"The materials stored in this site are copyrighted. By using this image library you agree not to reproduce or further disseminate images stored herein without prior consent, and only to use downloads as agreed with the University of Lincoln."
Please submit more information why this particular photo is copyright free. Thuresson (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I see nothing on the web site which suggests that these are freely licensed. While I see is no explicit copyright notice, that is not required. In order for these to be OK for Commons either they must be on a Web page that is explicitly freely licensed or the copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lots of aviation geeks in 787 t-shirts (10832989443).jpg

Ref
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lots of aviation geeks in 787 t-shirts (10832989443).jpg
Source
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jetstarairways/10832989443

The above deletion request was closed as a delete, though the only two opinions in the DR were to keep. The rationale for deletion is that consent is required from the subject, however that is rarely accepted as a reason to delete correctly released portraits from Commons unless there is a very clear case of the photograph being of a private moment or deliberately intrusive. An argument was raised that a commercial airplane flight might be a place where one may have an expectation of privacy, but the context of the photograph, having been taken on the first commercial Boeing 787 Dreamliner flight of an enthusiast proudly seen wearing his 787 commemorative teeshirt, is not one where the issues of COM:IDENT would normally be seen to be a concern. The deleting admin has refused to consider undeletion. If there was a meaningful concern that the word "geeks" is offensive, then the file can easily be restored with that word changed to, say, "enthusiasts"

I am worried that if simple non-controversial portraits on public transport are retrospectively interpreted to require model consent, then Wikimedia Commons is in danger of losing many thousands of valued portraits where unnecessarily hypothetical arguments can be raised for expectation of privacy, such as File:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg which has no model consent for the child receiving aide, or File:Roundhouse wipers.jpg which has no model consent on record for the women having a lunch break in their personal time. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support A Boing 787 is not a "non-public setting". Thuresson (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support I don't think there is an expectation of privacy on a commercial airliner. If this was a personal photo, I might feel a bit leery about lifting it from Flickr, but it appears it was authored by the airline itself during that airline's first 787 flight, who then published it on Flickr. So, it was interesting enough for them to publish, which means it's in our scope as well, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support doesn't seem to be cause for delete, and also for the sole reason that in the DR there were no opinions to delete, but was done so by the closing admin. If the closing admin makes the decision only based on his opinion, why should we even bother giving opinions? --SuperJew (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

SuperJew, please remember that DRS are not votes, and the closing Admin (me) is required to take the law and Commons rules into account in the closure. Also, in this case, contrary to your summary, the opinions given were two for deletion (the nom and me) and two for keep, with one neutral comment.
I think Carl's comment is important -- I had not noticed that the image was taken and posted by the airline. While I still believe that an ordinary passenger on an ordinary airline flight is entitled to his or her expectation of privacy, I agree with Carl that this is a special case -- the passenger had to know that the airline might use the image for any purpose. Therefore, I am restoring the image with a change of name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Aboriginal Flag 02.jpg

Jim and I made a different closing regarding two images. For the relevant DR's see:

We decided to let a third, uninvolved admin look into it via an Undeletion request. You can find this discussion here. I would appreciate it if this request can stay open for at least a week since the complexity of the current case. Also, I would highly appreciate it if the closing admin is someone with a lot of knowledge and experience regarding intellectual property and our deletion proces. Of course this admin needs to be uninvolved etc. If it comes down to counting votes Jim suggested that we rule out votes from accounts with less than 1000 edits. (Please realise that a vote or a per Pietje isn't the same as an argument)

I am pinging certain people. @Jameslwoodward: (of course), @SuperJew: (uploader), @George Ho: (initiated the DR), @Stefan2: (I closed this DR partly based on his arguments)

Jim and I also have a slightly different interpertation when it comes to Israeli FOP. Therefor I would like to invite @Matanya: and @Geagea: to this discussion because of their expertise regarding Israeli copyright law.

