Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-03

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

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

File:Dylan's Candy Bar staircase.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Flickr image had correct license and all necessary info was provided at the time of upload Tnetrpm (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image file does not have a link to the Flickr page so "all necessary info was provided at the time of upload" is not correct.
I think that in order to keep this we need both (a) a license from the photographer or a link to a properly licensed Flickr page, and (b) a license from the artist who created the painting on the staircase. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:13, 29 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/Works by James Bouillé

Hi,

James Bouillé died in 1945 [1] [2] so his works are in public domain since 1 january 2016. Can someone restore the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Works by James Bouillé ? Thanks, Bloody-libu (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Ahmed White giving Scott Lecture

I was in the audience and took this picture. The copyright is mine. How can I prove this to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.3.186 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Comment Since you did not log in when you made this request and IP users cannot upload images, here is no way to know what image you are talking about. Please remember that Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and deletes 2,000 of them, so there is no way any of us are going to remember this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Thumbnail of book

ACA Galleries has given permission for this detail of a Philip Evergood painting to be used on the cover of this book, and for advertising purposes. Can I get confirmation from them of this for you? If so, how do I do that? I don't think this should necessary b/c this is merely a thumbnail that includes a detail of a painting, and reproduces the cover of a book. It has an entirely different purposes than the original copyrighted works, and is fair use. See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.3.186 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Comment Since you did not log in when you made this request and IP users cannot upload images, here is no way to know what image you are talking about. Please remember that Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and deletes 2,000 of them, so there is no way any of us are going to remember this image.

Also, please note that it is very unlikely that a gallery can license Evergood's work -- that right almost certainly is owned by his heirs. Buying a work of art does not give the buyer any right to license it any more than buying a book allows you to make and sell copies. Also note that just as a single page of a book has the same copyright as the whole book, so a detail of a painting has the same copyright as the whole. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Final Straw- Food Earth Happiness Film Poster.jpg

I am the director of the film. The photographic image, design, and file are my own work and I am offering them under creative commons license. Can you please help have this file please be reinstated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmlydon (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Erfgoedkmwimpel.jpg

Hi, this is a copy of my talk page:

"Dear Christian Ferrer, please restore File:Erfgoedkmwimpel.jpg. OTRS ticket:2016022910013461 confirms the identity of the author. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)"

I've not OTRS access. Can someone look at this request please? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Taketa is an OTRS member. Ticket is in Dutch, FWIW. Google translate suggests that the ticket concerns text on a Facebook page (so I would likely have asked specifically who the photographer was), but I don't speak Dutch and Taketa does, so I or Google may be misinterpreting the email. Storkk (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify. The ticket is about a page that was deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia, also for copyright (the text was already on facebook), in which this image was used. The email used in the ticket is publicly listed as this person's email. He is chairman of this organisation and stated elesewhere that he made the image and has the rights. In my opinion we can accept it and restore it. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per OTRS ticket. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Milli deste logo.png

Dear Administrators,

I can't understand why my logo is being deleted every time I upload it on the web. It is designed by the professional designer that we hired for our supporter's group and I would like to use it in our wikipedia pages.

Please, explain me the valid reason of it being removed. --Shamil55 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if your group ordered the design of this logo from the original artist you most likely don't hold the copyright for it. Usually, only the original designer can grant free licenses like Creative Commons, and these would have to be verified by sending an email as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean you most likely don't hold the copyright for it? I hired a designer, and she designed it, and gave it to us. Can you find that logo anywhere else? I am the owner of the logo, and I am not sure how can I verify it by sending an email. --Shamil55 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Unless the designer was an actual employee of your company, in order for you to own the copyright, the designer would have to sign a written agreement transferring or licensing the copyright. If you do not have such a written agreement with the designer, then she must send a free license to OTRS. If you do have such a written agreement, then you must send a free license to OTRS, referencing the agreement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That's right. By hiring the designer you did not acquire the copyright of the logo. Instead, the designer granted your company all necessary rights of use for the logo, but she still holds its copyright. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dobrinka Tabakova Composer.jpg

The file "Dobrinka Tabakova Composer.jpg" was used with permission from original website www.dobrinka.com.

Primary source http://www.dobrinka.com/press/LargePhotos/DobrinkaTabakova_1.jpg available for free public download.

--Ms stoeva (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a section called "Press materials" at the web site. You uploaded this photo with the license cc-by-sa-4.0. Where exactly is this license mentioned at the web site? Thuresson (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File: http://www.viadelblues.it/extra/foto_gruppo.jpg

Ricevuta autorizzazione col nome Ticket #2015082810011232 --Nanuccio (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment this is likely File:VIAdelBLUES.jpg. Ruthven appears to have asked the user to request undeletion here. Storkk (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 Info OTRS ticket confirmed in permissions-it queue. --Ruthven (msg) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Baghdad Memories of an Architect by Basil Al Bayati (Front Cover).png

Please undelete this image. It is from a photograph taken by me under the expressed permission of the author of the book.

--Fabulistical (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It is unlikely that the author owns the copyright to the photograph and design of the front cover of the book. That is almost always owned or licensed by the publisher. In any event, since you are not the creator of the image, restoration on Commons will require that the actual copyright holder send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


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

file:20141212 coverAMk.jpg

This A cover of our journal, that I made myself. Copyrights belong therefore to me. I give permission to use it on wikipedia.

This is a cover of a special, designe by me. Copyright belong therefore bby me. I give permission to use it on wikipedia.

This is a logo, created by me. Copyright belongs therefore bby me. I give permission to use it on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todw (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose First, please note that "permission to use it on wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and Wikipedia require that all images be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. Second, since identity theft is common here and we don't know who User:Todw actually is, policy requires that an authorized official of the magazine send a free license for these works directly from an address at apneuvereniging.nl to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Trenque Lauquen - Museo Histórico Regional Muestra Permanente Rodolfo Campodónico 5 homenaje a Molina Campos 3.jpg

And:

None of them are authored by Molina Campos. There are not actual Molina Campos works on Google images so probably you wouldn't know if you are not Argentine and used to his works on the walls of the stores and calendars. The files named "Trenque Lauquen - Museo..." are authored by Rodolfo Campodónico as the file name states, and I assume a "freedom of panorama" license for them. The rest are anonymous works that I am registering unless the real author appears and proves those are his work. It's not illegal. --RoRo (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I may have my sense of humour. --RoRo (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Rodolfo Campodónico was born 1938 and living in 1999 (see http://www.terapiatanguera.com.ar/Galeria%20de%20arte/Murales%20Campodonico/campodonico.htm). Therefore his work is still under copyright. The other works also have a copyright unless it has expired. It is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the artist died more than 70 years ago or (a) that artist was anonymous (not simply unknown), (b) the works were published more than 50 years ago, and (c) they belong to an institution, corporation or legal entity registered in Argentina.

Freedom of Panorama in Argentina applies only to architecture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

We give permission to use that photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.197.254 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Please log in, and mention the file you want undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Dobrý den. Žádal jsem o pomoc několikrát. Našel se pouze pán z Francie. Který neváhal pomoci. Nevím si rady jak zařadit do kategorie. Kterou nedokáži založit. Když ji založím je špatně. Nejde o politiku - to zde přeložil překladač Československé pohraniční stráž vojáci. Hledám někoho kdo je z Havlíčkova Brodu kdo pomůže. Šuju se odmlčel. Napsal mi udělej odkaz.

Tschechoslowakische Grenzwachtruppen je slovo historie. Nevím kam zde píši. Vše je v cizí řeči. Najde se dobrovolník co může pomoci. Zakládám fotografie do založených podkategorií. Ale potřebuji jiné - Pohled kategorie - potřebuji podkategorie Rouštány a samoty. Do kterých mohu zařadit svoje obrázky. Je hloupé někomu zavřít dveře před nosem kdo Vám dá obrázky zadarmo.

S pozdravem Pohled 111. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohled 111 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Google translate does not give anything I can understand here. Taivo and I have both deleted a gallery that was an article -- not a Commons gallery -- Tschechoslowakische grenzwachtruppn which is probably the problem here. Unfortunately, COM:SCOPE has not been translated into Czech. Our only two Admins who show Czech as a language are User:Mormegil and User:Podzemnik, neither of whom are very active. I have asked for help at Commons:Hospoda U Commons, the Czech version of Commons:Village pump and User:Jklamo was active there yesterday. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I will try to explain to Pohled 111 on his talk page. But it is hard to understand him even in Czech. --Jklamo (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree as well that it's quite difficult to understand Pohled 111 even in Czech. I think he has all information he needs and it's up to him to write on his talk page / Czech Village pump. Mormegil & I are not very active but I believe that both of us are keen to help whenever is needed. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 2 March 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)

NOTE: There are some invalid interpretations made below by Thuresson and Jameslwoodward of what I said above. Please ignore any interpretations and go by what I actually said. --Elvey (talk) 08:31, 2 March 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)
Your comment is based entirely on an invalid interpretation of what I said above. Please ignore. --Elvey (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thuresson, I think Elvey was referring to me, not Adri08.
I was referring, separately, to what each of you said.--Elvey (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
{{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)

There are some invalid interpretations made above by Thuresson and Jameslwoodward of what I said. Please ignore them.--Elvey (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I still think {{Useful-object-US}} is relevant. {{Useful-object-US}} is used, appropriately, on many images of items in museums! Rybkovich's arguments makes sense AND is supported by precedent. The laws in Europe aren't relevant unless we know the pictures were taken in Europe. --Elvey (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It is an Italian coffee maker. It is therefore natural to assume that image is European. The burden of proof is on those who want to keep the image to prove otherwise. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
They are known the world over. You speak of an image, yet an entire SET of images was deleted. I can't see them to see where they were taken. NEW: Requesting temporary undeletion at least to examine that, on a case by case basis, prior to any close.--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Reclosing. Placing the request back without the closing rational is just rude. Again, the object can certainly have a copyright in most of Europe and therefor it fails com:L since the work isn't free in it's source country. And exporting a coffee can still doesn't mean we can simply ignore Italian copyright law. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please AGF. I had made extensive comments and didn't want to lose 'em, so I put it back with them. I DID address your rationale, though I didn't include it. Reclosing without addressing those concerns is just rude. Please don't shut this discussion down prematurely again. That would be rude. Please take a deep breath. No policy says we need to honor the copyright law of every country on earth. Please don't again ignore my point: The laws in Europe aren't valid for such a mass delete unless we know all the pictures were taken in Europe. Whether the object photographed is from Europe or not doesn't matter. --Elvey (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This request is hereby closed for the third time. The Village Pump is the arena for proposing and discussing new Commons policy. If you want to discuss arguments put forth by User:Adri08, please see instructions above. Thuresson (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow. @#!$ move. Reclosing again, again without addressing my concerns is just rude. I am proposing and discussing new Commons policy? I proposed undeletion in accord with current policy. And what instructions, since I agree with the arguments put forth by User:Adri08? And you are INVOLVED. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Porta pumas vs france.jpg

The file (PD in Argentina so it was published in 1985 on El Gráfico magazine, which I scanned it from) was directly removed by an admin alleging that was a "copyvio" which was wrong so the image is copyrighted only in the US. According to Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, the URAA issue can't be the only reason to remove a file.

I consider that a DR should have been opened to discuss about it, at least. - Fma12 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support It is a photograph published in Argentina in 1985, therefore {{PD-AR-Photo}} applies. For better or worse, guided by WMF counsel, Commons has decided not to delete URAA files until WMF gets at least one DMCA takedown notice regarding one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Review Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Moka_Expresses on a case by case basis - restore and add {{Useful-object-US}}?

An entire set of images of a very common utilitarian object that I think warrant {{Useful-object-US}} tagging should not be left deleted based on the unlikely-to-be-true assumption that the images were all taken in one country. The logo is com:de minimis. We have a guideline that says, "An image is unacceptable to Commons if it is illegal, or arguably illegal, in any one or more of: (a) the country in which the photograph was taken; (b) the country from which the image was uploaded; (c) the USA (where Commons images are stored)." but I claim there's no policy or guideline that says the country where an object photographed is from is relevant if it was not photographed in that country. {{Useful-object-US}} is used, appropriately, on many images of items in museums! Moka are known the world over. An entire SET of images was deleted. I can't see them to see where they were taken. Requesting temporary undeletion at least to examine that, on a case by case basis. No policy says we need to honor the copyright law of every country on earth. The laws in Europe aren't valid for such a mass delete unless we know all the pictures were taken in Europe. Whether the object photographed was designed or made in Europe or not doesn't matter. According to policy, where the object photographed was designed or made doesn't matter. --Elvey (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Your statement about 'where the object itself is from' is clearly not correct, or at least not well explained. **The reproduction must itself have been 'legal', according to the copyright status of the photographed object and the laws of the country where the photograph is taken. If the photo itself was infringing a copyright in the depicted object, then the photo is not acceptable. We care not only about the copyright status of the 'image itself', but that in the underlying works. This is rather obvious, tbh... we commonly delete images of artworks that are under copyright, even though the 'photo' is freely licensed. **
FOP cases are not an exception to this, really, since in such cases the photograph is 'explicitly' sanctioned as non-infringing by the law of the nation where it was taken.
I'm not arguing about the files themselves, but just what you said. Revent (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see where I used the phrase 'where the object itself is from'. You seem to be confused about what I have or have not said. In fact, I agree with everything you wrote after that which I've placed between "**" marks, so I find your claiming a statement I made is clearly not correct to be hard to take seriously.--Elvey (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is a copyright on the pot, but there is certainly on the drawing, which is quite prominent in these pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the issue that the author of the photograph has taken a picture of a utilitarian object with a copyrightable picture on it, and because of this the file cannot be uploaded? If so was the photograph taken in the US? Rybkovich (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rybkovich: There is nothing about the images 'themselves' to indicate where they were taken, other than that the first had a German description, and the last two were in English. The one in German claimed a CC-BY license, but is sourced to a copyrighted (unlicensed) webpage (that does not, at least currently, have that image on it), so is quite possibly a copyvio 'anyhow'... the stated authors don't appear to be the uploader, who only uploaded six images (two of which were long ago deleted as copyvios). The second was uploaded by an editor whose page states they are from Italy, and the third was a 'two edit' contributor. All three prominently feature the copyrighted drawing, while we have many other photos of the same object without the logo shown. Revent (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, fiiiiiiiiiinally we get to the heart of the matter. Yes that's the key question, Rybkovich; thanks. And thanks for the complete answers, Revent.--Elvey (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem here, Elvey is that you don't understand Commons rules about burden of proof. Your comment above:

" unless we know all the pictures were taken in Europe"

is backwards. It is up to you to prove that the photos were taken in a country such as the USA where "utilitarian" would prevent a copyright, not the other way around. Not only is there no evidence of where they were taken, there are hints that they were taken in Europe and certainly the fact they are made in Italy is also suggestive.

And, by the way, you say "An entire set of images of a very common utilitarian object [was deleted]". That's hardly correct. Although three images is, technically, a "mass deletion", the DR covered only those three specific images and there remain 35 files in the category.

I think the only issue here is where the three images were taken. If they were taken in the USA, they would be OK for Commons because the shape of the pot doesn't have a copyright in the USA and the logo is probably not an issue because of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. If, on the other hand, they were taken in Europe, then Ets-Hokin doesn't apply, the logo is certainly not de minimis, and the pot may well be copyrighted, so the images are not OK for Commons for one or both reasons. Since the question of where they were taken is unproven and there is at least a significant doubt that they were not taken in the USA, COM:PRP says that the deletion was correct.      Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the 'drawing' is visible here: http://www.bialetti.com/coffee/stovetop/moka-express-c-1_7_22.html Revent (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And still, the pot is probably copyrighted in Europe anyways. If someone wants a source, see here, page 97. They interpertate the Court of Justice of the European Union "own original creation" norm and clearly state that household objects can have a copyright so his would definatly quilify imho. Natuur12 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe you so argumentative that you wrote a paragraph calling me wrong for calling a set of 3 images a set, James. Why? Why? Why?

I have never argued that the pot (or the logo) is not copyrighted in Europe. So it seems argumentative of Natuur12 to point it out. And, it seems clear the pot (sans logo) is not copyrighted in the US. Add'l evidence: a generic clone is for sale on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Primula-Aluminum-Stovetop-Espresso-Coffee/dp/B002R0EXP4 !

My words were taken out of context by James; I wrote, "The laws in Europe aren't valid for such a mass delete unless we know all the pictures were taken in Europe." There is AGF. If an uploader in good stead of a single one of them had in any way indicated that it was taken in a country such as the USA where "utilitarian" would prevent a copyright, that would have been good enough to have made the mass delete inappropriate. And were that case, *and I had no reason to to think otherwise*, it would NOT be incumbent upon me to prove where the photos were taken. So I do understand the burden of proof. I can't see them since they've been deleted and I haven't even been granted the courtesy of a temporary undelete to look at them - though Revent's review seems to be a good enough substitute. But, water under the bridge. Given Revent's review, the burden of proof has shifted more to the undeletion advocate. We still have no evidence that all the pictures were taken in Europe.

I agree with Rybkovich and James in that the core issue is where the images were taken. Since it now seems that there's little reason to think they were taken in a country such as the USA where "utilitarian" would prevent a copyright, I withdraw the request. I wish the premature closes and other argumentativeness noted above had not occurred. I think the lesson here is that closes when there are open issues is a poor practice, and premature. --Elvey (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Request withdrawn by creator after discussion. --Revent (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Foto antigual en el pueblo el volcan.jpg

bajo ninguin concepto esta foto viola ningun derecho de autor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaman2015 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You say in the file description that this your "own work" but also "foto donada por Juan Carlos Cisternas". It cannot be both and since it is an old B&W image, it is very probably not your own work. This cannot be restored without evidence that the photographer died before 1946 or that it is otherwise PD in the country of origin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd close this, as obviously a scan of a old (but not blatantly PD-old) image without proper attribution, other than a desire to leave a publicly visible comment. @Amitie 10g: You, as a non-admin, rejected a speedy nomination (by a crat) as not a legit speedy, but opened a DR. Said DR was then closed, without any comment, as deleted. Didn't we have this discussion (that you are not an admin) a while ago? An admin that speedies a file instead of deleting it themselves is expressing a fairly strong opinion, but asking for someone else to find some fact that contradicts that opinion, that a file is actually a speedy. Your edit was not saying that you didn't think it should be deleted, but just that you thought her judgement about what a speedy is was wrong, at least from what I see.. It was then deleted uncontroversially... which in most cases, means it should have been a speedy, and prolonging it was a waste of time. While I'm not an advocate of thinking that admins are special, you did nothing but add a level of bureaucracy and waste some time. Revent (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Making this a non-speedy gave the original poster of the file a chance to respond. It's frustrating that more posters don't turn on email notifications and respond to DRs, but it's still friendlier than just deleting the file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim and Revent. Green Giant (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bandera Chacas.svg

Hello, abouth a month ago I sent the email with the permission to use the permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org direction but get no response, so I write here for my application to be reviewed by favor. Herewith the text of the license:

Por la presente declaro que soy el titular de los derechos de autor exclusivos de las OBRAS: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chacas-escudo.svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandera_Chacas.svg Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre LICENCIA [[Commons:Marcas de derechos de autor|Trabajo propio Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos de autor de mi imagen, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no me serán atribuidas.Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Soy consciente de que la licencia libre sólo afecta a los derechos de autor, y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas.

Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.

25 de enero de 2016 - Leonardo Amez del Río

--Ondando (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to be done here. OTRS is staffed by volunteers and your request will be processed in due order. Thuresson (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ondando: you state you have received no response. You should have at least received an automated response with a ticket number... if you did not, please re-send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (without the -es). If you have a ticket number, please refer to Thuresson's reply above. Storkk (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. Green Giant (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


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

please undelete these books

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This books are free for use and its only for educational purpose. not for sale Jobaierimran (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You are not the copyright holder, so you have no right to license these freely. Commons requires that all files be free for any use, including commercial use, see COM:Licensing. With some exceptions, PDFs of books are out of scope, see COM:SCOPE. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Green Giant (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Newspaper article Gazet Van Antwerpen Prison Break and Shake.pdf

Dear,

I have gotten permission to publish this article from the writer and from the newspaper.

Her is a copy of the mail:

Van: info <info@ekkart.be> Onderwerp: RE: toestemming publicatie artikel gva op wikipedia Datum: 3 maart 2016 16:42 CET Aan: Francis De Rijker <francis.derijker@gmail.com>

Beste Francis,

toestemming in bijlage.