Whatever is decided, it should be final. It is either keeping both files or deleting both files. If someone feels that another participant from the original discussion should be invited feel free to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That can be a tough case. Specifically for the FoP provisions, we have generally used that exception if it is located in a FoP country, regardless of the nationality of the artist or where it was first published. That might feel more appropriate for works which only exist in a single (or very few) copies, like a sculpture or a building, where the original author allowed it to be put in a country with that provision (or at least did not take steps to prevent it). I'm fairly certain we have kept FoP photos of sculpture where the artist was from another country though -- we have usually used the location of the photographer to determine if FoP applies. Using that provision for something which is easily copied like that flag might feel a bit different, like an end run around copyright law. I'm pretty sure we would rule differently if someone simply made a derivative work in a country where the original was no longer under copyright (say a recording of a musical composition), but the original still was copyrighted in the country of origin, which is probably the rationale for deletion here. But... if using the FoP precedents, it might be OK. A zoo is quite likely to be a public place (pretty sure museums qualify in the UK, and Israeli law has evolved from UK law). I have no idea if that is a permanent display of the flag though... could well be by the looks of it (is it part of a permanent exhibit, or a temporary exhibit?) The country of origin of the photo would be Israel. Of course, like any FoP photo, usage might be dependent on the law of the country you use it in (regardless of policy here). That flag is likely below the threshold of originality in most countries, meaning the photo is only likely to be a problem in a relative few places in the world. Conversely though that means people in other countries could make public copies of it without permission -- that might not be the best situation to use the FoP exceptions. Very easy to see the two different results ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the flag is in "permanent exhibit" according to our rules. It is in the Australian section in the Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem. As far as I know (I am sure not an expert of the Israeli low) the Israeli law about FoP is quite friendly. It's includes also works of applied art (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Israel). So I believe that this case covered by FoP Israel no matter what is the origin country of the the copyright holder.-- Geagea (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I second every word. It is permanent, I actually asked ... :) matanya • talk 20:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Re not knowing 100% that the flag is copyrighted, I found this on an au government page
The Australian Aboriginal Flag is protected by copyright and may only be reproduced in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 or with the permission of Mr Harold Thomas. Contact details are:
Mr Harold Thomas, PO Box 41807, CASUARINA NT 0810
PS It is likely that the reference to the Copyright Act 1968 is for "fair use" or "fair dealing" in their tongue. Just an FYI I know we don't consider fair use. Also "Permission is not required to fly the Australian Aboriginal Flag." Rybkovich (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 Keep
First of all I think this DR is also relevant to the discussion.
I'll just reiterate what I've already said about this discussion. This flag's source is Israel, where it is not copyrightable (COM:TOO). Also it is covered by FoP Israel.
Furthermore I will add regarding to FoP Israel, that the zoo is considered a public place, same as a museum. Also, it is a permanent exhibit, the Australian section of the zoo. And there is a range of 7-8 years between the two visits when I took these photographs (2006 and 2013 or 2014) to prove it.
--SuperJew (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not what I hoped for, but at least this is better than an undiscussed move. Still  Delete as nominator of both images. Must we rely on other jurisdictions to disregard the jurisdiction of the source origin? A photo is a derivative of anything, including a flag. Flags are two-dimensional, like paintings, and easier to file a lawsuit about. The jurisdiction of the photo does not outbalance the jurisdiction of the flag; that is the other way around. SuperJew can upload a local copy of his own photo at Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia if that's what he wanted. After all, en Wiki relies on solely the US law. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: based on that logic, this whole project is pointless and whoever wants can upload a local copy of the photo they want at the Wikipedia they want to use. --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
When has Commons been pointless? Uploading a photo of a living person is okay as long as a person is famous or very prominent. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I was replying to your comment "SuperJew can upload a local copy of his own photo at Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia if that's what he wanted." That logic you used would render Commons pointless as people can just upload to their local Wikipedias. And why do you assume what I want? I want the photograph to be accessible easily to everyone across all WikiProjects. --SuperJew (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Even eliminating unfree images doesn't make Commons pointless. When you said that your photo is "free" to use, but the Aussie court said that the flag is unfree, this puts the photo's use into question. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You keep on trying to skew the discussion by stating your opinion as fact. --SuperJew (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
How is this an opinion? How is yours a fact? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: English Wikipedia, sure (subject to fair use). Hebrew Wikipedia, not so much. English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with an Exemption Policy Doctrine (EDP) - see the Foundation Licensing Policy.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 Keep Based on previous and above discussions. Yann (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Which discussions, Yann? About the photos taken in Israel or the aboriginal flag originated in Australia? Other discussions about the flag resulted in delete. --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you see that one resulted in Kept? Yann (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
What about the other one resulted in Deleted? And why are an administrator and a user picking on each other? --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand what you want. You asked for an opinion, so I give mine. Giving the information above about FoP in Israel, and that one of the DR was Kept, it seems quite obvious how I came to this conclusion. Anyway, copyright is quite complex (understatement), and for such a difficult case like this, I am not surprised that another admin got a different conclusion. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose /  Delete for both images. If a work is protected in his home country, it can not be uploaded here. Likely the museum /place where it is exposed have a permission but you can't be sure they have this permission. And we have not. As exemple, there is no FOP in France, if someone or some organisation publish a photo of a protected french building on a wall in a place where FOP is ok, does the image become free? no. Because you have no way to know if the publisher have a permission from the artist or not. You need the permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Another thing, if you keep this kind of image you're not far to authorize the creation of derivative works, for exemple a svg files of the flag itself based on our image, it is a circumvention of copyright of the home country. The image/desigh/creation must be free in the home country, it's one of the policies of Commons. If a work is protected in his home country, it is unfree until you have an explicit permission from the copyright owner, and we have not. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The flag was made in Israel, even if the idea originates from Australia. You can't copyright ideas, only the representation, which in this case is not under a copyright in the country it was made. I don't see any issue of making a SVG version of this flag, by the same reasoning.
If a French recent painting or sculpture is permanently exposed in a country with full FoP, there is no problem to publish a picture of it here, even if that work of art is still in copyright in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yann, why and how is the flag an 'idea'? The flag "made" in Israel is a reproduction of the aboriginal flag already manufactured in Australia. The "idea" already became a medium (or a fabric), like a flag. Whatever is fixed into any medium is already copyrighted at the time of creation. The flag idea became a flag already the second it was manufactured and published in Australia. And who is more likely wikilawyering here? I hadn't expect an administrator saying something like this... *shakes head* --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Making the flag doesn't copyright the idea, as long as it is possible to express the idea in another way: "a yellow circle with a black strip on top and a red strip on bottom". And why are you pushing for deletion anyway? Regards, Yann (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I just want consistency with other deletion discussions of flag copies. Also, Commons should abide to rules of home countries. Tell me, is the flag depicted in the photo the aboriginal flag? --George Ho (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
That's part of why most countries wouldn't allow a copyright on something like this -- there's not much difference between the idea and its expression; in the U.S. that can get the merger doctrine invoked (which means it is below the threshold of originality). The country of origin of the photograph is Israel. The photograph itself is free in Israel. The zoo might have gotten permission from the author to make that copy, but if it's below the threshold in Israel, they wouldn't need to. So... what is the country of origin for Commons' sake? When you get into multi country situations like this, there is hardly any actual legal precedent. In real life, copyright law of the country you are in would apply -- if the flag is below the threshold of originality most places, there wouldn't be a problem, and even then if it's fair use / fair dealing then there also wouldn't be a problem. There is a point where a photograph of something stops being a derivative work. If we take a picture of someone wearing clothes which have a copyrighted pattern on them, in most cases we are fine with that photo. If there was a picture of a scene with that flag flying, that may well also be OK -- flying the flag is OK, and it's a photo of something in context. Is this a photo of the flag's use in context in Israel, or is it more just trying to get an image of the flag, i.e. the public context isn't all that important? It's probably that latter case which is more the issue for folks -- people may feel the photo is mostly just a reproduction of the flag, and an end-run around a copyright we would generally respect. And other people may feel the copyright on the flag is so ridiculous as to not worry about something other than a straight reproduction. In short though... there is no hard-and-fast Commons policy which covers this. It's not definitely one way or the other. It's more of a consensus over what aspect is more true to Commons' aim. One interesting question would be whether that photo would be OK to use as a postcard in Australia -- a photo of a legal use might well be inherently OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose I have been going back and forth on this. But now that I took turns taking sides, it has become pretty clear to me.
There is no doubt that the Aboriginal Flag is copyrighted - per AU government page. There is maybe a tiny doubt that this is not a picture of the Aboriginal Flag, but its tiny tiny. It looks like a flag, we have testimony that its a flag, and there is a tag below the flag which is likely to be an identification of this flag.
Both USA and AU are part of the Berne Convention which "enforces a requirement that countries recognize copyrights held by the citizens of all other signatory countries" (wiki). USA is obliged to recognize AU copyright law, and we are obliged to recognize USA law, hence we are obliged to delete these files. Even if we think that its crazy how this image could be copyrighted, and this is a situation where we can make an exception. We can't. Per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle we have to follow the principle which is "that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". This continuous debate is an indication of there being significant doubt regarding this matter. Therefore we have to delete the files. :) Rybkovich (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The U.S. will use its own law -- they basically will give Australian authors the same rights that U.S. authors get. If something is above the threshold in Australia but below in the U.S., there is no copyright in the U.S. So, this photo is fine there too (and thus this could be uploaded to en-wiki directly). It's more a question for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would US rely on its own originality standards if there is already an AU court decision on this matter? A AU court found that there is a copyright owner for this flag. Rybkovich (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Each countries' laws apply within its own borders and no further. U.S. law doesn't use Australian copyright term lengths either -- they just use their own. This is the "national treatment" -- Australia gives U.S. authors the same rights as Australian authors, whatever those are, and the U.S. gives Australian authors the same rights as U.S. authors. The U.S. would not give protection to an Australian work where a U.S. author would not get protection. There was a court case, w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., where it was decided that foreign law would be used to determine ownership (i.e. if there was a valid transfer of copyright in another country by that country's rules, said transfer would be respected even if not following U.S. rules). However, whether something was copyright infringement and what the penalties would be are based on U.S. law only (for an infringement taking place in the U.S.). Another example might be the wrapped Reichstag by Christo and Jeanne-Claude. I believe they did get a statement or ruling that it was copyrighted in Germany, but when they tried to registere it in the U.S. it was denied since it was below the threshold of originality -- the U.S. version. This is why the photo of the aboriginal flag is OK in most of the world -- just a potential issue in those with a UK-level threshold (and even then, fair dealing could apply). Commons though does take into account the law in the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I see. Interesting that in Reichstag the Berne convention was not addressed at all (makes sense why it would not be applied in the registration part). Seems like per Itar-Tass if the Reichstag artists did bring a copyright case, it would not be immediately dismissed because the registration was denied. Under Itar-Tass/Berne they would have to use the German standard just for the ownership determination part. Rybkovich (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The Berne Convention provides for some minimum standards, but does not get into the details of the threshold of originality and that sort of thing, and certainly does not require a country to give rights beyond their own national laws to foreign authors. Article 5 basically states that principle -- authors should expect to get the same rights as nationals in a country where protection is claimed. Paragraph 2 makes clear that the extent of protection in another country is exclusively governed by that country's laws. Secondly, when the U.S. acceded to the Berne Convention, they made clear that the text of the Berne Convention has no legal effect in the U.S -- 17 USC 104(c). The U.S. law was amended to comply, but that law is the only basis for any rights given, so you will find relatively few rulings which reference the Berne text. In some countries, treaties are "self-executing", i.e. the text of the treaty becomes part of the law, but that not true for all countries, and definitely not the case for the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just an exemple, if you want this file of a french building here in Commons, you need at least two permissions: the permission of the architect/artist and the permission of the photographer. Imagine an architecture museum in Israel manage to have the both permissions to put a version of this image on one of his wall permanently. Firstly you can't know if they have really the permissions unless it is clearly explained somewhere, but here it's not the case. Secondly even if these permissions exist, what are they? how to know they are not only fair use. FOP is ok when there is not a previous version copyrighted, if the fisrt registration/publication is protected, you need to read at least one time the explicit statement that the image is now compatible with our licenses. And about the flag, yes of course it's the idea/design which is copyrighted, all the aboriginal flags are derivative works of the first copyrighted flag, and yes IMO the same copyright apply for all the derivatives of it.
    Just another exemple, you take the same image of building, if we follow the defenders of the "keep", well, so it's quite easy to get around all the copyrights protection of the world. The argument for the flag is "it is permanently here, in a public place so FOP apply", cool but I have better, in Algeria FOP is "it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.", even for interiors. We have just to print the copyrighted artworks we want free, we find a way to convince a small local train station in Algeria to put the prints on one of its interior walls, and in two years we come back...and miracle, the image is permanently situated in a public place, cool it's free now. You can now take a photo of the print of this image you had hanging on the walls of the station and upload it here.
    In no ways the copyright protection allow to do such things. Or it will be equivalent of saying that the FOP have the power to change the copyright protection of a previously published artwork, and to do this without the consent of the artist. Sorry but it's totally wrong. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