Groeten,

peter ekkart

Begin doorgestuurd bericht:

Van: Maaike Floor <Maaike.Floor@gazetvanantwerpen.be> Onderwerp: RE: toestemming publicatie artikel gva op wikipedia Datum: 3 maart 2016 15:30:09 CET Aan: info <info@ekkart.be>

Dear Peter Ekkart,

With this email I give the permission for the publication of my article ‘prison break and shake’ (08/2007) from Gazet van Antwerpen on Wikipedia. It is free of rights, when ‘Gazet van Antwerpen’ is mentioned.

Kind regards,

Maaike Floor Gazet van Antwerpen

I can send you the mail if necessary.

Francis

--Francis de Rijker (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. Aside from that, all files should be licensed in away that allow anybody to use the file freely. See Commons:Licensing. Thuresson (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:John Oliver with "Drumpf" trademark paperwork.jpg

This is a fair use image. --Potguru (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:W Wenz Portrait 1938.jpg, File:W Wenz Feld 1920.jpg, File:W Wenz Atelier.jpg

I would be thankful if someone of you experts here could help to restore the three pictures of painter Willy Wenz. All three photographs were taken before World War II (therefore more than 75 years old); the photographer is unknown, the pictures have never been published by anyone before. It is not confirmed but possibly someone of Wenz's family took the pictures at that time. If so I ought to be the copyright holder(?). Explanation: Painter Willy Wenz had no descendants or heirs, except his younger sister. She adminsistered his estate after Wenz's death in 1971. In 1991 my family bought this whole estate (paintings, personal documents and photographs) and obtained the copyrights of all, according to district court of Munich. IMHO the pictures should be undeleted, I cannot see a copyright infringement. But I don't know how to licence the pictures and what to quote as source in that special case. Maybe someone could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Alfapp (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the case of works by unknown photographers in Germany, the copyright lasts for 70 years after first publication, so these images will be under copyright for another 70 years (or maybe longer -- publication without permission may not start the clock). The fact that "possibly" the images were taken by a family member does not come even close to passing our requirement of "beyond a significant doubt". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Not done Firstly, in German copyright law (Urheberrechtsgesetz) initially all rights rest with the creator(s) (i.e. the unknown photographers and in case of the third photograph, as it is a derived work, also Willy Wenz). Secondly, creatorship cannot be sold but just inherited. The creator may grant some grants to other people but we have no evidence of that. The act of buying an estate has no effect on copyright. Let us start with the third picture where Willy Wenz is a co-creator. He died in 1971, hence his work will fall in the public domain on 1 January 2042. If his younger sister became his heir, she came in posession of the all the creator's rights for all the works of her brother. You cannot publish any of Wenz' works without the consent of her or her heirs. Now let us take a look at the two other photographs. File:W Wenz Portrait 1938.jpg is apparently from 1938, File:W Wenz Feld 1920.jpg from 1920. If you simply assume that the photograph from 1920 was taken by a friend of similar age and lifespan, then it will not be in the public domain for decades. If you do not know the identity of the photographers, we cannot determine their copyright statuses. (The only exception to this are anonymous publications where we have proof of a publication more than 70 years ago.) While you can probably publish these photographs elsewhere without getting any problems, we do not accept such contributions per COM:PRP. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for media where we know it is free for reuse by others. This is the reason why such photographs are in violation of COM:L and cannot be kept here. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Arne Bang-portrait-1970s-family archive.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted after OTRS tag was added. (Ticket:2015122210021966) --Mdann52talk to me! 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose We have here a long series of emails from a gmail account that forward emails that purport to be from the creator or his heir. I am generally skeptical of accepting gmail accounts as the source for anything at OTRS and I would never accept a forwarded message -- it is far too easy to simply forge. Therefore we actually know nothing here for certain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is claimed here that the photographers are unknown. I find it unlikely that a copyright owner of a photo is known but not the photographer, at least of a 1970s photo. Thuresson (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry -- I created a little confusion above, My only excuse is that the OTRS file has 63 entries -- by far the most I have ever seen. The cited OTRS file, #2015122210021966, covers only artwork, it does not speak to the two files mentioned above. As far as I can see they are not mentioned anywhere in the correspondence -- the search string "File:Arne Bang-portrait" does not appear, so this comment also covers Stefan's comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Firstly, neither of the two photographs are refered to in Ticket:2015122210021966. Secondly, the photographers are nowhere named. The photographs are from the family archives but the photographers are unknown according to the uploader. Thirdly, as Jameslwoodward already elaborated, no attempt has been done to confirm the permission through trustworthy email contacts. The whole correspondence was just done with the uploader. While all this may be very well genuine, it still needs to be confirmed. We do not need OTRS for permissions to confirm that an uploader has managed to get a gmail address. OTRS is useful only if we go beyond that. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lu Ning.jpg

Hello, there This photo Lu Ning.png is from Lu Ning's company Interstellar Group website, she has the right to put her own photo in her wikipedia project page. I dont know why it was deleted again and again and told it is out of project scope. Hope you can pass the image and wont delete again. Thank you very much!--宁露全球粉丝后援团团长 (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@宁露全球粉丝后援团团长: Subjects do not normally own the copyright to photographs of them. Usually the copyright holder is the photographer. Please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS and have the photographer confirm the license. Storkk (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Taivo (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:L.A.Confidential.1997.BrRip Uploaded By Emon Howlader.webm

Also File:Samjhawan Unplugged Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania Singer Alia Bhatt 11th July.webmsd.webm

I dont Think it violates the policy.. Because .. this video was Collected from the the internet and it is allowed for this movie. I am hoping that you will undelet it .. Thanks in advance .. my friends are also confused to see it deleted .... Unsigned comment by Emon Howlader

A Hollywood movie? Found "on the internet"? Please, have you heard of a concept called en:Copyright? Also, please read Commons:Licensing from start to finish before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously. --Yann (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Iveco Crossway LE 12M EURO 6 - DPmP a.s.png

I am the owner of the photo, I took it :)--Hrejzadarmo (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support At upload, this great image was clearly marked as "own work" and tagged with {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I see no reason to doubt that and none is given in what followed. Nonetheless, Gumruch tagged it with{{No permission since}} and JuTa deleted it. Unless Gumruch or JuTa can explain something I don't understand here, I think we owe Hrejzadarmo an apology. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

(File:015-1164-17 DOA Sigibahn Zug der Sigibahn Usambara D.O.A. 50.jpg)

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung des Bildes. Ich habe die Erlaubnis der Quelle vor Veröffentlichung eingeholt, die Fotos des Kolonialen Bildarchives für nicht kommerzielle Zwecke verwenden zu dürfen. Da Bild stammt aus folgender Quelle: http://www.ub.bildarchiv-dkg.uni-frankfurt.de/Bildprojekt/DFG-Projekt/DFG-Projekt.htm

--Kleinbahnen (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons requires that all images be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. In order to restore this image, the Archive will need to send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bombillas led vintage.jpg

Me gustaría recuperar esta foto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertofg1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You must tell us why you think you have the right to freely license this image when it is Copyright © 2015 buyled.es. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


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

JR w bk - Nzinga Tull 039.JPG

I have been marked in copyright violation for this image and one other - however both are images I have permission to upload and have shared in Wikipedia Commons. I must have not loaded them correctly. Please advise as to what I need to do for them to be available for all to use and assigned to the page for Judy Richardson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Richardson) where I had posted them originally. --Dmenkart (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hands on the freedom plow poster is also obviously not your own work: small size, text is partly even not readable. Taivo (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo BFS.png

Please do undo the deletion of File:Logo BFS.png. I am the head of marketing and communication of the school represented by this logo and it was designed by our school owner over 20 years ago and is owned by the school. I really do not understand the why of the deletion. Thanks,

Vanessa Allepuz March 6th, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallepuz (talk • contribs)

@Vallepuz: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, please send a formal permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:16, 7 March 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

Appears to now be correctly licensed at https://www.flickr.com/photos/aliforfifa/23474062370/# , if I'm not mistaken. If undeleted, please also close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince-Ali-Al-Hussein-Infobox.jpg as keep. This is my first foray into the PD-Mark vs CC-0, which is why I'm not doing it myself... but it appears OK to me. Storkk (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Buses Illustrated 1960-1970.jpg

Buses Illustrated 1960-1970.jpg seems to be within the criteria of clause 1 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images as "in the context of critical commentary of that item"Johnragla (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Please read COM:L and COM:SCOPE. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cobie_Smulders_and_Lisa_Christine_Holmberg.jpg

I own the rights to this photo.(WikiConqueror (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

Photo can also be found at imdb.com. User has contributed several images that has been deleted as suspected copyvios (user talk page has been blanked). On January 7, 2016, user uploaded a photo of director Gregory Cahill from a Twitter account and claimed that "Twitter isn't copyrightable". Thuresson (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Given this uploader's record, I see little reason to accept his assertion above, particularly since it is different from the claim of "own work" on the file description. The image was deleted because it appears, twice the size in both dimensions, at http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTkzNDk4MTkzNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzA3NDE2NTE@._V1_SX1410_CR0,0,1410,2115_AL_.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:THBT.png

Invalid speedy deletion rationale. Out of project scope is not listed at COM:CSD. Additionally, the file is in scope, if I remember correctly (Vietnamese TV station logo). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment It appears at http://tv.vietnamradio.info/2014/04/xem-tivi-thbt-truyen-hinh-ben-tre.html with an explicit copyright notice. It cannot have a copyright in the US, but I don't know about Vietnam. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It's at least not a speedy deletion candidate. It is below the threshold of originality of some countries, so it would at least need to go through a proper deletion request. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Please create a DR if necessary. --Yann (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LOWC v.1.png

This file was tagged for speedy (Copyright violation: screenshot). But it come from [3] and the software is free, under the GPLv3. I don't manage to undelete and I have the message error:

"Error undeleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/a/a7/LOWC_v.1.png" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends" Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: ok now hat's work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Hungarian Bofors 29M 8 cm anti-aircraft gun.jpg

The source of file, Fortepan http://www.fortepan.hu is an online photo archives. All of the images are licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 and can be freely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepultura (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Looking at the broad range of images on the site, I suspect strongly that while the site claims that they are all CC-BY-SA, in fact no one has curated them and determined the actual copyright status. However, there are a lot of images in Category:Images from Fortepan, so I could be wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:ILE en vivo con Jorge Drexler.JPG.

This image belongs to me and therefore should be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OAJVELEZ (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Support OTRS 2015101410014251 covers this image. I'm not sure why it was deleted -- it was uploaded as "own work" and no one offered any evidence that it wasn't. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: And nominated for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:ILE en vivo con Jorge Drexler.JPG. I saw that there is an issue with the EXIF data after undeleting it. Since this is a new concern and it it hard to see the EXIF when a file is deleted I think having a new DR is more reasonable that re-deleting it and closing the request as notdone. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Steven Universe Cosplay at Animazement 2015.jpg

Hello. I recently have been informed that my picture of the "Steven Universe Cosplay at Animazement 2015" has been deleted. Now, i'm very confused about this situation for a couple of reasons. I completely asked the creator for permission to post the picture which i sourced. Even he would vouch for me about the picture. And even so, i was given no reason why it was deleted, which i would like to be informed.

Source: http://postimg.org/image/l1557g2dl/ (My name is on the top-right corner.)

Thanks, Mudapa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudapa (talk • contribs)

 Oppose @Mudapa: The reason is clearly stated in the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steven Universe Cosplay at Animazement 2015.jpg, a link to which was put on your Talk page on the 27th of February: the license states that only non-commercial use is allowed. Commons only allows files for which commercial derivatives are OK. Please see COM:L. Storkk (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Lotsenbruederschaft Elbe.png

This is our official Logo as Elblotsen (Elbe Pilots), as to be seen on our Website http://www.elbe-pilot.de/cms/. Why has it been deleted without request? We need the Logo for https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Elblotsen/Lotsenbr%C3%BCderschaft_Elbe

Thank you for undeleting.

Sincerely, --Elblotsen (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Elblotsen: Hi,
As for all content which was previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is necessary. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:DJ College Logo.svg

The file was mistaken-ly marked for deletion. Please un-delete. Template:Unisgned

@ZaeemAkhtr: Hi,
As for all content which was previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is necessary. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Guillaumb

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission granted ticket:2016030610006108. Please undelete files from author "Guillaume Bottazi" Thank you in advance Scoopfinder(d) 18:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Scoopfinder: ✓ Done, except some duplicates --Didym (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: see above. --Yann (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.pdf

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.pdf. @Billinghurst: requested the undeletion of this file but for some reason he never made it to com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Natuur12, @User:Billinghurst, done. Thuresson (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: see above. --Yann (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:AzizCem.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture is not violating any copyrights and its my own work. Please restore this. Thank you. Kerso writer (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

From artistmisin.com who claims " © Copyright 2013, All Rights Reserved". You are not credible since you on December 20, 2013, uploaded a "Google headshot" of the same actor and claimed that a photo found through Google is free. Thuresson (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Undeletion and relicence works as {{PD-UN-doc}}

The following deleted (and should have never been so) and can now be recovered and relicenced with {{PD-UN-doc}}

Thanks for the consideration.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Oguzhan_r_gunes.jpg

This photo was taken by Özgür Batuhan who is the producer of Vatozfilm founded in 2014. I took the permission from him and he wanted me to publish this photo on everywhere i want. So it has no license or any copyright. So it should not be deleted. We want it to put on the page of a popular musician in Ankara. So i can develop the pages visually. Please give me the chance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebrumarbling (talk • contribs) 2016-03-09T13:55:14‎ (UTC)

This request was posted at the top of the page. I'm moving it to the bottom of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all works have a copyright until it expires. Policy requires that the photographer, Özgür Batuhan, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ebrumarbling: Agree with Jim that it needs a release by the holder of the rights, and that process is Commons:OTRS, or when published on the web with a licence that allows us to use it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Digital-Trends-screenshot-12-27-2015.PNG

I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published.

Velcroman100 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web site. Regardless, it has never been deleted so this is the wrong forum. Thuresson (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I have deleted it. It was, as Thuresson says, taken from a copyrighted site. The site's terms of service very clearly prohibit its use on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:OSL P RGB.png

Hallo,

für die Darstellung des optiSLang Logos besteht seitens der Dynardo GmbH eine Freigabe. Desweiteren ist das Logo eine einfache geomeetrische Darstellung.

Bitte daher um Wiederherstellung der Datei.

and:

Bitte um Wiederherstellung des Screenshots, da seitens der Dynardo GmbH eine Nutzungsfreigabe besteht.

Vielen Dank, Daniel

--Da.arnold2 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose These are both from http://www.dynardo.de/software/optislang.html which has an explicit copyright notice. In order to for us restore them, a corporate officer must send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Avion Full Logo - black.png

I was given permission from the company to upload their logo to the wikipedia page about the company.

--EddieZee88 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@EddieZee88: if the company intends to freely license their logo, such that (subject to trademark and other non-copyright rules) it could be used in commercial derivative works by anyone, then please have a representative of the company confirm that fact by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Otherwise, this seems to be a "Sure, Wikipedia can use our logo for our page" type of statement, which is not Commons-compatible. Storkk (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Koluvanov 2012.jpg

The Foto File:Koluvanov 2012.jpg was made by me as a co-worker at Chertanovo Football Academy. It is published in the internet for free use. --Glebasty 18:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at CHERTANOVO-FOOTBALL.RU with "(c) All Rights Reserved"". Policy therefore requires that an authorized official of the academy send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Smuggling cigarettes inside a statue of Buddha.jpg

The file was uploaded by me from the HMRC Flickr page where it had a CCBYSA licence (I checked carefully). Between then and the deletion here the source page went dead and the file was deleted here. The file should be reinstated as I gave the creator (HMRC), the source page (the exact Flickr page), and the licence. Once a CCBYSA licence is granted it is permanent even if the original source page later goes dead. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is to avoid this situation that users are asked when they upload files if it is a photo from Flickr. The Flickr bot will automatically verify the existance of the file and its license. I have looked through the Flickr photos from HM Revenue & Customs and I can not find this particular photo. One option is that you contact HMRC and ask them to upload the photo again. Thuresson (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It was specified that it was from Flickr. That was the URL given. I agree they have deleted the page, I don't know why, but they had already released the image under CCBYSA. Once released under that licence, that is permanent. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If you use the Upload Wizard and use the option "Share images from Flickr", the Flickrbot will check and verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We have a procedure, Commons:License review, for an independent review of licenses in order to avoid exactly this problem. We require that a bot or a second person, who has been appointed or elected by the community (an Administrator or an Image Reviewer), verify the license. That's required because unfortunately we have a few liars among our 25,000 active editors. No one person can both upload an image and verify its license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:YK_1977_for_OVIR.jpg

When uploading I’d specified that the picture copyright (of Yuri Kolker’s portrait made 39 years ago) belongs to me, Tanya Kostina. I insist it’s my right to web it. I do not see any reason why you have deleted it for the second time.--Tanya-kostina (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

On February 20 another user also claimed to be the copyright owner. Please clarify why you believe that the copyright belongs to you. Thuresson (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

canaday-highres.jpg was deleted by an admin, it came from a state government site so wouldn't it be considered public property?

canaday-highres.jpg was deleted by an admin, it came from a state government site so wouldn't it be considered public property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apex Yoda (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Presumably, the correct link is File:Canaday highres.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Only works created by employees of the Federal government and of California, Florida, and possibly North Carolina and their subdivisions are PD. All other state works are copyrighted. Note also "by employees of" -- not everything on one of those web sites is PD, only those works created by employees. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dinosaur comic panel.png

This file was speedily deleted without a DR claiming that is a copyvio. The page mentions that the Commercial restrictions apply only for prints and not for just posting them in a Website (like Wikimedia Commons). The permission for posting in a website should be enough to be kept in Commons, so the deletions seems to be inappropiate, therefore, this file should be restored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Commons does not accept pictures which can't be published on commercial postcards. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)  Oppose It's not about whether we can have the file, it is about whether our users (and their users) can use it freely, including for commerical derivative works, whether they are in print or not. I also don't see where you are getting the idea that commercial restrictions apply only for prints. He seems to say only that sharing it, as long as it's not commercial is OK. Storkk (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
This makes sense. Then, we could request written permission to the author and send it to OTRS, everything depends on the answer from the author. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Image:Tigran Hamasyan - 100 churches project cover.jpg

Photo of Tigran Hamasyan is made by PanPhoto agency, which I officially represent. My name is Sedrak Mkrtchyan. I've been member of PanPhoto team since 2009 and I'm authorized to upload items of PanPhoto archive to Wiki Commons. I can have official authorization paper with PanPhoto company stamp uploaded here if needed. Tigran Hamasyan - 100 churches project cover.jpg is PanPhoto property and is authorized for uploading to Wiki Commons sized 700x467px mainly for Tigran Hamasyan article and other languages versions as well. 517design (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose 700x467px is a very small file. Please upload files at full camera resolution, not small sizes. Do not upload any permission documents as Commons images -- they will be deleted. If you yourself are not the actual photographer, then the actual photographer or copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Tmp 23098-Angustia-Artist NairobiPrahl.jpg and others

I request that these files will be undeleted:

List
*File:Tmp 23098-Angustia-Artist NairobiPrahl.jpg


The reason: I sent the equested data on time: publish permission from artist, and i already had demonstrate that Karl Heinrich Pasch is the same as Artist Nairobi Prahl.