FoP doesn't "change" the copyright of the object, but it allows taking pictures and publishing them without the artist's permission. That's the case for all pictures on Commons of sculptures, paintings, etc., taken in a country with FoP. It doesn't allow making a copy of the art work. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: When a sclulptor, painter or an architect first publish his work in a country where FoP is OK, he is aware of what he do and de facto he accepted that, this is that, "his permission". I stay on my point of view, see my exemple about Algeria above. Another exemple, a flickr file can be free licensed but at the same time can be a copyvio, it's exactly the same here, it's not because someone put a work on a wall in a country where FoP is ok, that he have the right to do that. Artist of Israel are aware about FoP in Israel and they give their permission when they take the decision to built a sculpture, building... in a public place. Artist first published in another country are not under the law of Israel. My concern is not about the photo, of course the photo is free, my concern is about the design (like for a logo), the Australian artist have maybe not chosen to have his work in a permanent exhibit under a free FoP. I guess the artist can have the choice to have or not his work in permanent exhibit, regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to insist, but following you, if it was a poster of this not free image [12] exactly at the same place of the flag, the photo of the poster will be free?!? even if the artist never give the permission to have his work permanent exhibit there? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Actually yes, as long as your hypothetical poster is covered by "work of applied art" in Israel law. The restriction is that your poster should be permanently situated in a public place. According to this page, FoP in Israel is broader than the equivalent term in Commonwealth jurisdictions and "it includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc.) which transfers useful information", so this flag is undoubtedly covered. Actually, there are 2 reasons why this is OK: 1. because FoP covers it, 2. because it is so simple that the flag is not under a copyright in Israel. I think that 2. is the case almost everywhere in the world, except Australia and may be UK. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: I understand what you say, and the law in Israel, but I still think the Israel law apply only for the artist who have deliberately chosen to be permanently published there in a public place. My exemple was perfect as it need two permissions the one of the photographer and the one of the architect, if one of the both is not agree, a photo of the poster can't be free, no matter of Israelite law, simply because the permanent exhibition will be illegal without the consent of both artists. The only thing I concede is that some may consider the flag as below TOO, me not. Thank you for your time, I said what I wanted to say, end of discussion for me :) Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: The artist can't really control what happens to his/her works after they are not anymore in his/her possession. FoP applies if anyone purchases a work of art and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Restore/Undelete. The file is free in the USA and in the country of origin. No evidence that the fiel has been first published in Australia. Pursuant to commons policyes we can keep the files. Actor sequitur forum rei. Steinsplitter (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I understand you closed as a keep/restore. Why then did you re-delete the file? --SuperJew (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Because the udel user asked that the request stays open for at least on week. Was one day to early. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Were you referring to the photo or the flag, Steinsplitter? The fabric copy of the flag might have been sent from Australia. If it were made in Israel, that would be reproduction. The flag is still unfree in Australia as Israeli laws do not change or impact the court ruling in Australia. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Australia is in this case a third party country. As far i know there are no legal remedys available to enforce such count orders in israel and us. Therefor the aforementioned legal maxim applies. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I picked up this debate and have consulted the case that awarded copyright to Harold Thomas. I also picked up the Flags of the World page which gives their view on the copyright status of the flag, namely that Mr Thomas licenced an Australian firm Carroll & Richardson as sole manufacturers of the flag and bunting using the flag and the firm birubiart as sole manufacturer and distributor of all other products based on Mr Thomas' copyright.
I notice that no mention was made of literary rights relating to the flag. However, on reading the definition of Free Cultural Works, section "Essential freedoms", the phrase "(or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original)" suggests to me that retaining this image could infringe Burubiart's monopoly. Since Commons does not have a "Fair Use" policy, I interpret this phrase to mean that the image cannot be used in Commons, but can be used in those versions of Wikipedia that have a "Fair use" policy. Martinvl (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It could also be used on any projects which use a controlling law where the flag is below the threshold of originality, since there would be no copyright to need fair use for. That would include en-wiki. But yes, the main question is if we consider Australia's law, and if so, are there uses of the photograph in Australia which could be infringing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Fixed broken links for you, Martin. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the flag is not below TOO in Australia, I don't see how it can be free here. A permanent exhibition in a public place of a no-free artwork (without the consent of the artist) is simply illegal in all countries. Israel can not decide what is below TOO for us nor for Australia because the flag is a derivative work of a copyrighted designed flag in Australia. The only question that stay is : is it below TOO in Australia? if no delete both, if yes keep both. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: ...and Australian law has no influence to US/Israel law (= the court decision is considered as null and void in us/israel) - unless otherwise specified. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: - Australia, Israel and the United States are all signatories of the Berne Convention. From that point of view, all recognise each other's copyright laws. Martinvl (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Martinv1: Actually not quite like that... signatories of the Berne Convention grant full protection, according to their own laws, to citizens of other Berne signatories. They don't take into account the laws of other countries, in general. If something is above the TOO in Australia (and say New Zealand), but below the TOO everywhere else, then usage of the (otherwise licensed) photo is not a problem anywhere except in Australia and New Zealand. Other countries would not respect Australia's TOO (they would however expect their own authors to receive the same TOO in Australia, even if below the TOO in their own countries). They would give Australian authors the same rights (and the same TOO) that their own authors get... if below the TOO in their country, then there is no copyright to infringe.
Commons policy is a different matter, though -- we respect the law in the U.S. (not a problem in this case) and the law in the country of origin. Technically the country of origin of the photograph is Israel, where this might be OK, either through threshold of originality, or freedom of panorama (though looking at the law, FoP is only for buildings, sculptures, and works of applied art -- not necessarily all 2D artwork). But, in a case where the photo is derivative of a work from a third country, it can get cloudier. If we think the photo is primarily focusing on the flag, rather than a scene of which it is just a part, then we often would want to consider the law in Australia as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Steinsplitter: What I'm trying to say it is precisely that, we must respect the laws of all the countries involved.
In USA:ok
In Israel:ok
Photographer:ok
In Australia: not ok and yes Australia is involved because it's an Australian flag. For publication here (because we talk now about a publication here in Commons) of an Australian flag, we need
or it is below TOO in Australia
or we have an evidence it's free licensed
or we have a permission from the copyright owner of the flag
or we read the permission of the copyright owner send to the museum. Because it is there the problem, we can't be sure the museum have this permission. If the museum have not the permission, it is a copyright violation. See exemple below:
You're German, FoP is OK in Germany, imagine you work in a museum. Your museum can not display a giant poster of this image on the facade without the consent of the author, or it will be a copyright violiation, no matter if FoP is ok or not in Germany.
Of course we can assume the Israelite museum have the permission, but in that case why this copyright notice in this AU government page. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My concern is also because it is a flag, the flags are easy to find in shops, and all the articles (flags, paintings, films, photo...) that you found in shops are intended for private use not to be displayed in public places, or again it is a copyright violation. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Simple question, if the copyright owner comes here in one year and says "My flag or its copies are copyrighted under the law of Australia, and I never agreed for it been exposed permanently in Israel", what will you say? "ok, we delete the files" or "we don't care because FoP is ok in Israel and we assumed the museum had the permission, now your work is free in all the world, thanks to Israelite law, nice day" --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Where my reasoning has its limits, I agree, is that we can not doubt all the world museums and world exhibitions...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's a threshold of originality issue, the author would have no recourse in most of the world, since they would not own any copyright in most countries. We do host many works which are free in the country of origin and the U.S., but still copyrighted in some other countries -- users in those countries must always be careful. Hosting it here wouldn't say anything about its legality in Australia -- just the U.S. and Israel. But, as a part of the "country of origin" policy, we could well decide in this case that we should respect Australia's law as well. That's a valid opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • When deciding whether a British logo is free or not we look at British law, why it is not the same for an Australian flag? because it was taken in an Israelite museum, well ok I understood that, but why to write a copyright notice if it is to expose permanently the flag in a country where FoP is ok, it's a nonsense (though possible), it is a bit like to find free files in Flickr and the same images "All right reserved" in another website (also possible). It's why I assume the museum have not the permission, and if they don't care, this is not our case, us, we are concerned about the country of origin (see British logos) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Stefan2 : "The section COM:FOP#Israel is irrelevant here as the provisions in that section only apply when using copyrighted material in Israel" [13] not for external works. I is the same for TOO in Israel, that concern only Israelite works. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If it was a straight copy of the flag, I don't think there would be much question. When it's a photograph of it in a public context, it gets trickier. This one is focusing on the flag in particular possibly too much. For COM:FOP situations, we typically will allow the photograph on Commons if the photographer had reason to expect it was free for them -- though those have been more for permanent statues (even if the sculptor was another nationality). We have even done that when a statue was placed right on the border of a FOP country, and the photo was taken from that country. But, I'm not sure that 1) this qualifies for Israeli FOP, and 2) I'm not sure we should apply those same rules to a 2-D work of this nature, at least without it just being more a part of the scene rather than focusing on the flag itself. On the other hand, the lack of protection in most of the world due to TOO might cause people to feel differently about this one in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I have done a little mre reading. I think that this page puts things into perspective where Google were refused permission to use the flag as part fo their Australia Day logo". Commons rules are that all images must be free in the fullest meaning of the word. Even the English Wikipedia entry is sailing close to the wind by not having apparently contacted the copyright owner. However, the image file in the Engloish Wikipedia is plastered with restrictive notices. Martinvl (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • The creator of the Google Doodle you're referencing is an Australian who at the time of creating the doodle lived and created the doodle with the Aboriginal flag in Australia. It's not a relevant case to this discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well... that's really the question, is if it's relevant or not. In this situation, do we also respect Australia's law for our "country of origin" policy, or just Israel's? If this was say a copyrighted painting, which was out of copyright in one country but not the painting's country of origin, then someone made a print in the first country and took a picture of it... does that mean we can host the image on Commons? For photos which are basically copies of the original painting, almost certainly not. For works where the copyrighted work just happened to be a part but not the focus... probably. For something which falls somewhere in between like this... difficult. The flag is a rather prominent part of the photo, and doesn't show a lot of its public context (the usual reason for allowing FoP photos). (And I'm not sure the flag is "applied art"... if not, then Israeli FoP would not apply to that photo.) @Martinv1: That situation is a little different -- in that case, someone was using the flag in a straight-up artistic work, which is obviously going to be derivative and not fair use. If you allow a use of the flag (like flying it) though, you do not necessarily get to control photographs which include it in that context -- in fact infringing uses of such photos would be rare to nonexistent. I guess one question is if this photo would be OK to use as a postcard in Australia... given the focus on the flag, it might well be an issue, where other photos probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Clindberg: If someone purchases a recent painting or sculpture from another country, and it is permanently displayed in a FoP country, we would allow pictures of this work of art to be uploaded on Commons, right? Why not in this case? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yann: As with anything related to copyright, there is a spectrum of possibilities. With a photo of a building, that is pretty rock-solid -- we would not care what the nationality of the architect was. With a permanent sculpture, that is often "close enough" to the building scenario -- in many cases the sculptor knew full well where the sculpture was going to end up, and in other cases sold it without caring. A permanent painting is less common... if it was a painting displayed in a museum in a FoP country that may well be problematic. For something which can reproduced by anyone with a color printer like this work, there may not be any indication that it was there by permission in the first place. Also, with a photo which contains a work, there are a range of possibilities as well -- anything de minimis is OK, if the work forms just a part of a wider scene that is probably also OK, but when a photo is really focusing on just the copyrighted work, that may not be OK. In a country which has FoP for two-dimenstional works, a photograph which amounts to a copy of the original work (i.e. cropped such that there is no context as to where it was displayed) would still not be OK. If we allowed everything based on country of origin of the photograph, then we could find the country with the shortest terms, and as soon as a work expired in that country, photograph a copy there, and then upload it to Commons. Often, copyright laws do prohibit putting up a copyrighted work in public without consent of the author, so if there is presumed consent that is often enough to assume it was there with the copyright owner's permission, but when there is threshold of originality issues (such that permission may not have been required in Israel) it can cloud that assumption. There are often not clear boundaries, so the point a work crosses over from something which people feel is more associated with (in this case) the use in Israel, versus just being a vehicle to display a work which we would otherwise not display because of country of origin (thus feeling like an end-run around the law and against the spirit of the country of origin rule) can be a matter of debate. The fact that this work is not copyrightable in much of the world may also enter into it. In extreme cases, such as a "perpetual-copyright" law (for example the UK law surrounding the King James bible and Peter Pan), we do ignore the law in a country of origin. But those have been relatively rare. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Because when a sculptor make a sculpture permanently displayed in a FoP country, he is aware of the law in this country, that is his choice to accept to submit to the law of the FoP country. And of course he can't come after and say "my work is copyrighted", of course. In our case there is a 90% chance the creator of the flag, not the photo, the flag, is even not aware of the permanently display of his work in a museum-zoo in Israel. @Yann: imagine you have a flickr account and you publish one of your own work with a clear copyright notice, the same museum in Israel we talk about can not take your work and can not permanently display it on one of his wall, if yes it will be a copyright violation of your copyright notice. Until you have clearly change yourself the copyright notice to a free license, this is the first license has priority. Once you have change you can't go back, but until you did not change, yourself, your copyright notice, or until you do not chose, yourself, to permanently display your work in a FoP country, no museum, nor photographers, nor FoP countries can do it for you. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I already answered that point above. I copy it again here. The artist can't really control what happens to his/her works after they are not anymore in his/her possession. FoP applies if anyone purchases a work of art and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone purchases a work of art without the consent of the artist and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country, this is a copyright violation. And here we search and delete copyvios, no matter if it's on Flickr or in the real life. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If someone legally purchases a work of art, with or without the consent of the artist and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country, it is not a copyright violation. Carl Lindberg is entirely right, this is not really about what the law says, it's about how Commons policy deals with a complex set of cross-country copyright rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
When I say without the consent I mean illegally (no permissions, no respect of licensing...). To put a free license on a work with a clear and explicit copyright notice without the consent of the artist is a copyright violation. To purchases a work of art, without the consent of the artist and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country has the same result : the work photo become free. Sorry but you can not display what you want in public place, it's wrong, no matter if it is a country with FoP or not. As exemple when you buy a work of art (music, photo book, video), you can not display it in public place, no matter if there is FoP or not. Art is free when the author agree, and in a FoP country the permission is implicit agreement when he agreed to be published there, in public place, but not before he has agreed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but either it doesn't make sense, or you are wrong. Let's make examples. A Picasso painting is sold at an auction. Let's imagine that it is purchased by a museum from a FoP country which permanently displayed it. No issue here. Someone purchases a French sculpture and gives it to be permanently displayed in a street in Germany. Again no issue here. In both cases, the purchase is valid, and where the work of art is finally displayed can't be controlled by the artist (or his/her heirs). In both cases, it is allowed to take a picture of the work of art, and publish it under a free license, without asking the artist for a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
In your examples the copyright owners deliberately sold the works with rights. Is it the case here? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
It is exactly what I wanted to say the Australian copyright owner has not received payment in exchange of his work, he did not sell it nor give permissions. Thus this is illegal display of artwork in public place. Of course for who think the flag is above TOO, and in Australia....I can't say. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Yann and Christian, mentioning general topic will be pointless. As far as I can see, you can no longer influence each other's opinions. We should limit ourselves to US, Israel, and Australia. Broadening the scope would lead to nowhere. Correct me wrong, but I haven't discussed something out of scope. Christian, no offense, but are you replying to yourself just to confuse an uninvolved administrator? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No I confuse nobody, I have the arguments that come with jolts and I write in the same way and my English langage is far from to be perfect.
    In the exemple shown by Yann the museum become the copyright owner because the museum bought the work, there is a contract of sale and that the sale contract contains an explicit clause on license. When I said throughout my reasoning above, " there is no consent from the artist", I wanted to say "no consent from the copyright owner of the flag". And if the artwork (the flag, not the photo) have not a compatible license in it's former country; or the museum have not buy the rights; or the copyright owner don't give the explicit permission (equivalent to our OTRS), yes, to permanently display the flag in a public place (with FoP or not) is illegal, and to publish a photo of this is also illegal. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. The way you indented some of your comments makes comments appear as if you self-replied. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