Permission ticket Ticket#: 2016030110027738]. Identity ticket "This user is Artist Nairobi Prahl, see ticket:2016012210016508 - Jcb (Discusión) 22:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)"

Karlheinrichpasch (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am going to undelete the files. Jcb (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Jcb, this artist does not have an article on any of WPs. It seems to me that this is just self promotion by a non-notable artist, which is prohibited at COM:ADVERT. While we do not have a specified waiting time before acting on an UnDR, 11 minutes is very much too fast. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
These files were deleted for 'missing permission', not for scope reasons. Permission was not missing, because it was already clear (from an OTRS ticket I handled) that the uploader is the author. I was absent in the week the files were tagged, otherwise I would have reverted the tagging. A DR for scope reasons could be possible, but deletion was not based on such a DR. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: see above. Please reopen a DR if necessary. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Margaret Lockwood image.jpg

The motion picture was released in 1938, there was no known copyright associated with this file in either the United States or the United Kingdom. It was a great photograph, and featured on two Wikipedia pages. I would appreciate if it was re uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael0986 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 12 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The film, while published in the UK in 1938, was not public domain in the UK before 1/6/1996, which is the key date for it being public domain in the US. The earliest passing of a director of one of her three films from that year would have been Sir Carol Reed in 1976 (the others were 1980 for Hitchcock and 1986 Robert Stevenson). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I accept that, thanks for replying in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael0986 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I don't understand Zscout370's response above. I assume his "1/6/1996" refers to the URAA date -- 1/1/1996. We are not enforcing the URAA rule, so that is not relevant. On the other hand, as Zscout370 says, the earliest of the three movies to go out of copyright will be 1/1/2047, so the image will be under copyright in the UK for many years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes that's what I meant by the 1996 date. I was making that point because the undeletion request claimed it was PD in the US so trying to refute it. 70.178.177.92 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC) (zscout370 logged out)
I am confused, can this please be explained to me, thank you:
- Is this a photograph or a frame from a movie? If this is a photograph then why are the names of the directors listed?
- If this is a frame from a movie then why are 3 different directors listed? We only know that it is a frame from one of the 1938 movies?
- In the UK the directors are considered to be authors of released movies? If not, and the movie studios are considered to be the authors, then how do the copyright rules apply to the studios?
- If a movie was released in 1938, and under the UK law it belongs the the studio and still be copyrighted prior to 1996 URAA, then under US law the copyright belongs to the studio and the copyright would expire in 1938 + 95 = 2032?
- If a movie was released in 1938, and under UK law the copyright belongs to the director and will be expired 70 years after life time of the director, then the under US law the copyright belongs to the director and will be expired 70 years after life time of director?
- Or, if under UK copyright law the movie belongs to the director and will expire 70 years after life time of the director, then under US law the copyright belongs to the director and will expire 95 years after the movie's publication (release) in 2032 --- 1938 + 95? Rybkovich (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Ignore everything above -- according to the file description, it's a publicity still from the UK movie Owd Bob. Since the country of origin is the UK, those rules apply and lack of notice is irrelevant. If it is an anonymous work, then, since it was a publicity shot, it was almost certainly published in 1938 and is therefore PD (UK rule for anonymous works is 70 years after publication). However, it is probably not an anonymous work within the meaning of the law -- that remains to be proven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If it was published without a credited author, and no author is already known to the public, it's probably anonymous. On the other hand, its U.S. copyright would have been restored and will exist until 2034, unless it was simultaneously (i.e. within 30 days) also published in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
If the image was a frame from a movie, them what would be its UK/US copyright status? Rybkovich (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
See en:Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Other_works (life +70 of the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue, and the composer of any original music for the film) and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Known_author. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Zscout370, Michael0986 and Jameslwoodward above. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Maze war.jpg

I have found this image with the "Labeled for reuse" filter of google images. I can't external link now because the Captcha server is down but it's the first image with the filter "Labeled for reuse" if you search Maze war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbarre96 (talk • contribs)

Labled for reuse does not mean that you can copy the file and upload it here claiming it your own work. You reuse with this information is a copyright infringement, therefore the deletion is rightful. If the file is indeed free to reuse for any purpose someone else can transfer it here with legaly correct information, no need to restore the copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This file has been restored outside of policy, and a DR has been started, so this request is moot. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maze war.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Antonio Pedro Macedo Pintura.jpg

Dear Sirs,

Please note that this file/photo has been sent to us by the author himself (also the subject of the Wikipedia Page - António Macedo); we have full rights to use it; please do not delete it.

In order to prove it please check the following links regarding his Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Website; all of them are using this photo, we have inserted:

https://www.facebook.com/antoniomacedoartistaplastico

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ant%C3%B3nio-macedo-51b08a50?authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=d658&locale=en_US&trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Amynetwork%2CclickedEntityId%3A179342951%2CauthType%3ANAME_SEARCH%2Cidx%3A1-1-1%2CtarId%3A1454515519095%2Ctas%3Aantonio%20macedo%20

https://twitter.com/AntonioMacedoAP

Best Regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkthora (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

The image has not yet been deleted, so this request is out of place. However, the image probably will be deleted -- none of the sites you cite are freely licensed, so they give no evidence that this image can be kept on Commons. In order to keep it on Commons the actual copyright holder, who is probably the photographer, not the subject, must provide a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Touchdown-Pass.webm

Was published under CC, deletion not traceable.
Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ttp569FUH8--JTCEPB (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is true that the source site says that it is the official site of the Atlanta Falcons and that it is CC-BY, it is difficult for me to believe that they actually have the rights to freely license footage from various television networks. I think this is a case where some publicity person has slapped a CC-BY license on the site without any knowledge of the actual rights to the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Child Protection Portal Logo.png

The CBSS owns the copyright for this logo. The CBSS has decided to modify a part of its logo to create a figure and put it into the creative commons realm. I, an employee of the CBSS, have been assigned this task. If you would like to verify this please email the contact on this webpage.

I'm surprised that a "possible violation" is grounds for immediate deletion without merely asking the uploader for a clarification first. It strikes me as rude and unnecessary.

However, thank you for your important work. It is a good thing that copyright is taken seriously here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 09:49, 13 March 2016‎ Hipersons (UTC)

 Oppose First, please understand that Commons gets approximately 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. Two thirds of that work is done by only a dozen of the 245 human Administrators. If we had more active Administrators, we could deal with cases on a more individual basis, but as it is we are struggling to stay ahead of the deluge.

In cases of organization logos, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via OTRS. --Yann (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Franz Spemann.jpg

We got an OTRS permission with free licence (CC-Zero) in ticket:2015102710018376. Please ping me once you have undeleted the file. Thanks, Yellowcard (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Yellowcard: die Datei ist wiederhergestellt. De728631 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:宁露.jpg

This is my original photo, thanks!

--Lovemylu (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
As it was published here before, please send a formal written permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016030610002308 own photo,thanks! --Lovemylu (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Lovemylu, I see that you uploaded this file twice again after it is deleted before the OTRS ticket was processed. That is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.

The file has been restored by Krd following the processing of the OTRS ticket. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rachel binx.jpg

Howdy, it looks like this was deleted for a few reasons that can easily be addressed.

  1. Unlikely to be own work - This photo was part of a larger set of photos taken at an event. I don't know if that equates to evidence, but the EXIF data is consistent. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylemcdonald/albums/72157627800270639
  2. small resolution - There is a larger, what appears to be original, resolution available. Would uploading that version suffice? https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylemcdonald/6257927643/sizes/o/
  3. missing EXIF - The data is on the page at Flickr. I'm not sure how to pull that over, but it is there. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylemcdonald/6257927643/

Could someone please review and provide guidance on addressing these issues? Thank you. Ckoerner (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't understand. None of the Flickr links above show this image or even, I think, an image of this person (although perhaps she has changed her hair). I also see that the Flickr links are to the account of Kyle MacDonald, who is not the uploader of this image, so if MacDonald claims to have taken it, then we have two claimants for the image, which raises our burden of proof.

The image does appear on Twitter, which is copyrighted, so at a minimum in order to restore it we will need a free license via OTRS from the actual copyright holder, together with a convincing explanation of the dual claim. Being able to provide a full camera resolution version would certainly help convince the OTRS volunteer that the claim was authentic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, It looks like I got turned around somehow. File:Rachel_Binx.jpg vs File:Rachel binx.jpg. Hence my own confusion. I do apologize for that. Ckoerner (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It's an easy mistake to make -- capitalization does matter here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 16 March 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 in Category:Peace Bridge, Tbilisi

Moved by Geagea from her:

Hello everybody. I'm the up-loader of the image File:Peace Bridge at Night (Tbilisi).JPG. I'd like to provide some info to the discussion here that concerns to the topic of FOP : according to the Law of Georgia on Copyright and Related Rights Article 24 - Use of works permanently located in areas open for free attendance - "Reproduction or communication to the public of architectural, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in areas open for free attendance shall be permitted without the consent of the author or another copyright owner and without paying him/her royalties, except where the image of such work is the main object of such reproduction or public transmission, or is used for profit-making purposes." (the law official translation by LEGISLATIVE HERALD OF GEORGIA) - This stipulation directly affects FOP that is allowed in Georgia.

Now about Bridges - should we consider them as architecture? Yes, definitely as bridges are nonbuilding structures and they like buildings are part of architecture. This can be proved by many legal acts of Georgia, which I can provide in case of need.

I hope this will help to the issue. --Rastrelli F 07:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Geagea: : Are you sure this is an undeletion request? I thought Rastrelli was simply contributing information that backed up the decision to delete. By my reading, the law says specifically that architectural works can be reproduced with FOP unless they are "used for profit-making purposes." Since all images on wikipedia have to be available for commercial use, such FOP rights are incompatible with Commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you are correct. -- Geagea (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Well if that's the case,  Delete the image, as it doesn't allow commercial purposes. Images must be free for any purpose to be uploaded on Commons. --★ Poké95 08:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not undeletion request. -- Geagea (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

--Oliviac138 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Olivia Coflin

This is MY photo owned by my company

Please write again the file name of the file you wish to have undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose If this is a request to restore your only upload, File:Yousef Erakat.png, because the file appears at http://m.imdb.com/name/nm6257719/?ref_=m_tt_cl_i4, with "© 1990-2016 by IMDb.com, Inc.", policy requires that the actual copyright owner must send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Two files relating to Ada Lovelace

These files are the property of Somerville College, Oxford. I have permission from Somerville College to share them, and they are willing to send an OTRS email to that effect, but it has taken longer than anticipated to get approval. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

MartinPoulter Is there some problem with waiting for them to send the OTRS email before undeletion? If they are undeleted, on what date do you think they should be deleted again if there is no OTRS email sent? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support Martin, since both Lovelace and the painter died in 1852, these have both been PD for 94 years. While Somerville may own the painting and the manuscript, the College has no ownership rights in the two works that needs to be licensed. I think they should simply be restored as {{PD-Old-100}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, @MartinPoulter, please check that the file description pages are correct. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Meenaksih (Actress).jpg

There is no problem, the file to exist. I request undeletion. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeani (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 Oppose This appears to be a publicity card or poster of some sort, professionally produced. While it might be possible that it is, in fact, your own work as claimed, it seems very unlikely. That is particularly true since you uploaded File:Meenakshi, Sharmilee or Sharmili.jpg which has the same image of the woman with a different background. On that one you said that the source was "internet". In any event you must supply much more information if you expect us to restore this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:CEB Logo standard ai.svg

This is a public Logo of Ceylon Electricity board. I can't understand why you deleted it. I f this is a copyright violation, all the Logos and trademarks displayed in Wiki pages will violate copyrights and should be deleted. please reconsider your deletion http://www.ceb.lk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upulpp (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The logo, and everything on the page you cite, is covered by the explicit copyright notice on the bottom of the page. Logos are a very complicated subject -- many of them are below the Threshold of Originality and are kept here on that basis. For many, we have received permission. Many are deleted. Note that while we do not have specific information about the ToO in Sri Lanka, it tends to be very low in Commonwealth countries and our rule is that images can be kept only if there is no significant doubt as to their status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:4 aana (a quarter).png

I own these coins and I took photograph. I can not think how could this is a copyrighted image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contact '97 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

India coin from 1996. "Indian currency is copyright until 60 years after publication", see COM:MONEY. Thuresson (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose per Thuresson. --★ Poké95 11:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Sony Music / Legal Dept.

Hello Wiki-friend,

I request un-deletion of file File:Wiki 1984 .jpg It is a photo of ourselves. We own the photo. I have a lawyers letter as well from the vice president of the legal department at SONY MUSIC. How can I attach my lawyers letter here?

This has been very frustrating with your continued deletions for years now.

Who may I contact you to give a financial donation and help us rectify this issue.

Thank you, Chris Steffler Platinum Blonde (Band) (****) March 12 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSteffler (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 March 2016‎ (UTC)

In your previous request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-09#Files uploaded by ChrisSteffler, you stated that you had sent in evidence of the licensing permission to our permission archive. That is still the proper procedure here. Seeing as the files weren't undeleted then, the volunteers handling the permissions weren't satisfied that the permission was sufficient. You should have received a reply to this effect or a request for additional information. If you did not, you can inquire at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Camilla Kur Larsen image.jpg

Hi

It's true the image was grabbed from Facebook, but only because the original was deleted from the camera.

Please undelete.

--AHumanBing (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, we get many people who tell good stories here in order to post images that are not theirs to post, so policy requires that when an image has appeared elsewhere without a free license, the copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Motor Yacht Polaris.jpg

I confirm the property of the Photo under reference and for this reason I require to not delete it.

Claudia Rossi — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaR85 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image appears at http://www.luxe-addict.com/passion/nautisme/le-superyacht-polaris-au-monaco-yacht-show-2014-22094.html without a free license. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rtextdoc editor example.png

This file was previously Nominated for deletion and resolved as Kept, considering that Rtextdoc is Free software licensed under the GNU General Public License (I confirmed that). But, once again, Ellin Beltz deleted another Free software screenshot like this; I consider that action as a clear and blatant violation of the Deletion Policy (considering that the file is properly licensed and there is a DR resolved as Kept). Please restore this file inmediately (I already leaved a message in her Talk page requesting that). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Amitie 10g you did leave me a message. You left a message eleven minutes prior to posting here and I was not logged on when you left it. I have to go back to class now; I would have been happy to work on it at lunch had you given me time, but now I am sure someone here will be happy to help you instead. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll accept your apologies, but I can't accept your careless administrative actions that you repeated over and over the time. I have blocked due I insulted you (and yes, I insulted you and I already apologized), but you still making careless copyvio-related editions without researching. Just some days ago, you tagged a file for Speedy without even showing the link that you provided, and no mention your nomination of several Free software screenshots related to Linux distros, and tagging a file transferred by Me (clearly PD-textlogo) as Copyvio, basing your accusations in anything rather than the US Copyright Law.
Most of your administrative actions against free files properly licensed is, as I mentioned, a clear violation of the Deletion Policy, but speedying a screenshot of a GPL software is the straw that broke the camel and IMHO, enough reason to request your De-adminship. I don't want to insult you and I don't want to be blocked again by insulting users, but the only way to stop these disrupti actions is by removing your administrative tools (and I am not exaggerating, as an experienced user who knows and uses free software). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the source on the file to show where it really came from "own work" was not valid. Thank you for waiting until lunch. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I think that Ellin was probably right to delete this. While the software may or may not be free, the text shown in the text box is certainly long enough to have a copyright and comes from a 2010 paper by Chekanov, Levy, Proudfoot, and Yoshida titled "New approach for jet-shape identification of TeV-scale particles at the LHC". Someone could, of course, blank the text, but then it wouldn't be an example of editing. As it stands, we can't keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
How can you determine if the software depicted in the screenshot may be free or non free without seeing the source code, or, at least, downloading it and find a file called "license.txt"? Yes, the text is problematic and the right way to fix it is blanking or replacing with other screenshot with free text; no doubt that Rtextdoc is Free software licensed under the GPL, come on! If you don't want to fix it, then don't touch it and let the Free software users to make a new screenshot. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Since Ellin Beltz restored the file, this UnDR should be closed. Please don't nominate for deletion until someone try to fix it. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a blatant copyright violation, so it should be deleted on sight, but I'll give it 24 hours. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: 24 hours finished. ★ Poké95 11:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Photo-4-1--55749d26ebdd0.jpg

Hi, I was wondering why my image File:Photo-4-1--55749d26ebdd0.jpg was deleted, it is one of my personal images and I haven't violated any copyright laws with it. It's kind of annoying that it has been deleted.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by R129R107 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi User:R129R107: This message duplicates one on my talk page. The image was deleted because it was found several places on the internet without any indication that you took it before it was posted to various groups. Please see: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/u3ovx/ "Stock AF bruh" and https://d37nk263jfz2p8.cloudfront.net/image/1/700/0/uploads/posts/2015/06/photo-4-1--55749d26ebdd0.jpg. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes! That's me! If you go to my Car Throttle garage (user name Illuminati) you'll see that it is my car. I also have a Jetta TDI posted in the CT garage. Just check my page for proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by R129R107 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Because we get a fair amount of identity theft here and have no way of knowing that User:R129R107 is User:Illuminati at Car Throttle, policy requires that when an image has appeared elsewhere without a free license, the copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is proof of ownership of the CT account:

File:IlluminatiCTaccount r129r107.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by R129R107 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 March 2016‎ (UTC)

First, as noted for the third time above, please sign your posts. Forcing us to do it for you is rude and will eventually get you blocked.

There is nothing you can do here that will prove that you are the owner of the other site. Please follow the directions above. I have deleted the uploaded image above because it is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting my signature, I just wanted to show proof that I am the owner of the account "Illuminati" on Car Throttle, by showing myself being actually logged into the account. I thought that it was enough proof to show that I owned the rights to the original image of the 1994 Mercedes SL500 R129, and I do not see how the second image, the screenshot which you have deleted has violated any copyright rules.

R129R107 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)User:R129R107

https://www.carthrottle.com/ is not freely licensed, so anything taken from it is an obvious copyright violation and must be deleted on sight. Again, please follow our standard procedure and send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This image was not taken from Carthrottle.com . This image has been taken from my personal cell phone and was posted to Carthrottle as well as Commons.

R129R107 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)R129R107

Again, for the last time. The image appeared on Car Throttle without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. Nothing else will get the image restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cover of Hazaar Aankhaa Yee AankhaaMa.JPG

This is an image of cover of one of my own books. I am the copyright holder of this. I would like to request for undelation, if this criteria fulfills.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman pokhrel (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright to book covers is usually held by the publisher, not the author. In either case, in order to restore this we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Previously published documents required a formal permission from the copyright owner. See COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Black hole simulation.jpg

Bonjour,

Je souhaite annuler la suppression de cette image (File:Black hole simulation.jpg) uploadée en novembre 2014. En effet, afin de pouvoir la poster sur la page Wikipedia du film Interstellar, j'ai pris contact avec Jean-Pierre Luminet via son blog (http://blogs.futura-sciences.com/luminet/). Celui-ci m'a donné l'autorisation d'utiliser cette image sur Wikipedia et m'a précisé que cette image était disponible pour tous (Jean-Pierre Luminet m'avait répondu directement dans les commentaires de sa page consacrée au film Interstellar http://blogs.futura-sciences.com/luminet/2014/11/01/interstellar-trou-noir-hollywood-1/, commentaire daté du 10 novembre 2014 par moi-même, Pixmaip).

Le commentaire étant bien caché au fond de la page, voici une capture d'écran : http://puu.sh/nHWO0/6262be1af1.png

Après vérification, je vous prie d'annuler cette suppression afin que l'image puisse à nouveau figurer sur la page Wikipédia d'Interstellar.

Pixmaip.

English

Hi,

I request to undelete this file because I had the explicit authorization from the author (Jean-Pierre Luminet) through his blog for the picture to be used on the Interstellar french Wikipedia page. The exchange was in the comment section, in french, on this page (bottom of the page, november 10, by Pixmaip) : http://blogs.futura-sciences.com/luminet/2014/11/01/interstellar-trou-noir-hollywood-1/ A screenshot if you can't find the comment : http://puu.sh/nHWO0/6262be1af1.png

I would like to see it again on the french (or english) Interstellar Wikipedia page, as the section dealing about the scientific accuracy wasn't very clear without an image.

Pixmaip. Pixmaip (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pixmaip: Hello, having permission from the author to use on a Wikipedia page is not enough. Commons do not accept "Wikipedia use only" images. The image must be licensed under a free license compatible with Commons. See Commons:Licensing for more details. Also, please ask the author to send the permission to the OTRS. I currently  Oppose this undeletion request. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 1 by HARISH MANE.jpg

Hello I'm Harish, I want to place a request to immediately undelete a file named "Avinash Dharmadhikari 1 by HARISH MANE.jpg" I strongly oppose the reason given by you for deleting this file - a Possible Copyright © Violation. These images were given to me by the person (Avinash Dharmadhikari) himself to publish with his full consent. I've been working with him since last four years. And as per Wikipedia Commons Copyright © Rules - you can publish the images as your own stuff for public use if "People have given their consent for their image to be published" So, I kindly request you to undelete this image/file immediately. Thank you

Regards, Harish --HARISHwrb (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@HARISHwrb: Commons:Licensing (assuming this is what "Wikipedia Commons Copyright Rules" you are saying) doesn't only say that you can only publish images if the copyright holder gives you permission to publish, it must be also be allowed to be used for any purpose (including commercial purposes, derivative works, etc.). Please say to the copyright holder (Avinash Dharmadhikari) to license their image under a free license (such as CC-BY-SA-4.0). And don't forget to say to them to send the permission to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@HARISHwrb: And please don't upload again a file that was deleted, as it will be deleted again due to speedy deletion criteria G4 (see COM:GCSD). Please use COM:UNDEL in the future. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Wait, sorry, I have been confused which is the copyright holder you're saying. It is impossible that Avinash Dharmadhikari is the copyright holder, because he was the person taken in the photo. So if you're the copyright holder, please send an e-mail to the OTRS. You irrevocably agree that your image will be used for any purpose, including commercial and derivative works, as long as they attribute you (which is CC-BY-4.0, if you want to use another license, such as CC-BY-SA-4.0, then state it in the email). ★ Poké95 08:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Нясвіж. Вуліца Ленінская 2.jpg

profile francis-maks: Материалы распространяются под лицензией CC-BY-SA Author unknown. The building was built in 1916 --> PD-RusEmpire --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The building is not the issue -- it is covered by Russian FOP for architecture. The issue is that there is no reason to believe that the photograph has been licensed CC-BY-SA -- there is no license that I can see at the source site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Burj Al Arab Dubai.jpg

Hello,

I would like to know about this file, if this is possible to undelete it. I am aware of the fact that the Burj Al Arab building may cause copyright problems. My opinion was that this building was De Minimis, as it stands in background of the picture. The file is named as if it was the main subject of the picture, but I don't think it is. The picture can then be renamed if needed. And anyway, if it still has copyright issues, I think the picture can be cropped but kept, because it remains useful for illustrating a cityscape of Dubai IMHO. What do you think about it? Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos of the Dubai skyline can be found here: Category:Skylines in Dubai. Thuresson (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Although the Burj Al Arab is not large, it is certainly the only thing the eye rests upon, so it does not meet the test for de minimis -- that an ordinary person would not notice the difference if the object were removed. Also note that everything in the image has a copyright, so your alternative plan doesn't work either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Map of the state of Connecticut showing Indian trails, villages and sachemdoms.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I contacted the owner of the image and explained how I planned to use it in a Wikipedia article, and he updated the license for this image to be CC BY-SA. (I had previously contacted him before uploading the file as I was not sure they intended it to be usable on Wikimedia, but he responded to say it was fine to use it as long as I attributed the source, so I went ahead and uploaded the file.) I checked the file at https://www.flickr.com/photos/uconnlibrariesmagic/3332840235/in/photostream/ and I think it has been updated so it is now licensed according to Wikimedia standards. If so, please undelete the file at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_state_of_Connecticut_showing_Indian_trails,_villages_and_sachemdoms.tif, or if it still does not meet your licensing standards, please let me know what is still missing or incorrect. - KennyHBrown KennyHBrown (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The map was drawn by Hayden L. Griswold, CE, in 1930 and has the required (c) and date, so, if the copyright was renewed, it will be under copyright until at least 2025 -- later if it were not published until later. There is no indication that Griswold gave the copyright to the UConn library -- the map was given to the library by a third party -- so there is no reason to believe that the UConn library has any right to license it freely. Owning a paper copy of a copyrighted work does not make one the owner of the copyright and gives one no right to license it. The UConn license is incorrect in either case -- either the work is PD for lack of renewal, in which case they cannot license it as CC-BY-SA or it is under copyright, in which case they cannot license it at all.

There are two ways that this can be restored -- either get a free license from Griswold or his heirs, or do the manual search through the four books of copyright renewals (1957 and 1958, each in two books, see http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/) necessary to show that the copyright was not renewed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support Stanford db checked, no renewal. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, The Stanford DB covers only books, which this is not. If it were that easy, I would have done it myself -- unfortunately it's a hard search through documents that aren't perfectly organized -- it would take me half an hour or more and I've done a lot of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's a bit sad. I would have skipped this one on the presumption that UConn made a reasonable assessment of copyright so we don't have to. --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:GERMAN TROOPS ADVANCING PAST ABANDONED AMERICAN EQUIPMENT.jpg

I would like to see the rationale laid out for deletion in a DR. This image appears in a number of reliable sources, for example the National Geographic has published the image as a photograph by the U.S. Army, and I understand the image is available from U.S. Gov sources. If the photographer is unknown, then the rationale of the image being PD due to age can be explored.

If you want to look at a good copy, then I have made available a 2,319 x 1,772 pixel version at https://www.flickr.com/photos/wikimediacommons/25009604644 under Fair Dealing law to avoid any risk of prosecution for me. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Support Its stated source was "German military photo, film captured by US Army". If true, it was likely first published in the US, making it very likely to be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} at the least. Storkk (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: @Ellin Beltz: as interested parties to the deletion. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I'm not so sure. Too many uncertainties here, I think. It appears at Getty Images with the credit line "Photo by US Army/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images". Since the soldiers in the photo are clearly German, it might indeed have been taken by a German Army photographer, or, less likely by a captured US Army or LIFE photographer. With LIFE magazine somewhere in its history, it is certainly beyond a significant doubt that it might have first appeared in LIFE, with a copyright notice and subsequent renewal.
Even if it didn't appear in LIFE, why assume that any publication was without notice? In that era, almost everything that was published in the USA (except ads) had notice. Or, of course, it could be unpublished until its addition to Getty. Finally, there is the fact that Getty claims copyright and is charging for its use. Although Getty certainly could be mistaken, they certainly understand copyright.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Weak  Oppose. What is the country of origin, then? I guess that it could only be Germany, and as long as it cannot be proven that the photographer has been killed between the Battle of the Bulge and VE-Day or has died before the 31st December, 1945, the image is likely not free in the "Country of origin" and thus unfit for Commons (unless, of course, if there is some law, case law or international agreement about intellectual property of people from the 3rd Reich captured by allied troops settling the matter...). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If the photographer is unknown, then in Germany the photograph is now PD. BTW, UNDEL is not supposed to replace having deletion requests. I am asking for an undeletion so we can discuss this image and put any deletion decision correctly on the public record. --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If the photographer is anonymous, then the German copyright term is 70 years from publication. Was this published during WWII, or was it first published after the war? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no evidence that it was ever published in Germany or that a named photographer has ever been identified. Relevant copyright law is that for war seized property, making this copyright of the U.S. Army (hence Getty's attribution) and consequently public domain under U.S. law (and U.K. law as it happens). No potential claim of copyright has ever been identified in Germany by a German organization or citizen. --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If the photographer is unknown, we cannot be sure that this photograph is in the public domain according to German copyright law. As the photographer was never identified we do not know when he died. That this photograph was seized is irrelevant in regard to German copyright law. No claim has to be made. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Umm, you have there is no evidence that this was taken by a German, and no evidence that is covered by German copyright law. All that is supposition. Please deal with the facts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Please read my comment and this subthread carefully. I'm commenting on the viewpoint of German copyright law as this has been brought up here (not by me). And German copyright law does not depend on the nationality of the photographer. If this photograph is be restored/kept, then this cannot be done on the base of German or EU copyright laws where this photograph is very likely still protected. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: I was commenting on the thread, not your commentary in isolation. Can it be demonstrated that German copyright law is relevant to this. 1) No evidence that a German person took the photograph; 2) No evidence that the photo took place in Germany; 3) No evidence that the work was published in Germany. The only thing that can be reputed to be German is the soldiers who were photographed, and that doesn't make anything pertinent to German copyright. Every comment about German copyright is supposition, which is my point.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Well, if you nest your comment below mine, addressing me with "you", then I take this personally :) The main problem with this photograph is that we have so few facts. As usual, the proof that this image can be restored/kept at Commons is to be given by those who want to keep it. I personally haven't researched that, I commented just on the perspective of German (and European) copyright law as this perspective has been brought into this discussion. As COM:L refers to the source country, it is an interesting question how to interpret this term if a work has not been published yet with the permission of the creator or his heirs. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: [You is singular or plural in English; amended to remove ambiguity] I understand the complexity, and it was deleted prematurely on slim evidence and that has been my issue the whole way through. We utilise the evidence, not the supposition. This is balance of probability decision and the evidence to delete is not there, adding commentary to the interpretation of the component of supposition just clouds the issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Getty is not a good source for the image in terms of justifying copyright, they have a long history of copyfraud of old PD photographs. Their credit is solely to the U.S. Army, which would make this PD by default anyway. As a comparison, the Imperial War Museum also claim copyright, it is obvious copyfraud to cash in on WWII historic images. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: (in response to why assume it was with no notice): if the provenance given is correct, then I don't see how Getty or Life would be the copyright holder, even if they published it first. Any copyright notice that might have been given would seem to be {{PD-US-defective notice}} for not naming the actual copyright holder correctly, no? @Grand-Duc: I was under the impression that Country of Origin would usually mean country of first publication... but it seems a fuzzy concept for this photo, I agree. Storkk (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Although we're venturing into territory where I'm conjecturing on copyright law arcana, so I will bow out now and defer to others. Storkk (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Publication requires permission from the copyright holder. If the pictures were seized by the United States Government and then published by the United States Government, then the picture would only be considered to be published according to the copyright laws of the countries which recognises the United States Government as the copyright holder (possibly only USA). In other countries, then picture would be considered unpublished, and the source country is then the country of residence or citizenship of the photographer. This may be a situation where the source country is different in different countries. In which source country does COM:L require the work to be in the public domain? In all of the, or only one of them? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Storkk, ".... for not naming the actual copyright holder correctly, no?" No. Let's say it was published in LIFE. If LIFE actually owned the copyright, then it would be still under that copyright. If LIFE didn't own the copyright, then their publication was without the permission of the owner and no-notice or defective notice cannot apply -- the copyright owner did not lose the copyright if someone else published the work without permission.

So, again, either it is unpublished until it appeared on the Getty web site, or it was published somewhere we don't know about. If unpublished until after 1/1/1946, it's still under copyright in Germany and most of the rest of Europe. There are only four ways it can be PD, all of which are unproven so far:

  1. if it were published before 1/1/1946
  2. if it were published in the USA with the permission of the photographer and without notice
  3. if the author died before 1/1/1946
  4. if it turns out that it actually was taken by a US Army photographer while he was, presumably, a prisoner.

None of them seems likely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The part with "published before January 1st, 1946" is questionable, at least when following German (or Austrian or likely other continental European laws), because an author could claim authorship after a publication, making the rules about anonymous publication moot and showing for application of the 70 years pma and so on... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Storkk (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't U.S. law have the equivalent of the German or UK laws for seized property (or prize law)? You seem to have skipped that entirely. Whether reparations could be read as relating to potential copyright for photographs taken by soldiers during their duties is highly unlikely (noting that the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare were intended for land and material properties, not IP protection) and not, as far as I am aware, would returning copyright to unnamed German soldiers as their personal property be supported by any existing case law. I disagree with your reduction of the copyright status to what seems a simplistic breakdown of a Wikimedia Commons understanding of U.S. law rather than European law and relevant legal cases that can put the law in context.
Anyway, as above, UNDEL is not the right place to have an extensive discussion about this photograph which has various claims about it by various institutions. The correct place to set down that discussion is in a deletion request which was skipped by the deleting admin. Please undelete the image and create a DR where the whole community can take part by actually noticing the deletion discussion.
BTW I have yet to see any evidence that LIFE asserts a claim of being the copyright holder for the photograph. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As stated on my talk page due to the bullying nature of the initial correspondence on this issue, I am recusing from the UNDEL discussion so that nothing I do could be considered being done under duress. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: As fas as I am aware, the whole bunch of stuff (read: intellectual property) seized by allied troops in the aftermath of fighting in WWII is not flatly considered free in Germany, as far as I recall the prevailing opinion among my fellow German Wikipedians. There is a noticeable chance that (most likely) heirs of e.g. a Propagandakompaniefotograf will see this kind of media on European sites and are going to sue the alleged infringer. Back in 2010, there was a story run on "Einestages", a section of SPIEGEL Online, about aerial images of the eastern front, where the photographer was unknown at first, but with the help of readers, was positively identified. So, there is largely more than a remote possibility that the photographer of said picture could be identified and that he was not dead per 1945/12/31. I guess that the only conclusion here is "remains deleted" as long as no additional evidence about the author is shown. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would read that as the case for keeping the file on Commons. All we (or any reuser) has to do is take reasonable steps to ascertain copyright. Running a national campaign in Germany to identify unlikely copyright claimants is not "reasonable", and any attempt to sue an individual uploader (especially me in the UK where I would easily point to relevant law) or the WMF would be quickly thrown out. All any potential claimant has needed to do in the last 70+ years for this pretty famous photograph is make themselves known, they have not - I'm judging pretty famous as being used as a poster boy for illustrating the Battle of the Bulge.
Again, what I'm requesting is a deletion request to be run, it is missing, so these tricky copyright positions have been unexplored by the Wikimedia Commons community and we have learned no lessons to improve our policies. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, we could ignore all rules and continue discussing the matter here, as it as unlikely that an expert on international copyright stumbles by chance on the possible DR as the same expert takes a look on this page. It will become/stay a matter of discussion among the Commons regulars either way, so I think it could remain here as well...
I agree with you about the point of the futility of a legal action against the WMF or a US-UK national uploading this file. But I was thinking about possible reusers (say a German WP mirror). And, IIRC, it is enough for a person to state "this photograph was taken by me" to e.g. a reporter of a long defunct small local newspaper who prints the story to void the German rules about anonymous publishing, so that the argument of famous photograph of which the author is not known has not much strength. BTW, I was in no way saying that we need a mass media hosted call for "who has taken this picture" to identify a photographer, but I used this example to say that it's perfectly possible to identify war photographers more than 70 years after VE-Day. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It's possible only if the anonymous copyright term is still valid. Once protection expires, it expires, and identifying the photographer would not bring it back. If the photo was made available to the public more than 70 years ago, then the deadline for identification has passed. Likewise, if the photo was never legally made available to the public and is thus unpublished, copyright has also expired -- anonymous works need to be made available to the public within 70 years of creation, or the copyright also expires (and along with it the ability to change the term to 70pma). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: This is not correct in regard to German copyright law. The 70 years start counting after the publication, not the creation, see § 66 UrhG. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: And it also says (in line with the EU directive) that if such a work is not published within 70 years after creation, copyright expires at that point (70 years after creation). Is that not what Es erlischt jedoch bereits siebzig Jahre nach der Schaffung des Werkes, wenn das Werk innerhalb dieser Frist nicht veröffentlicht worden ist means? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: You are quoting the most recent version of § 66 UrhG. The point that unpublished anonymous works become public domain after 70 years since creation, introduced in 1 July 1995, is not retroactive. (See here.) As this photograph has been created long before 1995, this does not apply here. We have to wait until 2066 before we can begin to profit from this clause. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: That is a fair point, but wouldn't this have been a simple photo with a much shorter term before that law went into effect? If so, the idea that the EU directive would not shorten terms would only apply to that previous term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec) @Clindberg: You are refering to Lichtbilder (§ 72) in contrast to Lichtbildwerke, right? I think that it is safe to consider this photograph as Lichtbildwerk as the threshold required for Lichtbildwerke has been lowered due to Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights which has also been reflected by subsequent case law (see here). Let me also quote from this blogpost from two German attorneys for intellectual property law: "Davon ausgehend, dass im Kriegsjahr 1940 ein Fotofilm ein kostbares Gut darstellte, wird man vermuten dürfen, dass sich der Fotograf gewisse Gedanken über Motiv, Blickwinkel und Licht gemacht hat. Im Zweifel wäre daher wohl vom Vorliegen eines Lichtbildwerkes auszugehen." My translation: As a photographic film was a precious good in the war year 1940, it is to be assumed that the photographer thought about motif, angle of view, and light. In doubt, a Lichtbildwerk is to be assumed. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, works were promoted to full 70pma works by the 1995 law (which implemented that 1993 directive). But in that case, the 70-years-from-creation-if-not-published clause in the 1995 law also applies. If you are relying on the concept that the 1995 law did not shorten any previous copyrights, then you need to use the terms that existed before 1995, which were shorter in all respects. The day before the 1995 law went into effect, the work was very likely PD (due to the 1940s terms). It would have been restored in 1995, for sure, but it also gets the limits in the current wording of § 66. The maximum older limits were similar, at most 50 years from creation if never published. 1995 just extended that to 70. That 1993 directive, which elevated the photo to the 70 years, also has the limit of 70 years from creation for anonymous works if not published in that time (article 1(6)). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: And actually, I believe the term from the 1940s for photos, even with known authors, was 25 years from publication, or if not published within 25 years, then it became public domain then (i.e. the same concept -- unpublished photos did not have an infinite copyright). In 1985, for photos of contemporary history (which would probably apply here), the term was extended to 50 years from publication, but again, if not published within 50 years, then it became public domain. If something was published before 1960, it would have expired before 1985 and not been restored until the 1995 EU directive law. Since the maximum older term was 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published in that time, I would think that the older terms would be completely subsumed by the newer EU directive terms, fully including that from-creation clause, since the most likely claim to copyright existence is only from that 1995 law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 Support, I think. This appears to be a captured German photo from WWII. Those are basically PD in the US nowadays, and no URAA for them. The Getty claim is pretty clearly bogus -- they got the photo from the US Army I'm sure, and they tend to slap notices on everything (including when they get PD material). So... this was either made available to the public in Germany before it was captured by U.S. troops (in which case it's PD in Germany as 70 years after publication), or it was considered legally published in the U.S. not long thereafter (meaning the country of origin is the U.S. and it's PD there, and German law does not matter), or it has never been legally published and it became PD 70 years after creation. The deadline for the human author to be identified has already passed, almost certainly. It seems highly likely that one of the above situations is true -- there may be a theoretical doubt on the technicalities of "making available to the public" (a less-strict standard than "publication"), but it seems highly probable it is PD in both Germany and the US to me. I would keep as {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: {{PD-anon-70-EU}} does not apply as we do not have a proof of an anonymous publication more than 70 years ago. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: Again, I think requiring absolute hard proof is too much in this particular situation. I have seen this photo for decades, as it's been available from the US Government for a very long time, probably since capture. Either that counts legally, or if it's never legally been published, then the 70 year from creation term would kick in. In theory it could have been legally published by Nazi government successors only later, but it also in theory could have been first published in Spain or Columbia, and we don't go around requiring proof that it was not first published in say Spain when it seems obvious it was a German work -- so we don't require absolute 100% proof of every eventuality. To me it is virtually certain to have either been made available to the public back at the time (either by the Nazi government or the US forces), or that it has never been legally made available to the public. I think PD-anon-70-EU applies beyond a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 Info Just advising that "German military photo, captured by U.S. military" (licensed with {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH}}) are also File:German soldier Ardennes 1944.jpeg + File:King tiger wessell stavelot.jpg + File:AMERICAN PRISONERS.jpg + File:Battle Bulge 1944 HD-SN-99-02998.JPEG + File:1st SS Panzer Division Honsfield.jpg + File:Kampfgruppe Knittel's troops on the road to Stavelot.jpg --> this one taken (as indicated) by German military photographer "Max Büschel" from whom some files are also available at the Bundesarchiv via http://bit.ly/223hpqt. Per http://www.ww2f.com/topic/52418-knittel-group-at-the-crossroads/#entry590572 Büschel [and Schäfer] was "captured by the Americans later that day near Waimes with four undeveloped films". For Büschel I could not retrieve further life details. Also eventually useful: en:Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images. Above files (except the photo by Büschel which may be still copyrighted, failing for now {{PD-anon-70-EU}}) may suffer an equal treatment depending on the outcome of this discussion. Gunnex (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment In the published work s:The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge (reproduction) it states "All illustrations are from Department of Defense files, with the exception of the photograph of General Joseph Sepp Dietrich reproduced through the courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the one of General von Luettwitz, taken from captured German records in the U. S. National Archives." I enjoy how with one flimsy mention of Getty images we collapse and delete, rather than use all available evidence. The commons:precautionary principle is being used as a deletionist policy, which it is not, it is meant to have us question and open to challenge. There are two competing claims here, and there is not sufficient doubt to invoke C:PP in my opinion. In this situation have some courage and not move without a takedown notice that will never come.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not really Getty images which is the issue. It's that they are German works, so at a minimum in the EU they were copyrighted elsewhere for 70 years from creation, and more likely 70 years from making available to the public. That term could only have expired recently, so before now they were sort of an automatic delete. However, we now can start to consider if {{PD-anon-70-EU}} applies. That tag does not mention the fact that anonymous works not made available to the public within 70 years of creation expire at that point, and the question is if the U.S. making the work available, after capture, counts legally. For me, it is highly, highly likely that either 1) it was made available to the public before capture, 2) American publication counts and therefore it was published near the time of capture, or 3) it has never legally been made available to the public and thus the 70 years from creation term has expired. This would only apply to captured works originally owned by the Nazi government, and which do not have a known author, but I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over whether and when captured works were originally made available to the public in Germany. That is a theoretical doubt, but to my mind it's not a reasonable doubt, as it's going to be virtually impossible to ever figure that out, so that is really just an argument to never host such files on Commons. If we ever do get more detailed information on a particular photo (such as a human author who was identified while the anonymous term was still in effect) then we would reconsider there. I just don't think the tiny theoretical doubts at this point amount to a reason to delete, personally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For information, there is an uncropped original, which is a higher quality scan than that available from the Imperial War Museum (who claim copyright), available from NARA (who make no copyright claims), see https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12010184. I have updated my version on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wikimediacommons/25009604644. The description at NARA is more complete than that given by the IWM. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Carl Lindberg. If @Fae: wants to upload the uncropped version it would be great. (I would probably make a mess of it if I would do it myself). --Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Scherenburgfestspiele.svg