I have a very simple argument here. I think we agree that the flag either does not qualify for copyright in Israel, or, if does have an Israeli copyright, it qualifies for FOP. If anyone disagrees, I can cite law on the point, but it is probably unnecessary. Therefore the issue is country of origin and whether Israeli law applies.

We routinely keep sculptural works by sculptors from non-FOP countries when the sculpture is located in an FOP country. For examples see Category:Alexander Calder, but there are many others as well. In the case of Calder (and most others), the sculpture was actually manufactured in the USA and then shipped to the FOP country. So, if we delete this flag, which may or may not have been manufactured in Australia, on the grounds that the country of origin is Australia, then we must delete all images of sculpture and other artistic works which were created in non-FOP countries for the same reason.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy (or guideline) against straw man argument, especially for administrators? The flag is fully contrast to a sculpture. If you bring up the irrelevant sculpture issue, what are similarities between a flag (two-) and a sculpture (three-dimensional)? --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: Especially for administrators? Admins can have a own opinion as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think treating this the same as sculpture cases is required at all. This is policy -- the law treats such works differently in many cases (sometimes 2D vs 3D, sometimes along other lines) and so can we. As Christian Ferrer notes, many copyright laws (including the U.S.; see 17 USC 106(5)) do make permanent public display controllable by the copyright owner regardless of the owner of the physical copy, so most often there is a presumption of permission from the author that the work is there in the first place, and the author would have OKed its display knowing that it was in a FoP country. The threshold of originality situation though may mean no such permission was needed in this case. I'm also not convinced at all that FoP actually does apply given Israel's law. I think it's more TOO. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Carl, I don't think 17 USC 106(5) has any practical effect -- if a German buys a Calder, ships it to Germany, and puts it on display, where do Calder's heirs go to enforce it -- a US court does not have jurisdiction and a German court is unlikely to enforce US law on the point.
George, please say more -- I don't understand at all why you think that the example of a Calder sculpture, manufactured in the USA and shipped to an FOP country is not perfectly on point. The Israeli law allows FOP for both "works of artistic craftsmanship" and sculpture. If you insist, I can probably find a painter that fits the bill, although they are much fewer because fewer countries allow FOP for paintings.
As far as the question of eligibility for copyright goes, it is clear that in order to be eligible under Israeli law, the flag must be "a work of artistic craftsmanship" -- no other available category could possibly be applied to a flag. As I implied above, I don't think that the flag qualifies, but I know that others do, which is why I made the FOP argument. Either way, the images are OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave the sculpture out. Using it as an argument can be interpreted as a straw man argument (as said before). There are bunch of copies of the flag, especially in Australia. The flag copy in Israel is not the very first flag. It does not qualify as "permanent" because many copies of the flag might appear "permanent" everywhere in the world. To qualify as permanent, the very first copy of the flag should be in one permanent place. --George Ho (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Permanent display of a work means just that - it doesn't matter if its the original or a copy, if a specific instance of the work is on permanent public display then that instance may be eligible for FOP. One copy on permanent display does not mean a 2nd copy on temporary display elsewhere is also covered by FOP. The "original" in this case is not a physical flag, but the design on the flag.
The work may well meet the Israeli threshold of originality (Israel and Australia have similar copyright laws derived from the UK, with the sweat-of-the-brow concept), so Israeli FOP provisions are relevant here.
The difference I see from a typical FOP case, is that the work is almost certainly mass-produced. Sculptures are invariably much more limited in quantity. We could reflect that in how we interpret our policy for works that are mass-produced, by transferring country-of-origin from country-of-photo to country-of-design. That closes the apparent loophole that we allows us to circumvent copyright we don't like by finding a copy of the work in a more FOP-friendly country.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct, U.S. law would not have an effect -- only if there was a similar provision in Germany's law (and it looks like the related provision there is only for unpublished works, and similar for Israel). Thought that type of clause was more common but perhaps not. I'm not sure where Israeli law uses the term "works of artistic craftsmanship" at all -- they do use "applied art" though. The COM:FOP page says that the term would include public maps etc. which convey information, but the flag seems more of a straight artistic work to me. Per Commons:Threshold of originality#Israel though, while Israeli law has its basis in the UK 1911 copyright law, it seems as though it has changed more substantially since then -- they are much closer to the U.S. version of the threshold it seems now (and they have also incorporated U.S. style fair use rules). So, have strong doubts that this work is copyrightable. I would have doubts that FOP would apply though if it was copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Which work, the photo or the flag? --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The flag. The photo is obviously copyrightable but also obviously licensed. The TOO and FOP discussions would be on the flag itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Easy: the flag already meets thres. of origin in Australia. Also, FoP in Australia does not apply to two-dimensional artworks. The Australian jurisdiction might extend to usage in Israel, despite how Israeli law applies to foreign works. --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The photo was taken in Israel, where Australian law does not apply. Rather unlikely that Israel would use foreign law for either situation. Australian FoP is definitely irrelevant. If the flag is below the threshold of originality in Israel (likely), the photo is fine there. The question though, is if people think it's appropriate to ignore Australian law for this situation or not. That is a decisions for Commons itself, regardless of legality in Israel. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that I understand this correctly. Technically there is no issue with the upload, because the photograph was taken in Israel and under Israeli law there is no copyright violation.
  • Under COM:L licensing: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published."
  • The country where the work of art was created is not necessarily it's origin. The flag is a work of art that was created in Australia.
  • In this case "the work" is not the flag itself, only the photograph of the flag. Since the photograph was taken in Israel, we consider "the origin" of that work to be Israel.
  • Because the work was created in Israel, the copyright law in Austria has no application legal wise. Because the photograph is legal in israel (assuming) our licensing rules are satisfied.
  • Why is in this case the term "publication" per COM:L considered to be only where the photo was taken and not the flag itself. Is it because it is likely that the flag in the photo was manufactured in Israel? Or because we don't know and will assume that it was created in Israel. Which is because the flag can be considered to be common and could have been manufactured in any country?
  • We are considering the copyright in Australia only out of respect to the creator of the flag and Australia. Rybkovich (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've already decided. The consensus is now 50/50. So what's your decision on the flag overall? --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic, but what would happen to jurisdiction if Israel no longer exists mainly due to Mideast conflicts? --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are you going there? Isn't this discussion long and complex enough as it is? --SuperJew (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Mostly right. For a derivative work, two copyrights might apply (both of which must be accounted for to be considered "free") and thus there could be two countries of origin. Even if a translation in one country became PD there, if the original is still under copyright in its country of origin and in a third country, distribution in that third country of the translation would still be restricted even when using the rule of the shorter term -- the rights of the original author would still apply in that third country. So, it's a bit more than just a "courtesy" in most derivative work situations, especially if that third country is the U.S. When COM:FOP applies, it is a particular situation which accounts for the copyright of the original, at least in the country where the photograph took place -- policy has generally been to accept that as accounting for the original copyright, and just require a license on the photo. But that does not really apply for all derivative works. I am not convinced that this qualifies for Israeli FOP, and policy precedents have been more on permanent sculpture, but given that there are COM:TOO aspects here as well it is much cloudier -- that latter aspect would account for the U.S. part of policy, and probably Israel as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)
  •  Delete: The flag, which the display identifies as being "designed by the aboriginal artist Harold Thomas in 1971", is explicitly copyrighted in Australia, the country the work originates from. This is a photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional design that is copyrighted in its place of origin. Osiris (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

keep deleted, and delete

Fair disclosure: I was asked to close this, by an 'involved' administrator that I believe had no reason to think I would be biased. I have been watching this is for a while, however, and pondering closing it, but was waiting to see what developed.

There are several question to address here:

  1. Most simply. Are the photos themselves freely licensed? Yes, unquestionably, not a point of dispute.
  2. Are the photos derivative works of the Aboriginal flag? Yes, clearly.
  3. Are these derivative works legal under Israeli FOP? This relates directly to a question raised by 99of9 at one of the original DRs, which was disregarded. Israeli FOP applies explicitly to "an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art." The question is, is the flag applied art? Under the regular 'english' meaning of the term, clearly not. The design on the flag is not applied to it simply to make it aesthetically pleasing... instead, the design itself is the entire point. Pieter Kuiper wrote an analysis of this well back, here, and linked the text of the legislative proceeding where this was discussed [14]. My reading agrees with his, that 'applied art' (and FOP itself) in Israeli law are terms clearly only intended to apply to three-dimensional objects. Freedom of Panorama does not apply to these images.
  4. What is the 'source nation' of the Aboriginal flag? Clearly, Australia. The work was created by an Australian national, resident in Australia, and originally published in that nation. The actual country of manufacture of specific copies, or where those copies are located, does not change that fact.
  5. Is the Aboriginal flag itself under copyright? Australian courts have discussed the flag as a copyrightable object, and the Australian government itself says it is under copyright.[15] We cannot contest this, the flag itself is must be considered to be under copyright, whether we think it's ridiculously simple or not, and Israel is obligated to respect that copyright under international treaties to which it is a signatory, and that obligation is given effect by Israeli law. The flag is likely below the TOO and not copyrightable in Israel, but Israel is not the country of origin.
  6. Would these photographs be legal to publish in Australia, the source nation of the underlying copyrighted work? No. Australia itself excludes two-dimensional works from their FOP provisions.

The flag, itself, is an Australian work, copyrighted in it's nation of origin, and we must respect that copyright. The images are derivatives of that copyrighted Australian work, and so subject to that original copyright. There is no applicable Freedom of Panorama exemption, under either Israeli or Australian law, that would allow the reproduction of the flag in this manner.

The definitive issue here is, of course, the precautionary principle. The arguments raised bring the copyright status of the images into 'significant doubt'... there is no clear consensus that the arguments are incorrect, and I in fact find them convincing.

Per the original question raised here by Natuur12, the status of 'both' images, I am deleting File:Aboriginal Flag 01.jpg with reference to this close. Revent (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:PCV LOGO GALLO ROJO.png The file is under license commons: (CC BY-SA 4.0)

ENGLISH: The file File:PCV LOGO GALLO ROJO.png was publicated on http://pcvcalabozo.webnode.com.ve/fotogaleria/#pcv-logo-electoral-png, the web page has a note, that note says, “the content is under license commons: (CC BY-SA 4.0)”

ESPAÑOL: El archivo File:PCV LOGO GALLO ROJO.pngfue publicado en http://pcvcalabozo.webnode.com.ve/fotogaleria/#pcv-logo-electoral-png, la página web tiene una nota, esa nota dice: "el contenido está bajo licencia commons: (CC BY-SA 4.0)"

--Ilianovich1986 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, although I couldn't find it. However, it is completely obvious that the Web site does not own the copyright to much of the material on it. There is no reason to believe that it owns the copyright to this any more than all of the various color and B&W photos which are there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tsai und Su.jpg

The licences of this picture is still in concern as it was from Government Information Office website that are no longer exist.--John123521 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This fact was raised in the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tsai und Su.jpg. Are there any new arguments that has not been raised previously? Thuresson (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Unless you have new information, the quote given in the image description which purported to give permission was far from the free license for use anywhere by anyone for anything, including commercial use, that Commons requires. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Escudo U.T.P un solo tono.png File:Escudo U.T.P.png

File:Escudo U.T.P un solo tono.png File:Escudo U.T.P.png

El escudo de la Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, es de libre uso para todos los miembros de la institución Tener dichas imágenes, permite que la redacción del articulo que muestra que es la Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, este mas completa, permitiendo identificar dicha institución fácilmente.

En el manual de identidad de la universidad tecnologica de Pereira (http://media.utp.edu.co/crie/archivos/Manual-basico-de-identidad-UTP.pdf) (http://media.utp.edu.co/informacion-institucional/archivos/manual-de-identidad-institucional/manual-identificador-utp.pdf) muestra como el logo y el escudo institucional son de libre uso y cual es la manera correcta de utilizarlos. Joselumedutp (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Free to use by faculty members is not free enough. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Thuresson (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Anton Gabele photograph

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

this refers to a wikipedia-article related to Anton Gabele which I corrected and extended in the meantime. But there I am still missing a photo of him. The photo [Ticket#2015122710011404] which I included in December last year, has been deleted by your organization. According to the recommendation by Bas van Bennekom [Permissions - Wikimedia Commons] I would like to ask you, if you see a possibility to undelete my picture.

The picture I mailed to wikipedia is the portray of Anton Gabele, who died in 1966. It is taken from a so called “remembering sheet”. I got it from a grandchild of Anton Gabele, who confirmed to me, that the photographer of the original of that picture is unknown.

I consider myself as the copyright holder of that picture I mailed to you, because according to the german right – so far as I am informed - the copyright in case of a photograph is limited up to the end of 50 years after that day on which it has been taken. The original photo must have been taken before 1966 – more than 50 years ago. On the other side I modified the scan by choosing a different section from the original and by suppressing the screen effect originated by the printing process.

Therefor I would like to ask you, if under these circumstances you can agree to my arguments. If it is helpful to you, I can send to you as well the portray-picture as the copy of the mentioned “remembering sheet”.

Yours sincerely, Manfred Koenig.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koma3610 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 16 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I am sorry to say that you are misinformed about the law. German law calls for a copyright lasting seventy years after the death of the photographer. In the case of an anonymous work, the copyright lasts for 70 years after publication, not creation. In order to apply the latter rule you must prove both when the photograph was published and that it was truly anonymous -- the fact that the photographer is now unknown does not prove that he or she was anonymous at the time of publication. However, since 1966 is only fifty years ago, neither of these can apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

IngridC-Curtin (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC) i have permission to use this photo from the photographer

 Comment You have 11 deleted images and File:Example.jpg is not one of them. However, unless there is something special about the case, in order to restore an image where the photographer is a third party, the photographer himself or herself must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Vorarlbergerlandesbibliothek

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: After I have contacted the institution Vorarlberger Landesbibliothek (Vorarlberg state library) they promised to change their license to a license which allows commercial use. Now the deleted files are licensed under CC-BY 4.0 by the Vorarlberger Landesbibliothek on their web-interface VOLARE (http://pid.volare.vorarlberg.at/). Therefor the deleted images can be restored and used again. Plani (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think so. It's hard for me to accept that the state library actually owns the copyright to the hundreds of thousands of images in its thousands of different collections. Based on my experience here, I would guess that no more than half of the acquisitions of images by archival collections included the acquisition of the copyright. I think this is a case where someone at the library has changed the license without paying any attention at all to the question of whether they own the copyright. I think that in order to restore these we should have a formal statement from the library that in each case it owns the copyright and licenses it as CC-BY -- see OTRS for the procedure. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: In fact they do own the copyright of all images which are stated as "Sammlung: Klapper, Helmut" as Helmut Klapper was a former employee of the "Landesbildstelle" (state photographic service). All images of the Landesbildstelle are owned by the federal state of Vorarlberg and administered by the state library. Therefor I see no problem in this license-change by them. They explicitly explained to me that they searched for legal advise and can only change the license of these pictures for exactly the reason you mentioned above - they simply don't have the permission for all of their images. But for those of the Landesbildstelle/Helmut Klapper the do and they are willing to release them under a free license.
BTW: I know OTRS and I know our licenses and the Austrian copyright-law quite well. Best regards, Plani (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 Support It's good that the library recognizes and pays attention to the general problem -- too few such institutions do so. It's also good to know that we can keep these, thanks for your detailed work on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RCL T20 2016.png