OTRS Ticket #2016031710010823 --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Olaf Kosinsky: Welche Lizenz hat die Grafik jetzt laut Ticket? De728631 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: Es liegt eine Freigabe für cc-by-sa 4.0 vor. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Olaf Kosinsky: Ok, das Logo ist wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS team member's request. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:池上 佳代子.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is retrieved from http://www.art-no-sundo.com/about/ and this page shows that profile image is provided by CC-BY-SA. I think this image can be undeleted. Xenon124 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Xenon124: There is an unclear copyright status in the website. It has the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, but also has "Copyright © 2010–2016 Art-no-Sundo All rights reserved". Per COM:PCP we need OTRS permission to confirm which one is correct. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: I've asked webmaster and they clarify the copyright exception for this image. Xenon124 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Website copyright now has a rider "While most of resources in this web sites are “All rights reserved”, all the human images in this page are provided with クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンス." which displays as CC-BY-SA-4.0.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Xenon124: Please categorise and use the image appropriately, otherwise it may fall victim to Commons:Scope

Undeleted. Site has amended copyright for human images.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Anis del Mono label -the face is reported being that of Charles Darwin.jpg

Hi!: as you can see, the image you deleted is of a label, still in use today as commercial trade mark, in the bottle of an Anisé liquor: 'Anis del mono'. Image dates back to XIX century, and even if the one who made the photograph and hanged it on the web has put his name in the file, the image remains the sole property of the liquor maker, still operating in Badalona, Barcelona, Catalunya. You can find many different images of the same label and different versions of it by entering in any search engine the key words: 'Anis del mono', and choose among it the one you'd like being shown in Wikimedia Commons. Of course, no commercial product would reject their label appearing in Wikimedia commons, as this may enhance the awareness of the trade mark, and increase sales. It's an universally widespread concept that art work becomes in the public domain 70 years after the death of its author, a drawing in a liquor label is art work, and also, as this image is from a liquor label, the concept that no copyright infringement existed can be proved by the fact that Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons do show images of the Pepsi-Cola trade mark icons, and of other commercial icons, that are also proprietary icons, but first introduced to the markets decades later than: 'Anis del mono' (Monkey's Anisé). The fact that the face of the monkey in the label is that of Charles Darwin was known in Spain since the very beginning of this liquor being sold, and the resemblance is deliberate from the part of the original liquor maker, who died long ago. I guess this is enough reasoning for somebody to revert the deletion, please revert deletion at your best convenience; if you have any doubt, or require additional information from my part, please don't hesitate contacting me by the usual Wikipedia ways. Thanks for your attention, have good season, best regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment
"Of course, no commercial product would reject their label appearing in Wikimedia commons"
is directly contrary to Commons Precautionary Principle #3. Also, many logo owners would object since they make money from selling merchandise with their logo on it.
"...universally widespread concept that art work becomes in the public domain 70 years after the death of its author..."
has significant exceptions, most notably the United States and Mexico.
The Pepsi logo is PD because it is only one word and typefaces cannot be copyrighted in the US.
However, to the point at hand, it is entirely possible that this logo, in exactly this form, has been in use since the 19th century. However, your merely asserting that is not sufficient here -- logos usually change over time and you must prove beyond a significant doubt that this has remained exactly the same, except, perhaps, for the words around the very outside. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Per Cinco Dias the Spanish business newspaper, the label was created by the liquor business owner Vicente Bosch in 1902. Bosch created the factory for the product in 1870. Lets say he was 20 years old at the time. If the logo is still copyrightable this means that he was still alive 70 years ago. Which means he was still alive in 1946 - 2016-70=1946. The difference between 1946 and 1870, the year the factory was created is 76. And we are assuming that Vicente was 20 at the time the factory is created. So for the label to be still copyrightable we add 20 to 76 which is 96, meaning he would have lived at least 96 years. And all of this is only if he was 20 at the time which is not that likely. We can check the Spanish average life age for that year to see how unlikely that is. Rybkovich (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sort of an aside -- My general rule arises from very similar reasoning --- we can reasonably assume that any work created before 1886 in a 70 pma country is OK for Commons -- creator born 1866, works in 1886 at age 20, dies at age 80 in 1946. While it might be possible to find something created in 1860 that is still under a pma 70 copyright, I think 1886 is good beyond a significant doubt.
How similar is it to this trademark, filed in 1910? There are a number of trademarkes in various countries listed on this page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
According to Anís_del_Mono, the label was the result of a contest in 1898, won by Ramón Casas (1866-1932). To my eye, the subject image is identical to http://trade.mar.cx/IE31564 (1911 - from Carl's link above) except for the addition of "1Le" on the left and "35% Vol." on the right and words around the outside regarding origin and contents, none of which, I think, give rise to a new copyright. So I think I can  Support. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
OK,  Support. Spain is an 80pma country, though there is a question with pre-1987 corporate works (the 1987 law only gave the company 80 years from publication to exercise their rights... unsure if it expired after that or reverted to the human author). But either way this is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Does not make a big date difference, but from how I understand it, the Casa's contest win is not re label but re poster advertisement series. This article states that (with english chrome translation):

In 1897, after the death of José, Vicente takes the reins of the company alone. And he wants to make it known to the general public. To this end, it calls through advertisements in the press of the time a contest of posters, advertising channel that had gained momentum with the development of industry and the strength of the urban lifestyle.... and won first prize (1,000 pesetas of then) the modernist artist Ramón Casas with his work Manola and cute."

Casas won the prize for a poster[4] not the label. So I think we should go with the 1902 creation by Vicente and his life +70/80 formula or assume that he trademarked the label in 1902 so the +70/80 date can start there. Rybkovich (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, but as I read it, the poster included at least the Darwin monkey and possibly the rest of the label, except perhaps the text, as well. But both Vicente Bosch (we think) and Ramón Casas (we know) died before 1936, so we're OK either way. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Although we quibbled over the details, I think Carl, Rybkovich, and I all agree that this can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Forti portrait 2004 Carol Petersen web.jpg

The image was given to me for Public Domain use by the copyright holder of the image, Simone Forti, and I followed the instructions for upload on Commons, but did not see the guide to the necessary permissions template that needed to be emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Simone Forti has since sent in her permissions for the donation and use of the image. I uploaded the image again, before realizing that permissions were the problem, so there is currently another upload of the same image at File:Geffen_portrait_Petersen.JPG Either undeletion of the first image, or permission to insert the second upload into the Simone Forti Wikipedia page is fine by me. Thank youSimonefortiarchive (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I have read the OTRS message concerning this image and have replied to the sender, asking for more information. Until and unless that is resolved, this will not be restored. The ticket number is ticket:2016031010020978..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward - what is the status on this file? Has identity been confirmed by the copyright holder? Simonefortiarchive (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS ticket:2016031010020978 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:DailyCallerScreenshot.png

I took the screenshot myself, it is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs)

 Not done: This IS copyrighted, and not your own work. --Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 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:Якорь на набережной, ростов-на-дону.jpg

I combined 2 discussions in one topic. --Insider (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Nadiaa1995 as sculpture. But it isn't sculpture. It is anchor. So this object isn't protected by copyright. See Commons:Threshold of originality --Butko (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

After User talk:Natuur12#2 logs and anchor

On page Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Nadiaa1995 User:Taivo nominated to the removal of this file by FoP-Russia. User:Natuur12 deleted the file. I think that mistake, and I'm not alone (see "ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское_право#Два бревна - объект авторского права?", [5] and [6]). This is not a sculpture. Object is standart anchor.

Also was deleted File:Набережная Ростова-на-Дону.jpg as sculpture (FoP-Russia). But it was restored as PD-old (1809) sculpture. I think that also mistake, that is not sculpture. Object is wooden deep foundations (now 2 logs). --Insider (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are copyrightable and non-copyrightable sculptures (and other 3D-obejcts). First ones are works (произведения), they can be copyrighted or be in PD. Second ones are always PD: anchor or 2 logs can be sculpture, but they are not works for copyright law, because they have lack in originality and creativity. Article 1256 of Civil Law says about works, not any sculptures. Alex Spade (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First things first. Regarding Butko’s argument. If it isn't a sculpture it doesn't necessarily follow that the object isn't protected by copyright law. (classic example of a non sequitur) Especially when you use the threshold of originality to argue that this object isn't protected by copyright law since this has nothing to do with the question if this is a sculpture or not. I really hope this is just some language barrier and not clear ignorance about copyright law. Since it would be quite troublesome if we have an admin undeleting files without following the proper procedures whilst this admin apparently isn’t familiar with copyright law.
Regarding Insider’s argument. A sculpture is nothing more than 3D visual art. Or perhaps Andy Warhol’s 3D works aren’t sculptures either? One could even argue that an anchor is applied art and applied art can be a sculpture and protected by copyright law. Also I have to note that there is no such thing as a “standard anchor”.
Regarding Alax Spade his argument. Yes, the key issue seems to be if the work is creative enough to have a copyright. Unfortunately we don’t have examples of relevant case law. Determining if something is above the threshold of originality or not is always a bit subjective. Taivo and I believe it is. At least according to US norms this could have a copyright. Does anyone knows any relevant case law? If we don’t have such case law we cannot just assume that the norm would be this high. Natuur12 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support It appears to be a very standard stockless anchor, which were first produced in the early 1900s. See Category:Stockless anchors which has 43 images. It's probably a Martin patent, which were and are used on Russian warships, which makes sense since this is a Russian image. See File:Martin anchor MW.JPG, although this one is a little smaller. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah great! That's interesting new information which takes away a lot of the doubt and this was interesting reading material. Perhaps one of he Russian users participating can tell us if this is indeed an ancient anchor instead of some modern sculpture? Though after reading history of the anchor I do wonder if the new versions of Martin's anchors are creative enough to have a new copyright but on they other hand, why would they pay good money for a patent if their designe is protected by copyright law? Natuur12 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon, Natuur12, I don't know about Russia, but in my widespread travels, I've seen old anchors on display in seaports all over the world. I think we can certainly say beyond a significant doubt that this is just another such. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know people often put old acnhors on display. We even have some in NL but they can be art. (But perhaps I am a bit more grumpy than usual thanks to Butko) Natuur12 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleting administrators need to reread Commons:Precautionary principle as I believe that it is wrongly interpreted for this deletion, please note the words "significant doubt". Recover the image.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Natuur12, they can be made into art, but can we assume that you agree that this one is just a plain old anchor and can be restored here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: yes, you can assume that. With my last reply I tried to say that I might have been a bit irrational because I was a bit pissed. @sDrewth: please keep your lecture to yourself. You bloody well know that I do know that we use "significant doubt" as a norm. You don't have to be dickish every time you disagree with a deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Erik Harris.png

I don't understand why File:Erik Harris.jpg was deleted as its under fair use. The website I got it from specifically states that all content on the site is available for use under fair use. Please see http://archives.winnipegfreepress.com/copyright The English Wikipedia allows fair use. The explanation on my talk page was not useful whatsoever. Thank you. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Leggomygreggo8: While Commons and the various Wikipedias are obviously related projects, they're not one and the same. Commons is- and has always been- a repository for free images only and "fair use" media files are not permitted here.
"Fair use" of non-free material is allowed at some versions of Wikipedia (including English Wikipedia), but (i) you have to upload it directly there (i.e. not to Commons), (ii) such non-free images are subject to restrictions and (iii) you have to give a justification for the image's use on a case-by-case basis.
Hope this helps. Ubcule (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
How would I upload directly to English Wikipedia? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Leggomygreggo8: en:Special:Upload, but I strongly recommend this one. ★ Poké95 12:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Leggomygreggo8: ; With respect, if- as seems to be the case here- you weren't previously familiar with the ins and outs of non-free content (and the difference between Commons and Wikipedia), I'd recommend you briefly familiarise yourself with the criteria (linked above) and the non-free content guidelines in general before spending time re-uploading your images to English Wikipedia.
As I said, there are restrictions- "fair use" *isn't* a carte blanche to upload and use non-free images just by saying "fair use" (basically, it has to be the case that a free alternative doesn't exist *and* one couldn't be easily created) and if these aren't met, or a proper justification (in the expected form) isn't given for its use, it's likely to be deleted. Ubcule (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, no fair use on Commons. Changed the titel from File:Erik Harris.jpg too File:Erik Harris.png according to Leggomygreggo8 deleted contributions. --Martin H. (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Five Images

Buonasera sono AndreaTV91, le seguenti immagini: File:Oratorio San Gottardo (Padernello TV).jpg File:Chiesa san lorenzo (Padernello TV).jpg File:Capitello-san-cristoforo.jpg File:Oratorio San Luca (Padernello TV).jpg File:Monumento ai caduti di Padernello (TV).jpg sono frutto di un mio lavoro personale e ho già autorizzato il libero uso. Vi chiedo gentilmente di ripristinarle e se sto sbagliando qualcosa nella procedura di caricamento di avvisarmi in italiano. Grazie

--AndreaTV91 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@AndreaTV91: Mi dispiace per il mio cattivo (GoogleTranslate) italiano. Queste immagini sono state precedentemente pubblicati su un sito web (e.g. http://www.parrocchiapadernello.it/91-parrocchia-padernello/slide-grandi-in-home/243-sale-della-dottrina-cristiana-teatro-padernello.html) che non sembra contenere una licenza libera, ma "© 2016 Parrocchia San Lorenzo P.I. 01968010262". Se siete il fotografo di queste foto, si prega di seguire le istruzioni qui. Storkk (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Ti ringrazio per la pazienza, ma sembra che sia molto più semplice andare a scattarle di nuovo, sono molto deluso da wikipedia, credevo fosse un'enciclopedia libera ed invece sembra più una oligarchia. Ora dovrete aspettare un bel po' prima che vada a rifare le foto. --AndreaTV91 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Sì, libere per i riutilizzatori. Per questo motivo dobbiamo confermare le licenze. Storkk (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Previously published with (c). Therefore requires free license via OTRS, which uploader refuses to provide. Nothing more to be done here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Хлибко_Николай_Селивестрович.jpg

All rights for this photo belongs to me as a family member. The photographer did this photo for money and gave exclusive rights to artist's family.

Regards, --ElenaKhlibko (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain the circumstances that led to you being the copyright owner of a 1984 photo. And why do you claim that this photo is your own work if you are not the photographer? Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello Thuresson, did you read my previous message?

All rights for this photo belongs to me as a family member. The photographer did this photo for money and gave exclusive rights to artist's family. I'm not a photographer, and I don't claim it is my own work! I say that all rights belong to me as a family member of died artist. Photographer did this photo for money and gave exclusive rights to Khlibko's family.

--ElenaKhlibko (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am still not satisfied. Why would a photographer in the event of taking somebody's studio portrait photo, something that would happen routinely every day, give exclusive right not to the subject of the photo but to his or her family? The same photo has been uploaded earlier, when somebody else claimed to be the photographer and copyright owner. When you uploaded the photo on November 11, 2015, you added your user name as the author of the photo. Are there any documents to verify the agreement between the photographer and the family? Why is the photo only sized 150 x 210 pixels? Thuresson (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose It is very unusual for a professional photographer to give away the rights to an image. The law almost everywhere is that unless the photographer transfers the rights in a formal agreement, which must be in writing, the copyright and the right to license the use of the image remains with the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear Jameslwoodward Yes, photographer gave our family written paper with transferring all exclusive rights to Khlibko's family. He did this job for money and our family took from him a paper that all rights are our's. I've sent inquiry to WIKI Comons e-mail some months ago asking to protect these photos of the artist from deleting because they belongs to us, but nobody replied till now....

No, according Russian law if there is an agreement between a photographer, who did this photo for money, and other side, and if in this agreement he/she agreed to transfer all exclusive rights to other side, all rights belongs to this side. It is a written agreement between 2 sides! In our case all rights already many years belong to Khlibko's family. I doubt that in other countries is different low, because it is illogical, not democratic and it is against the person will. So, you want to say, that in other countries person can't will to give rights to other side? It is prohibited? What counties have this not democratic law? Russia is democratic country, and according Russian law (I have a law degree), all rights in this case belongs to an artist's family. --ElenaKhlibko (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not convinced of a situation where a photographer transfers his rights to a collective group of people and now one member of this collective wants to license the photo as CC-BY-SA. The fact that the photo is 150 x 210 pixels has not been explained either. Nor is there any explanation why a different user also claims to be the copyright owner of the photo. Thuresson (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 Comment@ElenaKhlibko: if you have a written transfer of copyright, we may be able to solve this. You mention, however that you sent an email "some months ago". All incoming emails receive an immediate automatic reply acknowledging the email and issuing a ticket number. It would help if you could give this number, since there is no ticket containing the strings "Khlibko" or "Хлибко" anywhere in the database of permissions queues. Storkk (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: I've sent on 25.09.2015 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from actress@elenakhlibko.com. I didn't get any e-mail with a ticket number. Please check. --ElenaKhlibko (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no ticket from that address in any permissions queue. This likely means that if you sent it correctly (i.e. there was no typo in the To: address, etc.) it was automatically marked as spam. Our spam filters are very good, but occasionally make mistakes. If you have a copy of the written transfer of copyright, please send a scan of it again to that email address (which is correct). If you don't receive an immediate reply with a ticket number, something has gone wrong. Once we have established that the photgrapher did transfer the copyright, and who they transferred it to, we will have to establish that you are able to act on behalf of the copyright holder, and we should be good to go. Storkk (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thuresson: The photo is 150 x 210 pixels, because it was scanned from the paper photo, and to reduce size of the photo it was made in Photoshop this resolution. Other user? Who? We gave this and other few photos for free use to a theatre. Also we give all rights to public to use this photo. But exclusive rights Khlibko's family have. Collective, as you say, is only members of our family. --ElenaKhlibko (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: I've sent a message explaining all the situation, and I've got an automatic reply this time. Ticket number is [Ticket#: 2016031210012705]. Thank you! --ElenaKhlibko (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Ticket isn't sufficiant but woking on it. For now the story mentioned in the ticket differs from the story mentioned here so I am not sure if we can resolve this. --Natuur12 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:All the way back to Liverpool Documentary.jpg

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the picure or media work „File:All the way back to Liverpool.jpg“ shown here: I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [29.2.2016] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicforfilm (talk • contribs)

@Musicforfilm: Please follow the process explained at Commons:OTRS, and once you have sent the information then please come back here, tell us that it is submitted and someone with OTRS permissions should be able to follow up.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:السفير عمر شرف.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:
{{Information
|description={{en|1=السفير عمر شرف.jpg}} Ambassador Omar Sharaf
|date= 1988
|source=Anonymous
|author=MFA Egypt ( official portrait )
|Permission=Released into public domain, as per Egyptian copyright laws.
|other_versions=
}}
{{int:license-header}}
{{PD-Egypt-official}}
{{self|cc-by-3.0}} [[User:OMAZZA1925|OMAZZA1925]] ([[User talk:OMAZZA1925|<span class="signature-talk">{
{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, this is obviously not "own work" as you claimed. Second, the Egyptian Law #82 at Article 141 says

"In addition, protection shall not cover the following:
(1) Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence."

Photographs are not included in that exception. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Gateway@KLIA2 complex.JPG

This is a a very good picture. Should be made available for the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.182.70 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose These images were deleted because they are copyright violations. Wikimedia Commons only accept free content. See Commons:Licensing and COM:PCP. OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder. Thanks, --★ Poké95 07:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Giuliante Felicetto_01.jpg

Foto di album di famiglia con autorizzazione all'uso. Grazie. Pierluigi Secondi (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Although the file descriptions claimed these were "own work", the uploader now claims that they are from a family album "con autorizzazione all'uso." The subject died in 1961. In order to restore these to Commons, the actual photographers will need to send free licenses to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Files transferred from Flickr deleted due them was tagged as empty (failed transfer)

Watching Category:Flickr images needing human review using PassLicense, I found this and this files, properly sourced from Flickr (with a valid license at the moment of the review) but partially uploaded due a failure when transferring. Then, someone tagged these files for Speedy as Empty file rather than attemping to reupload them (as I done with several other ones partially transferred from Flickr), and then, Túrelio deleted them without checking.