I am a member of the Organising Committee for RCL T20 2016 and we have been provided wiyh the rights to use the images that carry intellectual property rights for the above mentioned tournament. I can upload the scanned copy of my appointment for the same designation, if the need be. So, I humbly request you to process the undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakarshitmadaan (talk • contribs)

(note) This was a malformed request placed at the top of the page. I'm assuming the file it refers to, as it's the only deleted upload by this editor. Revent (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we need a significantly larger version of this logo -- the size provided here is useless. In order to restore and keep the logo on Commons, we will need a free license from the organizers, sent directly from rclkota20@gmail.com or an address at www.rclkota.com via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yu Sheng photo.jpg

It was a photo I took, and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam4others (talk • contribs)

@Sam4others: Hi,
Copied from Facebook, so as for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mgr-oto-kronrad-500px.jpg

It isn't copyright violation. I'm owner of website videoseznamka.cz. Because I have copyright on this picture I can add picture on my site too. Mgr. Oto Kronrád — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtoKronrad (talk • contribs)

@OtoKronrad: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please follow the instructions above instead of simply uploading the image again. Thuresson (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LogosBestWestern 1.png

w:File:LogosBestWestern.png contains a note suggesting that the file on English Wikipedia is the same as the one which was deleted from Commons in 2012 by MGA73. The one on English Wikipedia contains six different logos:

  • One logo from 1947: This logo is presumably below the threshold of originality. Also, at the time, USA required a copyright notice each time a work was published. Logos appeared on signs, advertisements and other places, often without a copyright notice, and lots of logos therefore entered the public domain in the United States. Per COM:PACUSA, logos were 'published' when signs were installed if the sign was installed before 1978. It's unlikely that the company always managed to include a copyright notice, so the logo is presumably PD-US-no notice. Also, the logo had already changed 28 years after it was first used, so there was little use for a copyright renewal.
  • 1962 logo: This one also needed a notice and a renewal, and it's unlikely that all signs outside hotels and all advertisements contained a notice.
  • 1966 logo: No renewal needed, but a notice was needed, and it's unlikely that all signs outside hotels and all advertisements contained a notice. Also, it's questionable whether the difference between the 1966 logo and the 1962 logo meet the threshold of originality.
  • 1974 & 1991 logos: The differences between these logos and the 1966 logo do not meet the threshold of originality.
  • Present logo: This one is not copyrighted, see c:COM:TOO#United States where the logo is used as en example of something which is not subject to copyright in the United States.
I suspect that all logos are in the public domain in the United States and that the file therefore should be undeleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 Support The logos through 1966 would be copyrightable, but the odds of the company keeping the copyright notice on all publications is extremely low for logos. For example here. And the changes since have not been copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 Support Very clear analysis -- thanks, Stefan. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Respect Yourself - Stax Record and the Soul Explosion.jpg

This image is from the book that Robert Gordon wrote.

He is the author, and sent me (his personal assistant) this image file directly from his computer for Wikipedia use.

How do I ensure that this will not be deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoebeWD (talk • contribs)

@PhoebeWD: Hi,
Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, 18:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose This is, as you say, the cover of a book by Robert Gordon. It is unlikely that Gordon owns the rights to the cover of the book. The cover design is by Gregg Kulick and one photograph is from Getty Images. Trey Harrison is credited with another photograph. The usual license from photographers and Getty Images would cover use on the book cover but would not include freely licensing their work for more general use.
Also, please note that "for Wikipedia use" is nowhere near general enough for it to be acceptable on Commons or WP:EN -- we require that images must be free for use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose, including commercial use.
I would guess that the best person to address these issues would be the publisher, who probably negotiated the various license required for the work. Any OTRS license must satisfactorily cover all of these issues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Very unlikely that Getty Images would give a permission. --Yann (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:EuniceThomasMiner-DirectoroftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I submitted an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org back in November with the help of one of the facilitators for the Women In Science @ New York Academy of Sciences Wikipedia edit-a-thon. I've just resubmitted another email today - Feb 19, 2016, from the New York Academy of Sciences granting permission for the image to be used - Ticket#: 2016021910017682. Please let me know what other information you need from me in order to bring this file back onto Wikimedia Commons and make it available for use. Many thanks. Alexisclements (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Darwinius
Closed by .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:FrancescaZambello.jpg

The photographer of this image has agreed to publish this image under the free license: creative commons attribution.

thumbnail

--GlimmerglassFestival (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Brittany Lesavoy, 2/19/16

 Support This is not the usual way we do things, but I am inclined to accept it, unless others thinkit is a bad idea. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)  Support Used to be more routine to do it that way, and I never saw any problem with it other than scaling. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I opened a new OTRS ticket and transferred the scan to OTRS. Email to photographer sent as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Virginie_Herbin.jpg

Image license on Flickr has been updated to match requirement. Thanks! --Léo Colomb (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support Looks OK now, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/leocolomb/24498418774/. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done as above. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:大江川樋門付近位置図.pdf

jp:議論は凍結中のはずです。終了していません。自分勝手な都合で勝手に終了扱いにしないでください。 ライセンス認証も現在進行中です。

勝手な判断で削除しないでください。 ライセンス認証に支障が出ています。すみやかにページを回復してくださいUrsus.japonicus (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

en:Discussion should be in freeze. It does not end. Please do not arbitrarily end covered in selfish convenience. Activation is also currently in progress.

But Japanese do not understand, please do not delete selfish decision. The license authentication has gone out trouble. Please recover promptly page.Ursus.japonicus (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (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) 15:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm there is a need to change the license that has been expressed in the page in order to obtain the certification. License and integrity to seek a license to be changed is no longer taken.--Ursus.japonicus (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your comment makes no sense at all. Please comment here in Japanese and either Google translate will help, or we will get a colleague who reads Japanese to help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


このファイルは現在許諾申請中です。しかし、許諾申請中に当初ページ内で表記していたライセンスを変更する必要性が出てきました。これは、ファイルの作者の意思で私はそれに従ったライセンスに変更し、許諾申請をしなければならないのです。しかし、途中でファイルのページが削除されてしまい、ライセンスの変更ができません。このままでは現在出している申請と、本来求めなければならないライセンスの整合性が取れなくなっています。ページを一度戻してもらわなければ、本来このファイルに付加するはずのライセンスに修正できず、許諾申請の内容も整合性が取れません。ライセンス修正のために、ファイルを一度戻してください。--Ursus.japonicus (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yasu, could you please look at this? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
(Summarising Ursus.japonicus' comment into English) I need to change the license. This is the will of the original author, so I must change the license accordingly. However, as the file page has been deleted, I cannot perform edits. In order to correct license, I want the file to be undeleted. Yasu (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This issue has been discussed also at the Village Pump in Japanese. It is reported that 3 emails have been sent to OTRS during the period of 28 January - 8 February, but not one of the OTRS members found them valid as free license. If OTRS judged right, I see no reason to undelete. Yasu (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:SMT Ticket.JPG

Also File:苏州地铁2号线车票.JPG

This photo should to restore because per FoP_in_China in the Village pump's talk.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Two separate requests combined by User:Thuresson

This is a bus ticket? At which address in China is this object permanently displayed to the public? Thuresson (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not a bus ticket. But I think these files can save in Commons. There is no problem.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
What are they -- are they paper or plastic tickets? Or are they possibly advertising or information signs or posters? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
They are railway tickets. However, the background design of File:苏州地铁2号线车票.JPG looks original enough to be copyrighted and non-free. Freedom of panorama is only valid for works of architecture and artwork that are permanently displayed in public, i.e. mounted on a wall or displayed on a sign. Transport tickets are neither of these types of works so you cannot upload derivative photos of this specific ticket. Apart from that, the quality of the latter photograph is very poor (unsharp and blurry) so it shouldn't be restored anyway. The design of File:SMT Ticket.JPG though appears to be too simple to be copyrighted, and the photo quality is a bit better, so I think this one could be restored. The ticket is like File:Shanghai Transrapid 01.jpg but in shades of blue. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


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

I own the copyright to this logo.