Please restore them in order to reupload and pass the review. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Túrelio restored the files and reuploaded. I reviewed the license and are still valid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: see above. --Yann (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Aphrodite_Ping_Pong.jpg

I have been working in the frame of the 2016 Art+Feminism project on the page of swiss artist Silvie Defraoui. Yesterday, I visited the artist (in her late 70s) at her work space near Lausanne, and talked with her about the principles of Wikipedia and the CC-BY-SA licence. She kindly agreed to make a picture of her work available under that licence to illustrate the article. I helped her to create the account SilvieDefraoui, and to upload the file.

A couple hours later, the file is flagged by user Lomita as "a possible copyright violation", then deleted by Túrelio. I am surprised by the harsh wording of the template left on her user page ("Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing."). It certainly doesn't give a very welcoming impression of the Wikipedia community to that new user.

I'm also wondering what's the reason for that quick deletion. The artist has created an account under her own name, stated during the upload that she *is* indeed the copyright holder, and that she publishes the work under CC-BY-SA licence. What more could she do as a fresh contributor to prevent this happening?

I left messages on the talk pages of the two "deleters", but didn't hear back yet. --1904.CC (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi 1904.CC, I have temporarily restored the image in question. The file had been tagged as suspected copyvio, after it had been found published already in 2009 here. In 99.9 % of cases this is sufficient and correct evidence for copyvio. It's simply extremely unlikely that the account SilvieDefraoui would really be the artist him/herself. Well, in your case the unlikely scenario seemed to be true. --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
However, for her portrait File:Silvie Defraoui.jpg, "author unknown" isn't acceptable for a recent photo. You need to ask her whether she really has full rights in this photo to legally release it under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Túrelio, thanks for restoring! About that portrait, indeed, I wondered how to handle this properly. The photo was taken by a person in attendance of the conference who gave it to her, and she doesn't remember who. I will work with her on obtaining a photo where the photographer can give authorisation, but propose to leave this online temporarily – deleting it now would cause some bad will on her side. --1904.CC (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: see above. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Elements Dining Room - JPG.jpg undelete and permissions

I need the following files undeleted:

I have permission from the resort's owners to allow the release of the photos on Creative Commons. I sent the email previously as was requested. I can send the permission email once again.

--Slaniergraham (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Susan Lanier-Graham


  •  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) 02:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 Comment See ticket:2016013010001599. Yann (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There has been no reply to questions on this ticket since February 21. A representative of the resort claimed that she herself was the copyright holder. Our OTRS colleague then asked for the names of the photographers. She provided them. On February 21 he then asked that she provide documentation that the copyrights had been transferred or licensed. There has been no reply to that request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

---  Not done Still no license from the photographers. Time to close this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 23 March 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:Charamsa wikipedia.jpg

Im the holder of rights to this picture and I herby givie this picture to Wikimedia. The same for the file: File:Krzysztof Charamsa coming-out.jpg Unsigned request by User:Swaysgroom.

Please use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to mail a license of these photos. Thuresson (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, done - ticket:2016031310006354 --Swaysgroom (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)(talk)

Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Michelle Holzapfel.jpg

This image was given to me by the artist herself to use on wiki entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessweitz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Press photo from [7]. Please ask the copyright owner to send information about the photo's license according to the instructions at COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jessweitz: And don't forget to ask them to license their work under a free license such as CC-BY-SA-4.0, see Commons:Licensing for details. Commons do not accept "Wikipedia use only" images. ★ Poké95 12:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done. After this request, OP has uploaded other photos of the same subject. Thuresson (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Frohberg 4c mit-hintergrund.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

können Sie das Löschen dieses Files bitte rückgängig machen? Es handelt sich um unser Firmen-Logo. Es wurde von uns entworfen und die Rechte liegen bei uns.

Beste Grüße

Bettina Kriehs Leitung Marketing & Kommunikation

frohberg Klinik-Wissen-Managen

Thieme & Frohberg GmbH Tempelhofer Weg 11-12 | 10829 Berlin

Fon 030 839003-3193 Mobil 0173 697 9226 Fax 030 839003-60 bettina.kriehs@frohberg.de www.klinik-wissen-managen.de

Wie bei allen vorher bereits veröffentlichen Dateien brauchen wir eine Bestätigung, dass das Bild tatsächlich unter der gegebenen Lizenz freigegeben ist. Für diesen Zweck gibt es das OTRS. --rimshottalk 07:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done -- Requires OTRS .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ottokee ohio early.JPG

and

I hereby affirm that I represent James R. Guilford (brother), the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media. The owner agrees to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so the owner grants anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. The owner is aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. The owner is aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. The owner acknowledges that he cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. William H. Guilford Member of and representing the family holding the copyright. 02/06/2016 --Whg2n (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose These are three scans of B&W photographs taken in the USA, apparently from around 1905. There is no evidence that they have been published. They can not possibly be "own work" as claimed by Whg2n, the uploader.

If they have not previously been published, they are still under copyright and will remain so until 70 years after the death of the photographer if he is known or 120 years after creation if he is not. If they were published before 1923, then they are PD. If published after 1923, they may or may not still be under copyright depending on date, notice, and renewal.

Owning a copy of a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright and gives you no more right to freely license it than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to sell copies. If these are still under copyright, the rights almost certainly belong to the heirs of the photographer(s).

Since it is unlikely that you can obtain a license or licenses from the heirs of unknown photographer(s), in order to have these restored on Commons you must prove beyond a significant doubt that they were published previously under circumstances such that they are now out of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

With old photographs, things can get fuzzy. How did someone other than the copyright owner gain possession of the photographs if they were not published? Courts definitions of "general publication" before 1978 differ somewhat, but by the most common definition, that would probably amount to general publication. Conversely, if they were inherited family photos, then the copyright (and license) might be valid. I would tend to agree though, that a claim of copyright ownership on a 1905 photo needs to be explained (especially a class photo of that nature, if Google Cache is showing me the right one, which would probably have been published). Seems unlikely there would still be a copyright which needs to be licensed, so some information on the provenance would be helpful -- it does look like the details of the photo are known. I think I see a copy here (from this page as well -- that would tend to show publication, as the photo must be available elsewhere. The first photo is dated 1860; the date seems early for a photographic print like that, but if true then is almost certainly PD one way or another. That same site mentioned before has an image here which looks like the same caption style -- so I do question where the other one came from, but it would also seem to be more likely PD. I have no idea what the 1976 photo is -- that could be more reasonably a family photo. Were these photos taken from a family photo album or scrapbook? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It may be difficult to obtain copies of a photograph if the photograph has not been published. However, old pictures, such as family photos, may initially have been unpublished but may have become published several decades after they were taken. Or someone might have uploaded his family archives to the Internet. Uploading pictures to the Internet doesn't constitute publication in Sweden, but I don't know if it's the same in the United States.
If a picture from 1905 has been uploaded to Commons, then we can probably assume that it has been published at some point, but we can make no assumption on when it was first published. The first publication could have been in 1905, 1977, 2016 or at any other point. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if there is documentation that it sat in a family archive, or was part of a photographic archive donated after death, that can change assumptions. That is what I'm wondering here -- what is the claim exactly. But if it was part of an old family scrapbook, and it appears elsewhere, then it was probably collected long ago from published sources. If the photo was in circulation before 1989, then it's almost certainly PD. At some point we do make assumptions -- there has to be a reasonable doubt, not just a theoretical doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment by User:Jameslwoodward suggests that these were uploaded as 'own work by the uploader'. For a photograph from 1905, that's unlikely. It sounds more as if the uploader used an upload wizard and clicked on some buttons without actually caring about what he clicked on. If there is nothing more detailed than 1905, then we can make no assumptions on publication, or even that the picture actually is from 1905. The uploader is required to provide some kind of usable source. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
... which is why I have not said "support" yet. The photo page appears to have listed the teacher's name, so they have some details from somewhere, and the same photo appears on another unrelated site, so yes I'd be interested in knowing more of the provenance information. "own work" is not correct, and we'd need more information before we'd accept a claim of copyright over the image -- but the information could easily also mean it's PD. As for the second one, a photo almost certainly from the same source is also found on an unrelated site, so that also seems highly likely to be PD. If we can show PD status is likely by other means, we could restore on that basis. We would need more info to restore the 1976 photo though. It does sound like someone in the family was a director of the establishment in the building in the 1976 photo, and they may have collected historic photos from the town at some point. I am reluctant to restore anything without further source information, although given that information there is a good chance that at least a couple of them could be OK. I can't say "oppose" with any certainty either though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If someone collected historic photos at some point, then it's very likely that a lot of previously unpublished family photos were collected, making the situation problematic. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It's been six weeks and the uploader has given no further evidence that these are PD because of publication before 1923. Since he acknowledges that he does not own the copyright, he cannot himself freely license them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:LDWA Logo.jpg

I have obtained authorisation from LDWA to upload this file onto Multimedia commons and I have forwarded the email authorising it to: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> [Ticket#: 2016031710018834].--Wikip~enwiki (talk) 15:39, 17 March 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.
Please note that as a general rule, OTRS does not accept licenses that have been forwarded. Unfortunately we have far too many bad actors here and such an e-mail is far too easy to forge, so we require that the license must come directly from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim, for letting me know that OTRS didn't accept forwarded authorisations. I have emailed LDWA to ask them to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org directly--Wikip~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • A user requested that on User:Michael Barera talk page : I already emailed copy of a written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 17 March. Ticket#: 2016031710018834. The file had been deleted. I'd be grateful if someone could restore it, please--[[User:Wikip~enwiki|Wikip~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Wikip~enwiki|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
    Then Michael asked my opinion as I deleted the file. I've no access to OTRS, could someone take a look at this please? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but I'm the one who initially tagged the file as missing permission. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Will be done when OTRS license is received and approved. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Multiple Government House of Thailand photos

Hello, this undeletion request applies to these following:

The reason why they were deletetd was "I don't have upload photo files in this set by myself to commons, but User:Horus uploaded them by claim falsely me".

And my reason for undeletion request was "initially these files were uploaded to Thai Wikipedia, all released under public domain, and for his private reasons he wanted them deleted because he didn't want them to be used on Thai Wikipedia (specifically). When this didn't work for him, he started taking out all pictures by himself. And I bother uploaded them to Commons. All I'm trying to say is I did not falsely claim him, since he himself uploaded it on public domain, and his attempt to have them deleted can be considered revoking his own declaration. So I think if this principle is still true on Commons, there should be no reason for him to have them deleted."

(In short, the original author might try to revoke his own free-license declaration.)

I have already talked to the deleting administrator, and he suggested that I should file this request.

If need arises, I can provide original files on Thai Wikipedia for review. (they are all deleted, though) --Horus (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Túrelio: this was your deletion, maybe you know what is happening here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
When I worked on these files in the speedy-queue, I found them tagged for speedy-deletion with the above cited rationale by ZenithZealotry (talk · contribs). As this user's name was also in the author-entry, whereas Horus (talk · contribs) was the uploader, I assumed the request to be reasonable and performed it. Probably, I first should have asked the involved users.
However, some hours later User:Horus posted the above duplicated statement about the background-story[8], which had been unknown to me before. Though I am usually generous in undeletion of self-deleted files, in this case I recommended User:Horus to present the case here at COM:UR. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry that you must don't know "more deep background stories" about Horus "versus" me in Thai Wikipedia since several years until now,
He's one of admins there, who have "personal dislike" (maybe "hate") me so much, then he try to claim policies and guidelines to support "his personal bias" then sentenced me by "super unfair", and by his way like he doing with me, did make many users can't patient to his unfair forcing and choose to away from THWP, surely it's very bad for there.
You may don't understand that "Where are Bureaucrats?" my answer is, all Bureaucrats and Admins of THWP are close-up relationship, then they might support (or might be part of) ultra power like I told already, at least they choose to don't do anything with him, who did huphazardly banned me 3 times ago.
Although he just disagree in some content of articles with me, then he back to previous version, but I confirm what I typed that's correct content surely, so I back to my version again, then he back, I back ...., finally it's automatically changed to "Edit Warring" which Admin like him will always have more advantage than user like me, then I accused begin edit warring by Horus (Yes, It's mean HIMSELF!!), and banned me by same situation in another 2 next times too
Your next question may is "Why I can patient his pressure?" I'll tell you that because I love the great ideas of Mr. Wales' especially the free encyclopedia system, I like to search knowledge base for myself since still child, when I grow up then think to give my knowledge to everyone, but I don't have appropriate platform to follow the dream, about more 10 years ago (middle of 2005) I discovered Thai Wikipedia which can help my dream come true, and begin first article in 25 November of same year,
I type to start 100+ articles and join with 5000+ articles in last 10 years, all of this is reason that I try to patient his pressure, but It's already ended, I just take somethings that I can back to myself, when I finish from them I'll quit from THWP completely and surely (along with tell everyone around me for anti-THWP too : just only THWP, not include other language Wikipedia or other projects of Wikimedia), and This 8 photo files are one of my missions that I told. (sorry about my error grammar, hope you understand all of this reply) -- ZenithZealotry (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding ZenithZealotry's reply (or tantrum, I may call), not to mention that you spoke trash to other users in Thai Wikipedia and be a "hatable" person yourself? Fair enough. Anyway, we are here to discuss if these photos should be undeleted. From your statement, you said I "try to claim policies and guidelines", well, does it mean that I enforce the rule that already exists? You should better follow the rules than to blame the one who enforce the rule, you know? This is how the rules work. --Horus (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What everyone was know is, all of any rules alway have a good purpose, but if someone who the rules give power can use that power by real fair (everyone pleased to agree with judgement) it'll be the best rules.
Not just text of rules which we should trust, how to use that rules to justice for everyone without any bias and unfair is another important part, texts are stable but some person are often undiscipline on power easily, it's very fragile so must more careful.
The truth is I never begin any violence word to anyone, except I'd receive its from him before, and about this case is I took these photo by myself, then I have complete right for allow or decline for someone using, previous first I pleased to allow everyone use them.
But now I demand to except THWP don't use them, because THWP ignored one of their Admin to persecute me, this should be strong reason to except them, if I can't do like that, I should withdraw public use for these photo files.
At last, I wish you see he's trying to poach my things like a tiny kid!! (or a thief who try to crime by steal them)
(wait and see at Commons Admins who can help to bring the real justice back to me) -- ZenithZealotry (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Let's see if I understand this correctly. Originally ZZ uploaded these files to WP:TH as {{PD-user}}. That declaration cannot be revoked. Then, after losing one or more edit wars on WP:TH, ZZ had them removed from WP:TH. Horus uploaded them to Commons as ZZ's work and with the same license. That appears to be valid. The PD release is irrevocable, so ZZ has no standing to object to the images being on Commons. If that is correct, I  Support undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jim: as far as I understand now, that's the essence of it. At my initial deletion I was a bit mislead as I had heard only one side (resp. wasn't aware of the underlying conflict). So, I do not object against undeletion.
I feel a bit sorry for ZenithZealotry; but revoking a gift to the public (free license) isn't a good way to deal with on-wiki conflicts. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please recording that I'm VERY DISAPPOINTING about this latest reply (especially Jameslwoodward's comment) and I confirm that it's completely breach of Wikimedia's policy, which someone can use to bully with hatred another one, so it's a big problem that must correct immediately. -- ZenithZealotry (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Per Túrelio and my own comments above. ZZ, I am sorry you are angry, but as Túrelio says, you do yourself no good here by trying to remove images that you have given to the world with a license that cannot be taken back. That's the only thing here that is against policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis: I wrong only one at all, which I gived them to everyone in the moment I don't know that I faced with some worse admins (both in THWP and here too!!) then it's only my so bad luck at all!! and it's time to CURSE ALL Wikimedia's Project, I HATE YOU ALL, Forever BYE!! -- ZenithZealotry (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 Info: Too late, but I found proof. The upload logs (like this file) shows clearly that the file was uploaded under the account named ZenithZealotry. Two options: Or this user is blatanty lying (considering the problems at Thai Wikipedia, specially with Horus due Horus blocked ZenithZealotry due harassment), or the person under the account currently named ZenithZealotry is not the same as the person who uploaded these files in 2008 (could the account been renamed, but no logs I found, therefore, is very unlikely). ZenithZealotry, everything is logged. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Who's "blatantly lying" ?? if it's Horus that's very right, but SURELY NOT ME AT ALL (just rebut to the allegations, because I've very disgusting anyone who hurt me) -- ZenithZealotry (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cover of Mukhmal .jpg and File:Cover of Origin of Love.jpg

I was alerted to this via a discussion about these files at ENWP located here.

These two images were deleted because they did not have permission at the time. Permission was obtained and submitted to OTRS on February 20, 2016, and then approved on February 27, 2016 (see ticket: 2016022010007494). Both files should have the same permissions and licensing as File:Cover of Before the Queen Falls Asleep.jpg, File:The Wandering Who cover.jpg, and File:Cover of A Form of Absence.jpg. All five files were included on the same OTRS ticket. –Fredddie™ 22:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support The OTRS ticket covers all of the covers of short stories and novels written by Huzama Habayeb and published by Arab Institute For Research And Publishing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Angevilish sent the OTRS permission almost a month ago, and later came to my talk page in frustration on ENWP here. According to the above request and comment it was approved, so what else is needed? It appears we are really quick at deleting images, but not so quick at undeleting. This is not the first time I've run into editors really frustrated at not knowing what's going on, and I've not found any help pages that explain the process. So can I ask why this takes so long? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done This has been open for two and a half weeks without any objection, so I think it is safe to close it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 25 March 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 uploaded by Nick.Pr

The cadillac advertisements were deleted as "per nomination, copyrighted advertisements not own work of flickr user." If it is clear that the images are not copyrightable should they still be deleted per reason above?
Reason for why the should not be deleted as posted on the deletion page "Looking at the images' layouts and content all can be classified as advertisements. There are no copyrights specific to the advertisement as a whole on any of the images. There are authorship statements (considered as copyrights even though there is no circled c?) on cadillac 1961 and 1957, however these apply to a specific jewelry design and clothing design (pictures of which are in the ads)" Rybkovich (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If they were U.S. publications, it does sound like they should be restored. They can be deleted if no valid license is given. It looks like the proper license ({{PD-US-no notice}} was hinted at in the discussion, though not explicitly claimed. Valid copyright notices need the word "copyright", or a valid abbreviation like "Copr.", or the c-in-a-circle symbol. Simply naming the author was not enough. So,  Support based on the above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 Support I don't see any copyright notice on any of these. Although I have no evidence, I think that copyright notices were very rare on ads during that era. Ubcule was the nom and Ellin was the closing Admin -- perhaps one of them has a comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Not much to add to what I said originally. The claimed source of "own work" (and hence the CC license)- which the onus is on the uploader to ensure are correct- was clearly bogus, hence the reason for the nomination. If someone is willing and able to clearly demonstrate that the images are legitimately out of copyright then- as I implied before- I see no reason that we can't keep them. However, I'm not overfamiliar with PD-US-no-notice, and I'm not willing to judge personally whether that's been met. Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted due to the claim of own work which these advertisements clearly were not. If a real source could be found, the images might be found to be able to be retained, but the license given and the own work claim called COM:PRP into play and I deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, the stated license was clearly wrong, but you also don't need a source for PD-US-no_notice -- the license is self-evident looking at the image, usually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done This has been open for three weeks without objection, so I think it is safe to close. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Body cast of Kelly Holmes by Louise Giblin.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As per this comment it looks like this image (assuming it's a 2D representation of the 3D work- I can't view it) appears to be legitimate. The uploader claims that it was taken with permission, and I note that the nomination for deletion discussion suggests OTRSing it. However, as per UK freedom of panorama laws on 2D photos of 3D works, it doesn't look to me like OTRS should even be needed anyway?

(This is why I haven't simply suggested that the uploader OTRS it).

This specific image was nominated as a test case which I believe would also apply to related uploads by this person.

Ubcule (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this photo was taken inside a gallery. The template Template:FoP-UK mentions premises open to the public. Thuresson (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
In this template and in the text of our policies I understand "permanently located in a public place or permanently located in premises open to the public. For exemple an exhibition of 10 days is not enough for the FoP can apply.
3 conditions must be met:
Must be in UK
Must be in public place or in premises open to the public
Must be permanently located to this place
As there is no informations nor in the title neither in the description that we can verify, there is no evidence for any of the criteria. No matter of the nationality of the artist, FoP criteria are regarding the place and duration of exhibition. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that's the case, who do we strictly *need* to obtain OTRS permission from here? The uploader seemed clear that all parties granted consent and knew it was for Wikimedia use. Ubcule (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is currently no evidence the image can be free licensed. I saw in the uploader talk page he wrote "THIS IS MY ISSUE" . No, it's our issue and our job to know whether the image can be freely licensed or not. If the uploader have the agreement of the artist, then it will be easy for him/her to ask an OTRS permission from the artist as there is a mail link in her website. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the "THIS IS MY ISSUE" quote, I think you're taking it out of context- the uploader seems to be referring to the issue of *permission* and the fact that *legally* it was only an issue that affected him not us (assuming I intepreted him correctly).
Note that he was referring to *the law itself* rather than our guidelines. I can't personally say whether or not his interpretation of the law is correct. He apparently has more legal expertise than I do.
However, for the reasons I gave in my reply, it's just not practical to have a legal discussion regarding every upload; that's why we have to stick to policy and guidelines. Bit of a PITA, but that's how it is.
Of course, if they were shown to be flawed or overly strict (with respect to what the law requires), the policies and guidelines themselves could be changed after discussion. However, that's a different issue and not what we were discussing here. Ubcule (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose First, "for Wikimedia use" is not sufficient permission. Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use and derivative works. Second, the fact that the artist allowed a photograph is a far cry from her granting a free license to use the image as above. In order to restore this, we will need either (a) a free license directly from the artist via OTRS or (b) clear proof that the object is on display permanently in a location in the UK that is covered by FOP in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What form should the OTRS permission take? The required format doesn't seem appropriate to this case. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
As shown at the link you provide (with appropriate choices from those given)"
I hereby affirm that I, Louise Giblin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media as shown in the deleted Commons file File:Body cast of Kelly Holmes by Louise Giblin.JPG.
(and continue from the link). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
In that context, the following line-
"I agree to publish the above-mentioned content [i.e. "the work depicted in the media" ] under the following free license"
could be taken to mean that she licenses- or is being expected to license- *the original 3D work itself* (not just a 2D photographic reproduction of it) under those terms.
Whether or not *we* intend exploiting that distinction, it's far more than we need and amounts to expecting the artist to release the copyright in the original work itself under a free license. Ubcule (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it reads that way, but certainly we can clarify it:

"I hereby affirm that I, Louise Giblin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the sculpture depicted in the deleted Commons file File:Body cast of Kelly Holmes by Louise Giblin.JPG.
Subject to the rights of the photographer, I agree to the publication of the above-mentioned photograph under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the photograph, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws."
and so forth...
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That sounds almost okay, but one thing- how can she affirm anything about a deleted file she can't see?(!) Ubcule (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • in addition to that said by Jim, she can provide in the mail a link to an other photo on the web of the same artwork, it is the "Olympian Series IV Dame Kelly Holmes" here as exemple. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC) but honestly to see the price of the artwork I began to doubt that the uploader have really a permission, but well... Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a workable solution.
Even if the artist *had* granted permission originally, do we really expect her to respond to an email and grant formal legal permission regarding the content of a photograph she can't even view(!)- because it's been deleted- with reference to an entirely different image that isn't the one under discussion? That sounds like a legal minefield for us in terms of permission, and not something I'd even consider agreeing to if I was in her position.
This is on top of the fact that the issue is already quite convoluted- I'm trying to juggle this discussion with you and James with the uploader/photographer- who seems more legally experienced but less familiar with Commons than myself- *and* the original artist who isn't even involved yet!
Regardless, this is too complicated for me to take this any further. It's not at all clear what Commons' stance should be in this case, and I can't recommend any course of action to the uploader, even if he did have permission.
(Side issue: I feel the need to argue the uploader's position by pointing out that there are two distinct "permission" issues apparently being conflated here; (1) the issue of permission to photograph the object in the first place and (2) permission to distribute that photograph under a particular license from whoever owns *that*. He seems to be arguing that #1 isn't legally our problem and that he has permission regardless. I don't know if that's correct or not, I'm not a legal expert. And unfortunately, we can't simply take his word for that.)
Ubcule (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Our rules are very clear. Images of copyrighted works require a free license from the creator of the work, which must be sent directly to OTRS. Note, by the way, that any permission the uploader got from the artist is not valid unless it was in writing.
There are two copyrights and licenses at issue here, but not as you describe them. Your #1 is not correct. Although the venue where the work is exhibited can make any rules it wants, our policy is to ignore them, because they are not our problem. Absent such a venue rule, in most jurisdictions there is no permission required to take a photograph of a copyrighted work. Copyright law only speaks to the use of such photographs.
The two copyrights that concern us are:
  1. The copyright to the photograph, which is covered by the uploader's license.
  2. The copyright to the sculpture, which must be licensed by the sculptor. That license can be for the use of the one photograph, or for the use of any photographs. Getting such licenses is utterly routine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You state
"Although the venue where the work is exhibited can make any rules it wants, our policy is to ignore them, because they are not our problem"
I believe that fact- that it's legally not our problem- *was* exactly the point the uploader was making (and which I was paraphrasing on his behalf)! This confirms that my original understanding of Commons' position on this *was* correct.
"Our rules are very clear. Images of copyrighted works require a free license from the creator of the work, which must be sent directly to OTRS."
As a blanket summary of the rules, this seems to contradict our own freedom of panorama page which states
"The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public."
(Disclaimer; No, I'm not arguing that the FOP quote covers this specific case, which I've mostly given up on. Just that- contrary to what was implied- images of copyrighted works in the UK *don't* always require permission from the creator in certain cases- here, 2D photos of 3D works in public places- if our own FOP guidelines are to be believed).
Ubcule (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Ubcule You're picking nits -- I didn't say "except where FOP applies". I also didn't say, "except if the copyright has expired" or "except if the work was produced by an employee of the US Federal government or an employee of the states of Florida or California, or their subdivisions" or "except if the work was produced in a jurisdiction without a copyright law". All generalizations are false and that is especially true in copyright matters. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Hi James- it wasn't my intent to nitpick, but while none of us would dispute that (e.g.) the "US Federal government" exception was irrelevant here, the UK-FOP issue- whether it ultimately applied or not- *had* been a significant part of the discussion.
Anyway, I didn't mean to get into an argument about this; it was meant (originally) as a good-faith attempt to recover images that the uploader had put some effort into, possibly- if not probably- had permission or the rights to- and had been deleted due to his inexperience with Commons' policy.
With hindsight, it probably would have been a good idea to ask the OP to repost the actual email granting permission to confirm *that* was correct if nothing else, but it wasn't obvious that was required originally. Ubcule (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we'd already conceded that point and moved on to trying (and failing) to resolve how to confirm the permission that the uploader said he had obtained (regardless of whether it was legally necessary or not). As noted above, that issue got too messy and convoluted to continue- at least as far as I'm concerned- regardless of whether the uploader had permission. Ubcule (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I think we concluded almost three weeks ago that this cannot be restored without a free license from the sculptor. There does not seem to be any support for restoration expressed above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:W Wenz Waxensteine.jpg

Same as above (W Wenz Portrait 1938, W Wenz Feld, W Wenz Atelier): Painter Willy Wenz had no descendants or heirs, except his younger sister. She adminsistered his estate after Wenz's death in 1971. In 1991 my family bought this whole estate (paintings, personal documents and photographs) and obtained the copyrights of all, according to district court of Munich. I'm not the creator of the painting but my family holds the copyrights. Thus I might have the right to publish a photograph of the painting(?). How should I licence? Own work? Don't even know; maybe someone could help and explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Alfapp (talk • contribs) 09:27, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Please give a little more explanation of:
"In 1991 my family bought this whole estate (paintings, personal documents and photographs) and obtained the copyrights of all, according to district court of Munich."
What did the court have to do with it? Was there a written agreement that clearly and explicitly transferred the copyrights? Please remember that in the absence of an explicit written transfer, ownership of a copyright does not pass with ownership of a copyrighted work of art.
If there was a written transfer, who was the recipient. You say "my family holds the copyrights". Families can't hold title to anything -- one or more individuals (or other legal persons) do. Are you one of the individuals to which the copyright was transferred? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As I told Willy Wenz had no descendants or heirs except the younger sister. In 1991 (when she was in her mid eighties) she decided to sell Willy's whole estate to an art lover. My father in law bought it (in consultation with the family). Yes, there is a document from district court confirming that he is the sole heir. (I don't know why they called upon the court then. Maybe they wanted obviate the case that someday someone could raise a claim.) I suppose that I should submit that agreement from court and a permit from my father in law to obtain the undeletion of the Waxenstein picture. At the moment that means too much effort for me (my father in law is in the hospital and has other worries). It's a pity, but I do not want to spend more energy. So please close that request. Thanks a lot Jim for your explanations and endeavor, very kind. Alfapp (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This has been open for three weeks. The requester has asked that it be closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:3DiTeams palpate hang blood.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was the person that took this screen shot and I am willing to change the license to acceptable if someone will just tell me what I need to do. I do not come to the common often. These were initially uploaded to the en.wikipedia Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Source website implies CC-BY-SA in the text, but links to CC-BY-NC-SA. Storkk (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll email Chris and get these images corrected on their site or I can take them again and release them correctly through my new employer. Thank you! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Gene, I'm not sure you understand. This image appears to be a computer simulated facility and personnel. The only copyright for it is the one which belongs to the creator of the simulation or his employer if it is a work for hire. Therefore you cannot "take them again and release them correctly through my new employer" unless you yourself or your "new employer" are actually the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The requester agreed three weeks ago to take other action to get this image freed up. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ян Брейгель Младший, Несение креста.jpg

and
File:Паоло (Кальяри) Веронезе, Грешница.jpg
File:А.К. Саврасов, Весна, XIX в.jpg
File:Сбор подати, Лиможская эмаль.jpg

No reason for deletion (not really erase reason given), no information on Uploader (to the last Uploader). --Ekenaes (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ekenaes: The reason why they were deleted because they are suspected to be copyright violations. See COM:PCP and Commons:Licensing for details. The images were suspected to be copyvios because they are taken with different cameras, and they have low resolution. BTW, if you or the uploader (@NoviLab: ) is the copyright holder of the images, please send an e-mail to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That's are high-res images with the source „Dorotheum auctions“ and all had the license PD art, older then 100 years. --Ekenaes (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I can't find a date for the last of these, so it should remain deleted unless someone else can date it.
 Support The first three, on the other hand, are all by artists that died more than 100 years ago. They are all {{PD-old-100}} and {{PD-Art}} and therefore have no copyright. The claim of "own work" and the CC-BY-SA license are incorrect, but there is no reason not to restore them if that is corrected.
BTW, the three are 5142x3683px, 1514x2000px, and 1978x1323px, respectively, none of which I would call "low resolution" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: For your contra position see also here. This is the originally source of the image, the work is from 17th-century.--Ekenaes (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ekenaes. Although we don't know the author, the source says it is 17th century, so it is also {{PD-old-100}} and {{PD-Art}}. I  Support restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done This has been open for almost a week and there has been no opposition to restoring them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Emerging Acryl Canvas 130 x 130cm 2014.jpg

Die Dateien von Birgit Schweiger wurden vor dem upload schon mit dem Hinweis des unterzeichneten OTRS Formulares gekennzeichnet. Das Formular wurde am 22.3.2016 noch einmal gesendet LuiseLui 19:40, 23 March 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) 09:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Info Closing request, OTRS has been verified. Thuresson (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tekkerslovakia Football Club logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a file created by me and uploaded by me, I have no idea how this is copyright infringement. It is completely original content. Hsbceiv (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Did the club ask you to create it for them or did you just redraw the existing logo? In the latter case it would not your own work even if you created the actual file all by yourself, but the design would be copyrighted to the original artist. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no logo on the team home page so presumable this fails COM:SCOPE. Thuresson (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  •  Question: If the logo is actually Own work as a free replacement of the Football Club emblem (just like File:UoHcougarpaw.png), first, the file should not be deleted. The fact that the website lacks of the logo is not a reason to make the logo outside the PS while the file is used. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done. Instead of answering questions, OP uploaded the same image again at File:Tekkerslovakia Club Logo.png. Thuresson (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Creature Upload By MHN.webm

New SOnghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_3d6GntKbk — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHN061215 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is the 2014 Hindi horror movie "Creature". I strongly believe the Creative Commons license to be fake. Thuresson (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Also the request brings no argument for undeletion, the request provides a source for the upload which is copyrighted. The original upload had no usefull source (source=Hindi Full Movie). --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Puzigaca.jpg

Hallo,

Ich habe die Tage ein Foto vom Spieler Bojan Puzigaca hier Hochgeladen und es auf seiner Wikipedia Seite eingestellt.Es wurde gelöscht wegen der Lizenz.Ich habe die Lizenz vom Spieler selber, er hat mich gebeten das Foto hier einzufügen.Und auch von der Internetseite das okay bekommen das Foto zu nutzen.Daher würde ich mich freuen wenn sie das Foto wieder freigeben konnten.

Gruß

--Hagysarajevo (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not enough to have permission from the subject of the photo, you must have permission from the copyright owner who most likely is the photographer. You claimed that the photo is licensed as CC-BY-SA which requires attribution, which you did not do. To proceed with this photo, first contact the photographer and have him or her go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Additional Answer in German:

Freigabe ist vom Urheber des Fotos erforderlich. Weder die Freigabe der abgebildeten Person, noch die Freigabe des Betreibers des Forums in dem irgendein Dritter das Bild höchstwahrscheinlich ohne Einwilligung des Rechteinhabers gepostet hat ist in irgendeiner Weise bedeutsam oder genügend für die Verwendung hier. Ferner ist eine Freigabe für die Nutzung in Wikipedia nicht ausreichend, die Freigabe muss unter einer freien Lizenz erfolgen und darf sich nicht nur auf die Verwendung in Wikipedia beziehen. Siehe Commons:Project_scope/de#Muss frei lizenziert oder gemeinfrei sein. --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Aghasibeig Acrojet.JPG

Reason: The file File:Aghasibeig.... Acrojet.JPG that unfairly has been deleted is created by me and all sources and references are available ,so I request to restore it completely , and if there would be any extra data that should be added to the file , I'll provide them ,. Thank you .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashenaye zaman (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There has never been a file named File:Aghasibeig Acrojet.JPG. This probably refers to File:Aghasibeig.... Ajrojet.JPG which is a scan of a photograph taken in the 1970s. There are two problems here. First, it is not clear that the subject is notable -- there does not appear to be any WP article about him and Google comes up with no hits on his name. Second, are you the actual photographer who took the photograph in the 1970s? If not, you must:

  1. Get the actual photographer to provide a free license via OTRS or
  2. Prove that the image was published before 1986 or
  3. Prove that the photographer died before 22 August 1980.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Touchdown-Pass.webm

Was published under CC.
Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ttp569FUH8

All game video is property of NFL Films, so the Falcons are allowed to publish on CC.--JTCEPB (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Your argument doesn't follow. As you say, the NFL owns the copyright. The Atlanta Falcons are, to be a sure, a team within the NFL, but they are a completely separate legal entity. While the Falcons may have licensed the right to publish NFL works on their own web site, i doubt very much that the Falcons actually have the right to freely license the NFL's copyright. Restoring this will require a free license from the NFL via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bvsk_logo.jpg

Hello

I would like to request you to undelete the Bvsk_logo.jpg, used as logo for the Bergen Vest Sportsklubb wikipage. The logo is owned by the club, and I as the President of the club have the usage rights for the logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorah81 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the case of organizational logos, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Juanma2.png

Also

Son fotos que no tienen copyright y han sido colocadas para uso público, soy el propietario y las libero de derechos de autor. I have the rights for this photo and i as owner leave them for all webs. This photos haven't copyright, they can be used for public webs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumactro2001 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 22 March 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, with very limited exceptions, all created works have copyrights until they expire. In order to restore these, we would require that the actual photographers of each of the images send a free license to OTRS.

Second, and more important, Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. Since you have contributed nothing to Commons except images of yourself which are copyright violations, I see no reason to restore these even if they were properly licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MNA.png

I have gotten permission to use this logo. I would like to request undeletion so i can post this on the Myanmar National Airlines wikipedia page.

Cacrazy234 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC) ATK

 Oppose In the case of corporate logos, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner send a free license directly to OTRS. In the case of an airline, that would require a corporate officer to send the message from an address at flymna.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Coriolano Ferreira.jpg

Sou o proprietário legal do ficheiro: Coriolano Ferreira.jpg --Luismef (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This looks like a poor scan of a paper photograph. Unless you are the actual photographer, you almost certainly don't have the right to license this work as required here.
Also, who is Coriolano Ferreira? None of the WPs appear to have an article on him. Unless he is a notable person, the image is out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Just Joce As Is.jpg

--C.N. Ryan (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You have not given a reason why you think the image should be restored. It is a copyrighted album cover, taken from www.justjoce.com, where there is no evidence of a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Numériser 3.jpeg

French : Image en hommage aux victimes des attentats du 22 mars 2016 à Bruxelles, l'image est présente par solidarité et ne doit pas être supprimé car c'est un hommage aux victimes de l'attentat. C'est out du projet scope mais si vous serez blessé vous seriez content qu'on vous rende hommage. Cordialement --Anonymous franco-suédois (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Although your heart is in the right place, Commons does not keep art work by non-notable artists. Please do not upload the image again -- uploading a deleted image is a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Une question se pose: QUI a créé l'image? C'est une affaire de droits d'auteur qui ne peut pas être ignoré sur les domaines de Wikimédia (Wikipédias, Commons....), puisqu'on exige une licence libre sur tout matériel présenté sur les sites. De plus, "rendre" hommage" n'est pas un devoir d'un archive, c'est donc une argumentation futile. Si la situation de droits est clarifiée, une image (que je n'ai pas vue, par ailleurs, mais que j'imagine semblable à celle du drapeau belges et à la Tricolore qui s'embrassent) peut éventuellement être utilisée comme illustration des réactions du peuple, ce qui la ferai entrer dans le scope projet, à la limite. Mais il faut impérativement cette clarification sur les droits d'auteur. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour @Grand-Duc: Cet image a été crée par moi pour rendre hommage aux morts belges, mais comme les administrateurs ne sont pour la plupart pas français, il ne comprenne pas mon message et ne savent pas que c'est un hommage. Meme si le dessin est moche, c'est un hommage que j'ai fait par solidarité et il doit être présent pour les victimes. Cordialement --Anonymous franco-suédois (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
De toute façon Jim n'est jamais pour une restauration. Cordialement --Anonymous franco-suédois (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As you will see in the log above, I support restoration when our rules allow it. Ninety percent of UnDRs are closed as  Not done, so it should not surprise anyone that I oppose most restorations. Note also that unless the case is perfectly obvious, it takes two of us to close an UnDR, so my opposition is always supported by at least one colleague. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Not in scope. And I understand French. Thuresson (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Himanshu.engin

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was away for holidays, Came back and saw these deletion messages on my talk page, the debate seems to be closed now.

Can you please tell me in what way these files violate the copyrights ?

Also, I am authorized by the person (Shri Satpal Maharaj & his organization "Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti") to use the work, so that I can contribute the truth and historic/present events about the person on wikipedia.

If wikipedia wants, I can share the authorization letter with wikipedia.

I am new to wikipedia, please correct me wherever I am wrong, and help me contribute a better article. Himanshu.engin (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It seems clear that none of these are actually your own work as you claimed in the file descriptions. Seven of the files consist of four photographs with text. Commons does not keep such files. If such things are need on a WMF project, they should be created using the four images and Wiki-markup. Those are:

  • File:2, BHARAT JAGO PADYATRA.jpg
  • File:3, JAN JAGARAN PADYATRA.jpg
  • File:JANTA JAGE PADAYATRA.jpg
  • File:SHRADHANJALI PADYATRA.jpg
  • File:SADBHAWANA PADYATRA.jpg
  • File:GANDHI RAINBOW PEACE MARCH.jpg
  • File:UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.jpg

The file:

  • Manav Dharam (Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti).jpg

appears to be an organizational logo. Logos cannot be kept on Commons unless an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright sends a free license to OTRS.

Part of the file:

  • File:J&K Permission -MA Stadium.pdf

appears to be a government work and is therefore PD. The rest, however is a letter from a private person. That person holds the copyright to the letter and therefore must freely license it via OTRS. Note also that it seems to me that such administrative actions are not within the scope of Commons, so it is unlikely that it will be restored.

Since you are apparently not the photographer of the rest of the images, policy requires that the actual copyright holders must send free licenses to OTRS. Please note that it is unlikely that the subject or his organization have the right to license the images -- that right is almost certainly held by the photographers. Note also that "so that I can contribute the truth and historic/present events about the person on wikipedia" is not sufficient for Commons or Wikipedia. Both projects require that images be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works.