I created this logo, and hold the copyright under my own LLC. I uploaded this logo to accompany the wikipedia page of my radio station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.159.34 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Which logo is this? Please provide the name of the file you wish to be undeleted. On that note, if you are a representative of the radio station, please verify your free license for the logo by sending an email as outlined in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:iPad 2 no background.png

I didn't even have the picture from amazon. I picked it up and deleted the background. And the amazon picture has a shader of the iPad below it, my picture didn't have it. So please restore the picture.--Punkt64 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't understand your comment. Are you claiming that your image is not derived from the Amazon image at http://www.amazon.com/Apple-MC769LL-Tablet-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B006PLODWE? That's a little hard to believe, as they have the same icons, the same water drops, and the same reflection in the middle of the top. I think you need to read COM:DW and then come back and explain why you think that your version of this image does not infringe on Amazon's (or Apple's?) copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I meant the reflection at the bottom of it. It isn't there at mine picture. I typed in "iPad 2", took this photo (which says it's from theverge.com, not amazon where a different picture is), removed the white frame with Pixelmator and loaded it up. When it depends on the icons, why then isn't this or that deleted??--Punkt64 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And the water drops are a wallpaper Clin--Punkt64 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The icons in the ipad aren't the main problem. You cannot simply take a photo anywhere from the web that someone else created, crop it and then claim it as your own work. Even if it was not from Amazon, the copyright would still rest with the person who took the original photo at this page. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Obviously not OK. --Yann (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Picture1x.png

That is the new logo of my university. Please undo the deletion. Please check the website, for your reference : www.nitt.edu

22-Feb-2016 --Rishabsingh97 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo is copyrighted and the Institute's web page, http://www.nitt.edu/, has an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from an authorized official of the Institute, sent directly to OTRS from an address at the domain nitt.edu. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Claudio-janta.jpg

this image is fair use, you can check out in http://claudiojanta.com.br/perfil.htm --Ac107592 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to restore right now. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ac107592 is still open. @Ac107592: please reply at the discussion page over there. De728631 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Literarock

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 01 - Fim do mês.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 02 - Dois.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 03 - Lá se foi.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 04 - Céu.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 05 - Encontros e desencontros.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 06 - Museu de horror.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 07 - Pra dançar.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 08 - 18 e 23.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 09 - Novas novidades.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 10 - Oi.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Um pouco de cada dia - 11 - Saudade.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/sets/um-pouco-de-cada-dia

Ac107592 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - Single Domitila.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/litera-single-domitila

Ac107592 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lítera - EP A Marquesa - Mergulho.ogg

this file was uploaded by the band in soundcloud with license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

you can check out here: https://soundcloud.com/literarock/mergulho

Ac107592 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done CC BY-NC-SA is a non-commercial licence that prohibits the for-profit re-use of such media. Commons, however, requires that all media uploaded here may be used for any purpose including commercial exploitation. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Apart from that, there is nothing to restore right now. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ac107592 is still open. @Ac107592: please reply at the discussion page over there. De728631 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:3D Printed Ancient Egyptian Figurine.png.

Hi Wiki,

I uploaded the imaged of 3D Printed Ancient Egyptian Figurine.png based on the licence given by the author CC0 Public Domain Dedication. See here https://www.threeding.com/3d-printing-models/pharaoh-merankhre-mentuhotep. Under Creative Common, CC0 Public Domain Dedication allows everyone to use images with such licance https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Given the above, please undelete the image.

Best, Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atanasov anton (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Support That appears to be correct. For some reason the source page given in the file description comes up as a 404 error. Note that while the source page has an explicit (c) at the bottom, the photo is in a box that calls out CC-0 for the photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

✓ Done: Indeed CC per website. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Украинский национальной союз.jpg

Here is a copy of a discussion of my talk page, further opinions will be welcome Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
why you deleted File:Украинский национальной союз.jpg?(CesarNS1980 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)).

  • Only simple logos / emblems (below TOO) can be uploaded here without permission. We need an evidence they are free licensed by their author, or a permission from the author via OTRS. Or the logo / emblem fall for a reason or another in the public domain. Here I deleted it because it seems to be a modern emblem, there is no permission from the author and do not think it is in public domain. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
My friend! This logo was created by me personally. I gave it to the head of this organization.I can give you first sketch.(CesarNS1980 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)).

the first sample this is the first sketch of the coat of arms thumb|первый эскиз герба УНС(CesarNS1980 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)). this sketch is presented in the first. Once I saw him and the artist. (CesarNS1980 (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC))

 Oppose If you created the logo and gave it to the organization, then it is no longer yours to license. In order to restore it, an officer of the organization must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless copyright transfer is legally possible in Ukraine, CesarNS1980 would still retain the copyright for his sketch even if he gave his artwork to the organisation. They may hold other rights of use but imo CesarNS1980 would still be able to grant free licenses. I don't read Ukrainian but maybe someone else can check the copyright law for legal means of copyright transfer? Anyhow, we could still need a note from this organisation to provide evidence that Cesar is in fact the original artist. On that note, I have also deleted File:Emblem of Ukrainian National Union.JPG which was the same image. De728631 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are a couple variants of this emblem out there in many places, when I looked earlier today. Taking the background graphic from somewhere else and tweaking it a little bit does not make it (entirely) "own work"; it is a derivative work where we also need to get a license for the copyright of the original graphic as well. In looking, the majority of CesarNS1980's uploads look to be taken off the internet, or are at least composed of such images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Derivative work, copyright status unclear. Needs OTRS permission. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:2016-SWC-Pride-Logo-Vert.png

This image and file were created by me for my organization, Stonewall Columbus. We are the owner and host of the Stonewall Columbus Pride Festival and Parade every year in Columbus, OH. I was alerted that the file was suggested for removal for copyright. This is not the case. I am the creator and owner of the image and there is no issue with me posting it to the Columbus Pride Wiki page. If you have any questions, please contact me: Kathy Crowe Marketing and PR Director Stonewall Columbus, Inc 1160 N High St • Columbus, OH 43123 kcrowe@stonewallcolumbus.org

 Comment This has not yet been deleted so there is nothing to be done here. Please post comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-SWC-Pride-Logo-Vert.png. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tel Aviv city council.jpg

Hello,

I've contacted the owner and the license of file in Flickr is changed to Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Link is : https://www.flickr.com/photos/36379654@N04/22393573784

thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: fine now. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kickstarter Kits SAM Labs.jpg

Hi,

I am the photographer and full owner of these pictures, having taken them for SAM Labs and owning the copyright. I request for the picture to be re-uploaded.

Thanks,

--Ym Tees (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://mapprojectoffice.com/work/sam/. In order to restore it to Commons, we will need a free license sent directly from an address at mapprojectoffice.com to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Image:Cinderella Castle and Partners statue at Magic Kingdom.jpg

I'd like for File:Cinderella Castle and Partners statue at Magic Kingdom.jpg to be temporarily undeleted, so as to move it to English Wikipedia for use on the Magic Kingdom article, where it previously was used. Elisfkc (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@User:Elisfkc, ready for transfer now. Thuresson (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: thanks, I got it. Elisfkc (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Great photo-- too bad we can't keep it here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Krusenstiernska teatern i Kalmar 2015.jpg

Request for undeletion of the following seven files:

All files were uploaded on 26 January, lacking complete licence acknowledgment from photographer. And all were in accordance deleted on 6 February. The acknowledgement has since been received and has the permission ID {{PermissionOTRS|id=2016021510007762}} This ID can now be seen in File:Syntolkning_på_Göteborgs_Stadsteater.jpg – a file uploaded a week earlier by the same uploader, with the same photographer and with the same lack of complete licence acknowledgement, and therefore included in the licence acknowledgement request. Best of wishes and thanks in advance.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Undeleted by User:JuTa. Thuresson (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks! --Paracel63 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

(File:Hans E. Deutsch 1(2).jpg)

Antrag auf Wiederherstellung dieser Datei

File:Hans E. Deutsch 1(2).jpg

Ich bin alleiniger alleiniger Nutzberechtigter weltweit als direkter und einziger Erbnachkomme, also erb- und nutzungsberechtigt. Ausserdem bin ich Urheber der Datei. das Bild zeigt eine Fotografie, welche ich selber 1990 mit meiner damaligen Spiegelreflexkamera gemacht und spatter digitalisiert habe.

Besten Dank!--Harrydeutsch (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I suspect that you are related to Hans Deutsch nad therefore, are one of his heirs and have the right to license the painting as well as your photograph. However, there is much identity theft on Commons and it is perfectly possible for anyone to create an account with the Deutsch name, so policy requires that you confirm your identity and relationship to the painter by sending a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Woodlands Christain Academy Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This logo is my school's, and I am creating a Wikipedia page for their benefit. I need their logo to make the page have their log.

Thanks Jackpaylor (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Since you are not the actual copyright owner, policy requires that an authorized official of the Academy send a free license to OTRS from an address in the domain twca.net. Please note that since it is "my school", your editing at The Woodlands Christian Academy is probably in violation of WMF rules on conflict of interest. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Andreas Glarner.jpg

Die Bilder der Mitglieder von National- und Ständerat sind gemeinfrei. Es gibt Dutzende Beispiele: File:Hans Fehr (2007).jpg, File:Filippo Leutenegger (2007).jpg usw. usw.

Grund: Der Urheberrechtsinhaber dieser Datei, Swiss Federal Assembly, erlaubt es jedem, diese für jeden Zweck zu benutzen, vorausgesetzt, dass der Urheberrechtsinhaber ordnungsgemäß genannt wird. Weiterverbreitung, Abänderungen, kommerzielle Nutzung sowie jede andere Verwendung sind gestattet.

Die Bildverhinderungsmanie hier stinkt mir langsam, aber sicher. --Peteremueller (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the file description, the image appears at https://www.parlament.ch/en/biografie?CouncillorId=4161 with "© The Swiss Parliament". The site's Terms and Conditions at https://www.parlament.ch/en/services/terms-and-conditions say, in part:

"The websites of the Parliamentary Services contain information that is available to the general public. The downloading or copying of texts, images, photos or other data does not in any way entail the transfer of rights over the content.
Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, images, photos or any other data available on the Parliamentary Services’ websites remain the exclusive property of the Parliamentary Services or of any other owners expressly mentioned. The reproduction of parts of such a website requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder."

I see no indication here of any free license there.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Parlament.ch. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So how you explain that hundreds of pictures of members of the Swiss Parliament are on Wikipedia? The website states:
The images may be downloaded by anyone and used free of charge for non-commercial purposes, in particular when used for the following:
  • Press publications
  • Publications in films and on television
  • Online and multimedia publications and non-commercial uses in relation to political studies.
Use for commercial purposes, and in particular in advertising, is not permitted.
see: http://www.parlament.ch/en/services/suche-fotogalerie/photo-gallery-terms-use, --Peteremueller (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done and tagged with {{Parlament.ch}}. If there is no sufficient permission for reuse of files from Parlament.ch the file will be deleted again soon. The permission on the website is unfree.

(@Peteremueller: siehe Commons:Projektumfang#Muss_frei_lizenziert_oder_gemeinfrei_sein, Einschränkungen wo oder zu welchem Zweck Inhalte verwendet werden dürfen sind nicht verträglich mit unserer Anforderung an freie Inhalte). --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AIMP4_alt.jpg

Hello.

I'd like to know why this screenshot made by me was removed.

Thank you.

KNTRO (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Because it is a screenshot, which is under a copyright by the software creator. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Viktoria Tocca.jpg

I've been alowed by Viktoria Tocca heself to use the photo. The photographs name is Mats Bäcker.

--Jennie_Backman1 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mats Bäcker needs to send a formal written permission for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Teheran Journal 1976.png

Mdte via wikimedia.org 8:33 PM (44 minutes ago)

to me Please look over the edit and the removal by Vanjagenije

Re:Vanjagenije removed an edit that I made without authorization or justification Vanjagenije has removed a n edit to an account without authorization or cause

You have flagged my account for two instances that are unwarranted. I am new to Wikipedia and only tried to change my user name mdte to my actual name Michael K Dane. I did all of the work in Sandbox and abandoned the effort when I discovered that I was unable to do it. Unfortunately, I could find no way of deleting the Sandbox file that I tried to amend. I would ideally like to be known as Michael K Dane, but if that is not possible, I would appreciate your help in removing the conflict and let me remain as mdte.

As for the image from the Tehran Journal, please be advised that the newspaper was published by Americans ex-pats in Tehran prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1978. The publication ceased to exist following the revolution and the publisher was disbanded therefore no entity holds a copyright for this material and it is considered to be in the public domain. The picture provides vital context and information that enriches the article on the Iranian National Ballet and as a former member of the Iranian National Ballet company (and depicted in the photo), I thought this information was important to share.

I have contacted the only known archive which may hold reproduction rights to this material from the Teheran Journal. I will let you know how they respond. In the meantime I have included the link to the archive.

http://scdb.swem.wm.edu/index.php?p=creators/creator&id=3442 [1]

Thank You, mdte Mdte (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC) mdte 173.68.60.67 (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"The publication ceased to exist following the revolution and the publisher was disbanded therefore no entity holds a copyright for this material and it is considered to be in the public domain." Nope. It's possible that the copyright is inconveniently orphaned, but disbanding an organization does not make their copyrights cease to exist. There might be a clear successor to the copyright, or it might be orphaned. - Unsigned comment by User:Jmabel
File:Teheran Journal 1976.png has been uploaded again, without a license template. Thuresson (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose As Thuresson says, this is probably an orphan copyright, but there is nothing we can do about that -- we do not keep copyrighted works without a free license, even if they are orphans. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Silvio Rodriguez.jpg

Hola, hace un tiempo eliminaron una fotografía del cantante Silvio Rodríguez que había subido como aporte al documento Baní, dicha fotografía es de mi autoría, la realicé yo en un concierto que Silvio Rodríguez realizó en Baní en ocasión de la celebración del 250 aniversario de Baní. por favor si pueden deshacer el borrado se lo agradecería. Gracias.

Para mas apoyo a mi reclamo le envío esta información que usé para darle credibilidad a mi aporte en el documento Baní. http://www.bureo.com.do/2014/10/26/silvio-rodriguez-ofrece-historico-concierto-bani

(Ronny Medina (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

  •  Oppose This request does not address the reason for deletion. The deleted image is very poor quality photograph of a television screen. If you were indeed at the event and took a photograph there, you will need to upload the photograph itself. Эlcobbola talk 22:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Эlcobbola. The undeletion request does not adress the reason for deletion. The file appears to be a photo of a TV screen. See Commons:Screenshots#Audiovisual_works. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


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

File:sierra123.jpg

s.o.s. [[thumbnail]]<ref>123456 grb dly 1 london.UK</ref> Unsigned request by User:95.248.65.120

There is no File:Sierra123.jpg deleted so there is nothing to do with your request. Thuresson (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Broken request, no file File:Sierra123.jpg. I put the request in <nowiki> tags to fix it. --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

2015021110023164

I got {{PermissionOTRS |id= 2015021110023164}} to load File:War_Dogs.jpg.


Massimoimpulse (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, this is an extremely low quality image. I think it is out of scope because no one will use it for any educational purpose. Second, although I do not read Italian, it does not appear that the OTRS permission is complete -- certainly it is not your job to request the restoration here -- that must be done by the OTRS volunteer handling the ticket. Third, the OTRS messages are from a g-mail account. The file description says the images is from "G.D.H.C. archivio" -- I think that in order to accept the permission here, we must have an e-mail from an address at the archive's domain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Jitka Skořepová's photos of Jakobínka

Hi, please undelete these files by Jitka Skořepová:

OTRS permission has just been received as ticket:2016022610006181. All these images had been released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 International, author should be credited as "Jitka Skořepová".

Thank you! --Michal Bělka (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done as above. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Y al final, la guerra.jpg

The file in question is in the author's official page. In the bottom part of the website you can read: "Give to everyone who does not use it for lucrative" or in spanish "Cedido a cualquiera que lo use sin ánimo de lucro". I though i cant use it. A wikipedia article is not lucrative I think. You can see it here: http://www.lorenzo-silva.com/libros/Yalfinal.HTM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio D. Suárez (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose While a WP article may not be commercial (lucrative), Commons requires that all images must be free for commercial use. It is also unlikely that the author actually owns the copyright to the book's cover and has the right to license it freely -- that is almost certainly owned by the publisher. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Silver Diamine Fluoride Billing and Insurance coverage

I would like to add this information back to the silver diamine fluoride wikipedia page. This information has been extremely helpful to the dental industry, it is cited to references that are public domain, and is current and relevant to the use of the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spardue13 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is about File:Advantage Thumb.jpg which appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.elevateoralcare.com/dentist/AdvantageArrest/Advantage-Arrest-Silver-Diamine-Fluoride-38. It also appears to violate COM:ADVERT. In order restore the image, you must first convince us that it does not violate COM:ADVERT and then have an officer of Elevate Oral Care send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Stair tread barbican.png

Hello,

I'm requesting undeletion because I'm sure that I acquired this image on Flickr with the correct licenses. I also made sure to include the Source and Author of the image when I posted it. (And any other relevant info)

Could you please explain why this has been removed/ deleted if all the proper info was included?

Thank you!

User:Tnetrpm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnetrpm (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file description you wrote is as follows:

"=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Stair treads located in London, England}}
|date=2010-03-14
|source=Flickr
|author=Xenoc
|permission=
|other versions=
}}"

That does not include the required link to the file or the license on Flickr. The source line should have read:

"|source=https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenoc/4432784002"

The license at the source is CC-BY-NC-ND. Both NC and ND are not permitted on Commons, so unless you can get the Flickr user to change the license, the image cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Inappropriate deletion rationale Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Moka_Expresses ?

How is the shape relevant, despite {{Useful-object-US}}? I've seen two very illogical deletion rationales from this user recently. e.g. This nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg. Pattern? I'm disputing the additional rationale, and urging review of User:Adri08's com:de minimis argument. --Elvey (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Adri08 is not an administrator and has not deleted the files in question. This is not the place to review arguments put forth by users in a discussion. If you feel that a user is creating a problem, please have a look at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Thuresson (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thuresson, I think Elvey was referring to me, not Adri08.
{{Useful-object-US}} is not applicable to the Moka pot because it is not a US object. The rules on utilitarian objects are very different in Europe. I suggest you read Moka pot where it is clear that the pot is in the collection of a variety of major museums -- that does not happen with purely utilitarian objects. In any event, the question of it being a copyrightable shape is secondary -- I deleted the three images primarily because of the copyrighted logo clearly in the center of all three images.
  • @Jameslwoodward This is to address one of your reasons for deletion - the logo on the expresso maker; looking only at the US standard for right now. From what I understand the makers can be found at the bottom of this [site]. As brought up by Carl Lindberg in the current labels discussion regarding wine bottle labels at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. if the pics are of the product as a whole and not of the label specifically, then it can be understood that the whole point of the pic is to capture the coffee maker in its entirety and not the label specifically. Because of this, the shots are not concentrated on the label but are of a useful article not subject to copyright protection. If the analogy is accepted then next step would be to determine if the the maker can be considered to be a useful article. But at this stage I want to only concentrate on whether or not the presence of a copyrightable picture in the image can be on its own a reason for deletion in this context. Rybkovich (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I opened the DR on the humanitarian aid image after a discussion with Fae on my talk page about the rules on images of people taken without their consent. He suggested that image as one that we could use to get a good community consensus on the issue:
"Do you believe that nominating File:Humanitarian_aid_OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg for deletion would help establish the need for a specific grant of consent from subjects who may have had an expectation of privacy? --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"
I don't like the result much, but we now have a better consensus than we had before. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Objects made in Italy. In Europa objects like this could be copyrighted and therefor those photographs should remain deleted. (Yeah, I use the word could because the only way we can know for sure is when you take it to court.). --Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-02&oldid=189085641"