Finally, since you apparently are working at the request of the subject of a WP:EN article, I suggest you read https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest. If it applies to you, I suggest you make appropriate disclosures, both on WP:EN and here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TeaMeow 藍色 Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were published under CC-BY-SA 4.0, which archived with OTRS#2016021610020389. Please undelete these files for further processing. Thank you. J.Wong 21:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Ticket appears likely to be the standard boilerplate in Chinese... however I can't read Chinese. Ticket comes from gmail so likely needs a further back-and-forth to establish identity/authority of sender. Storkk (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is believed that the email address is of TeaMeow, the copyright holder. At the top right corner of their official website, there is a hyperlink to their wordpress. From the links located at the top of their wordpress, you can link to github of their developer(?). By clicking "TeaMeow" next to the name of developer(?), it shows the email address and the official website at this page. Hence, I think the email was sent from the copyright holder. However, the page in which these photo embedded is now nominated for deletion in zh.wikipedia. Should this request hold on until the end of the discussion?--J.Wong 02:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The page has been deleted and I withdraw the request. Thank you.--J.Wong 02:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Request withdrawn..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sam a 22 year old male stripper.jpg

User who deleted the photo was the only editor to request or comment, and has since been banned globally from editing on wikipedia.1969Laura (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Info Deleted by User:Natuur12 who is not banned. Thuresson (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither was the nom when he/she nominated it. For me this is a clear cut case. Fails com:IDENT, small size, no EXIF and I fail to see the educational value as well. It was in use once but only because the uploader pushed the image. Come on, we have far better images of male strippers that don't violate com:IDENT. Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 Info The globally banned editor he is saying is Scalhotrod (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . --★ Poké95 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, the user who promoted the deletion, not the user who acted upon the request.1969Laura (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a clear violation of the privacy of all of the people in the photo except, perhaps, that of the stripper himself. Publishing this image would be actionable almost anywhere. Also, as noted above, it's not a very good picture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Laughter - Stress Relief.jpg

Hello,

This image does not violate any commons license. Please go through this link https://www.flickr.com/photos/135148089@N05/23460598376/in/photolist-BK8Gxs-BdVwZB-AQ2iJi for license. The owner has alreadt sent permission mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

--Thaduru (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The photostream https://www.flickr.com/photos/135148089@N05/ contains a lot of works published under various licenses. Most works are works derived from somoene else copyrighted work and therfore published on flickr in violation of copyright. I doubt that any of the licenses of this flickr stream is valid. See Commons:Problematic sources#Flickr washing: is the work original with the uploader, or a copyright violation?. --Martin H. (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The source listed in the File Description is https://yourdost.com/, which is clearly marked © 2016, All Rights Reserved. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Monumental Plaza de Toros de Apizaco.jpg

Hola! Resulta que esa foto yo la tome. Cuando visité Apizaco. Tome la foto. Es decir, yo soy el dueño. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loxox (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The same image, not cropped, appears at http://altoromexico.com/cmsimgnoticias/foto_noticia11403.jpg with an explicit copyright notice: "Todos los derechos reservados 2014". It cannot be restored here without a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Robm2.jpg

The photo I used was created by Rob McDowall himself. I got it off his official site. At the bottom of his website he states anyone can use the photo. http://www.mcdowall.me/ "Biographical information is in the public domain and may be used without permission. Images may be used provided they are not edited and are properly attributed." --KatrinaMcCaffery (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not allowing modifications is unacceptable. "In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications." (freedomdefined.org). Thuresson (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done ND licenses -- licenses that do not permit derivative works -- are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Summer Theatre audience.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016021210007428. Rrburke (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Storkk (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: permission appears ok in Ticket:2016012210011647. --Storkk (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Uncle_Dave_Macon_(4523593502).jpg and File:Uncle_Dave_Macon_(4522958601).jpg

Some time ago the files File:Uncle_Dave_Macon_(4523593502).jpg and File:Uncle_Dave_Macon_(4522958601).jpg were deleted. However they may be legal, if I regard the template:PD-US-no notice which is used on File:Uncle Dave Macon Billboard.jpg. I would like to request an administrator to re-evaluate whether the first two files meet the criteria of PD-US-no notice. If so, I would like to request to undelete the two images. Thank you for reconsidering. Ymnes (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Ymnes, I don't think so. If the two exhibits were created after March 1,1989, then {{PD-US-no notice}} cannot apply (see File:PD-US_table.svg). Also, in order for no-notice to apply, the image must have been used with the explicit written consent of the copyright holder. I would be very surprised if the museum bothered to clear copyright on all their exhibits. So, to restore these, you would have to prove both the date of creation of the exhibit and that the museum had a license to use the images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mark Humes.jpg

Hello,

I noticed File:Mark Humes.jpg was deleted.

Please undelete and restore to page.

The image is in the public domain https://www.flickr.com/photos/paladinradio/25303750410/in/dateposted-public/ and Mr Humes has sent permission to common for its usage.

Thank you.

--Beckycontrols (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The PDM is not acceptable at Commons because it is not irrevocable. If the photographer wishes it to be actually in the Public Domain, he or she must license it as CC-0. It was deleted because it occurs at several places on the Web without a free license.
If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then it will be restored once the license is processed and accepted. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Vanitas poster web.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Website (http://productie.picoux.be/productions/vanitas_poster_2015g3/) releases text + poster under CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL and in ticket:2016031110016927 this is confirmed by the director of the movie. Mbch331 (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: @Mbch331: could you please update the file page?. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Flor de angiosperma receptáculo perianto pétalos sépalos estambres carpelos.svg

Hi, sorry for my English in the first place. Ask me again if you don't understand my words. The drawing was made by means of tracing data from a scientific drawing. Tracing data is not copyrighted, it's common domain, the same that happens when you trace a map. As far as is informed in the orginal page the flower drawing is not copyrighted as a logo nor something like that. It's just a generic flower. --RoRo (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Tracing a map, drawing, or any other created work is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright of the original. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

  • and

File:"Ackergifte? Nein danke!"-Logo.jpg

I request that this file be undeleted. The logo is a piece of "own work" created by the German citizens’ initiative "Bürgerinitiative Landwende", which I am part of. It is in fact under a creative-commons license and, therefore, is not a copyright infringement. --Trueblue80 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The web site http://www.landwende.de/home/16-startseite.html, on which both of these logos appear, has a clear and explicit copyright notice: "Copyright © 2014 Landwende. All Rights Reserved".

In the case of logos that appear on sites without a free license, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license via OTRS.

By the way, if you are not the artist who actually created the two logos, then it was incorrect to say that they are "own work". The CC-BY-SA license requires the actual name of the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Well, is in fact under a creative commons license: http://ackergifte-nein-danke.de/page/10-kontakt-impressum.html But thanks for clarifying this for me. I will haven an OTRS sent then for both logos anyway. --Trueblue80 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim and OTRS will restore the files in due course. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Siege of Bihka (1592).jpg

Good evening! Having assured to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that I'm myself the author of File:Siege of Bihka (1592).jpg by sending a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; I request Wikimedia/Wikipedia to undelete the cited work so as to be able to return it to several Wikipedia articles where it was present previously as well. Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan-aga (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 March 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) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Alouette Defilee Emmen72.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I sent the standard mail to OTRS on November 24 where I forgot to mention the name of the file.. Perhaps it was confusing, that I sent another mail with the same ticket number on December 16th. But I included attached there a picture of the original slide with its frame to additionally prove to the holding of the copyright that i still own the original picture that was never published before. Anidaat (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim's reply at the requests above and below. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Performance Anxiety Poster.jpg

The permission email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 15th day of March, 2016 - about 1:05pm UTC. Cyberacc (talk) 04:24, 21 March 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) 10:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Hannah Fraser Swimming with Whale Shark.jpg

Please help me to understand why this item is not allowed, and what I need to do to meet your criteria.

I posted the file after being given permission to use it by the copyright owner. In her email to me, she stated the following:

"The images I sent you before are the ones I was willing to put into public domain that i own copyright on. Just make sure they have credit watermarks on them..?"

I uploaded the file in good faith, but I am not an expert on copyright law. If the owner is willing to put them in the public domain and asks me to do so, what else do I need to do to meet you criteria? I need your help.

I also opened a ticket about this, and requested you not to delete the files until I had had a response from your permissions experts. The ticket number is: Ticket#2016032010010648

However, the file was deleted before this could happen.

I need to know exactly what to do to make this okay. I'm no expert and I need clear instructions. It's not good enough just to delete something and offer no understandable explanation.

What do I need to do, please? It's all allowed by the copyright owner, so I just need to meet you criteria. Tell me what they are in clear non-jargon English, and I'll do it.

Thanks,

Matt Wingett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwingett (talk • contribs) 11:33, 21 March 2016‎ (UTC)

First, please remember that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them for various reasons. Two-thirds of that work is done by a dozen Admins, while the rest is done by the other 235. If we had more active Admins, we could offer better and more personal service to Users, but as it is we are not even keeping up with the deluge of Deletion Requests.

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.hannahmermaid.com/. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, must send a free license via OTRS. Note that the message must come directly from the copyright holder and not be forwarded from you or anyone else.

If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail 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 several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for this reply. You could do with a kind of jargon-free step-by-step guide. I'm considering crystallising this and writing one. This would mean you get fewer lost souls like me flummoxed by what to do next. I will get on with contacting the relevant parties, now I know what to do. Thank you again. Btw, I do donate when asked by you guys, and I also know you're all volunteers. So am I, doing this for a friend, so guess we all need to make it easy for each other. Ta for the answer. Will find my way from here. Mattwingett (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mattwingett, such a tutorial exists, see Commons:First steps. It is linked in several different ways off of the Main Page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:María Paz Santibáñez.png

This file was deleted due the license at Flick is CC-BY-NC-SA, but this contradicts the Ord. 112/14 of december, 2010. As a work from the Governemnt of Chile published at its digital platform (official Flickr account), {{CC-GobCL}} apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeWorks by employees of the US government are PD. That does not prevent the US government from putting non-free works by non-employees on its web site. If the Chilean law reads the same way -- and I think it does -- then in order to keep this, we must prove that Rodrigo Campusano is a government employee. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, the source (Consejo Nacional de la Cultura) is one of the official Flickr accounts of the Government of Chile (that is also covered by the Ord. 112/14 of december, 2010 as I mentioned above). As you as OTRS member should know the tickets related to {{CC-GobCL}}; I don't want to request another Transparency Request to get the same answer and forward it to OTRS as I've done for years (anyway, I requested another one to the SEGEGOB, I'm so tired). --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
And yes, Rodrigo Campusano is an employee of the Government of Chile (Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes) according to his profile at LinkedIn (did you even find him in Google?). Please, more AGF and less Copyright paranoia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you certain that Consejo Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes de Chile is covered by the law you cite. According to the WP:ES article, it is autonomous and independent of the government. I note that its web site is not at "gob.cl", but simply http://www.consejodelacultura.cl/." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Why a non-chilean user tries to tell to a chilean user about the organisms of the Governemnt of Chile? Why trying to find la quinta pata al gato with the legislation of Chile that you don't know?
  • The CNCA has been created by the Law 19.891, that it make it, inherently, an organism of the Government of Chile (Ministerio de Educación). As Wikipedia is not a Primary source, the best source is the Law and teh official website themselves
  • The fact that is an autonomus entity does not mean that it is not part of the Government of Chile. Even, it have the logo of the Government of Chile
  • Not all the websites of the Government of Chile ends with .gob.cl (for example, CENABAST). But no, the website of the CNCA is actually cultura.gob.cl (consejodelacultura.cl is just an alias)
Anyway, I requested another Transparency request related to the Ord. 114 of december, 2010, expecting that it is the very last time. I'm 200% sure that the SEGEGOB will answer with exact the same answer like the four or five previous ones. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 Support Davod, I don't think that's necessary. I'm happy to accept your assurance of it. Although I knew that you were a native Spanish speaker, I had not focused on the fact that you are Chilean. My question arose from the fact that similar independent and autonomous bodies created by the USA Federal government (e.g. the Postal Service and Voice of America) are not covered by the similar USA law -- their works are under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, but some other users still doubt that, for that reason I requested the Transparency request. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion and @Amitie 10g: could you please check if I updated the file page correctly?. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Waldeli 1.jpg

otrs:2016031010019104 Thanks. Vitor MazucoMsg 17:44, 23 March 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) 09:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim plus the ticket isn't in a permission queue so we cannot resolve it via this page without an agent who has acces to the ticket. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Hod.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason given in the deletion log – "author unknown, no permission" – is incorrect. Uploader provided both author and permission as a response to the initial deletion request. Nkrita (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose That is not correct. The entire final file description is
"{{Information
|Description= Татьяна Ходорович
|Source=book by Леонард Терновский , entitled "ТАЙНА ИГ"
|Date=2008
|Author=undisclosed
|Permission=from family of Ternovsly
Я, Терновская Ольга Леонардовна, являюсь законной наследницей авторских прав на произведения моего отца и разрешаю свободное использование их в соответствии с правилами Викитеки.Oternovskaya 05:21, 25 сентября 2007 (UTC)
I Ternovskaya Leonardovna Olga, is a legitimate heir of the copyright to the works of my father and allow the free use of them in accordance with the rules Vikiteki.Oternovskaya 5:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
translator: Google
|other_versions=
}}
{{Attribution}}
Category:Black and white photographs of women of Russia
Category:Human rights"

This shows the author as unknown. The {{Attribution}} tag is not good because the author is unknown, so no attribution is possible. The source, we are told, is a book written by the uploader's father. Unfortunately, while as her father's heir the uploader may own the text of the book, it is very unlikely that she has the right to freely license images from the book -- the copyrights for book images are typically licensed by the publisher, not the author, and typically only for use in the book, not on a basis that would allow the publisher to freely license them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Srikanthika - S. Srikanta Sastri Felicitation Volume.jpg

Dear Editors, The above file does not violate any copyright laws. The above file is a scanned image of the cover of a Festschrift (Felicitation Volume) brought forth by the Felicitation Committee - headed by the immediate members of the family of the eminent historian - S. Srikanta Sastri. Further, these family members have posted it on their official website www.srikanta-sastri.org setting these and more images free under creative commons license. It would be rather ludicrous to suggest violation when the image of the cover of a book that has already been set free under creative commons license has been used on wikipedia. kindly undelete the file at once. Bugs2beatles (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I can't find any information that the photographer of this 1973 book cover has released the photo into the public domain. Thuresson (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is correct that the cited web site has a CC-0 license, there are several photographs on the site that are probably not theirs to license, which suggests that this book also may not be free. I think this requires a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:PAULA ORTIZ 2016.jpg

Hola a todos es de un vídeo de Creative Commons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAOfNC_zr_4 --Campeones 2008 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support It appears to be licensed CC-BY by the television station that created it. Note that the uploader did not put a license on it and it needs license review. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above and I updated the file page. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Enfants autistes, bienvenue à l'école - collège et lycée.jpg

and File:Enfants autistes, bienvenue à l'école - maternelle et primaire.jpg

Request submitted following advice by Ahecht. An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS. Ticket number 2016031410019081 or 2016031410019124. Note: Two ticket numbers are indicated as requests were sent for a pair of similar files and ticket numbers did not indicate which files they related to (the other file in the pair is File:Enfants autistes, bienvenue à l'école - maternelle et primaire.jpg. Dessources (talk)


  •  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) 19:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: PEr Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Training Scheme Structure-1.jpg

Permission confirmed by OTRS Ticket#2015120810019317. Rrburke (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but this looks to me like a clear violation of COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen the file in question, so didn't know that. I have informed the uploader that it won't be restored. Rrburke (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Thanks for letting the client know that the file is our of scope. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Shark trawler.pdf

Thought I explained the status of this photo when it was first raised on 1st March, but perhaps this wasn't seen or placed in the right area.

This is a family photo, most likely taken by my mother of my father and one of his crew in the early 1960s. My mother and father are deceased and the photo belongs to me.

There are no copyright restrictions on the photo and I am happy for the photo to be freely used and loaded to Commons.

Now I am just unsure of where in Wiki this matter will be communicated and hope I can follow up :)

Thanks for your efforts

Donga Nick (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, we do not keep PDFs of photographs, so this cannot be restored in any case. Second, you say "most likely taken by my mother" -- that does not pass our test of "significant doubt". "Most likely" implies that there may be as much as a 49% chance that some third party was the photographer and therefore the copyright holder. Since a 1960 photograph is still under copyright, I don't think we could restore this even if it were in an acceptable format. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them.jpg

The file was deleted by the reason of Derivative work.

But the file is a photography of a poster, the photography is under the license "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)", https://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcircus/139278592

I used the photography, not the poster itself, thus i'm not using the derivative work, else the photography as I explained above , like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Campbells.jpg. I'm using the file for illustrate some articles in spanish wikipedia.--Wlmraziel (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The only reason the photo was used in the article es:Misandria ("Misandry") was because it features the controversial art by en:Todd Goldman, not because the photo itself was interesting in any way. Thuresson (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The photo was also used in the es:Los niños son estúpidos, ¡arrójales piedras! (the spanish version of en:Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!), if the file can't be used in es:Misandria, can be used in the first mentioned article.--Wlmraziel (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I think you do not understand derivative works. The image has two copyrights -- one for the photograph, which is licensed by the Flickr user, and one for the poster, for which there is no license. Because there is no license for the poster's copyright, the image cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Civic duties.png

This photo is from the family album and was taken by my uncle Alex Gorshenin. The photo is from the early 1960s and was given to me by my parents who are deceased.

The photo has no copyright restriction and I am happy for it to be freely used and uploaded to Commons.

I trust this is enough information and hope I can participate in any further decision.

Many thanks for your efforts

Donga Nick (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted after discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Donga Nick. I frankly can not see the educational value of a low quality photo of an unknown man and woman dressed for a night out. Also, presumably your uncle is the copyright owner if the took the photo. Thuresson (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Thuresson. Uncle passed away twenty years ago. Photo is from family album so copyright is absolutely not an issue. Am gobsmacked that anyone could think it would be. Anyway, guess Wiki has to have processes to filter those images that could be problematic. As regards, educational value, it is a photo of the guy who, with two others, started the first anti-Vietnam political party in Australia. A few years later, after he had established a number of party branches, their voting preferences enabled Labor led to overturn 23 years of conservative government in Australia and shortly afterwards take Australian troops out of the Vietnam conflict. Believe the page deserves a photo of him as a politician with his wife in Sydney in the 60s.

If possible, could you also pls look at the photo two up from this on the thread, which shows him in the cabin of his shark trawler.

Thanks Donga Nick (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Copyright is always an issue. Commons keeps only works that are free for any use, so we work hard to ensure that any work that is still under copyright (as this is) has a free license. Although you may own a paper copy of the photograph, the copyright and the right to freely license it belong to your uncle's heir(s). In order to restore this, the heir (or one of them, if more than one) to the residue of your uncle's estate must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Aside from that, I note that the entire file description is "Nick and Joan enjoying their civic duties". The filename is not useful and there are no categories. How then, are we supposed to know that this is a notable person. Read your mind? -- You don't even give his full name in your comment above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Beast of Dean.jpg

I uploaded my own version of the Beast of Dean but it has been deleted. It was not the same of this image, which is only the image I took inspiration from. I printed it, then take my pencils and drawn it from scratch on a piece of paper. You can even see the pencil marks, while the original is definitely better drawn (and the figure is different, e.g. taller).--Carnby (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I suggest that you create something of your own instead of being "inspired" by other artists. Thuresson (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I kindly suggest not to put quotes on the "inspired" word, because it is just the truth. If I've understood correctly your position, you're saying I made a derivative version of a copyrighted image. But how can be considered a derivative version a picture drawn from scratch?--Carnby (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It looks to me very much a derivative work of http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Beast_of_Dean?file=Dean.jpg. The best test of whether it is a DW or not is whether a new viewer would see a strong similarity between the two. If the two are similar but not identical, then the DW may have its own copyright, but it still infringes on the original. In this case, I would say they are almost identical.

However, it doesn't really matter. Personal art by artists who are not themselves notable is out of scope, so we couldn't keep it even if it were not very similar to a copyrighted work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the "out of scope". I drew it for Beast of Dean page, which does not have a picture illustrating the cryptid yet. Anyway, I have drawn another image, entirely created by me without copying any existing pic, for the creature page. You can close this undeleting request--Carnby (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:El Caso 02-01-1988-portada.jpg

and El Caso 02-01-1988-ultima pagina.jpg

Esta fotografia era MÍA, realizada personalmente por mí. No conozco por qué motivos ha sido borrada, ya que no he recibido notificación alguna de que hubiera alguna discusión y al parecer ya ha sido cerrada. Gracias por su atención. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.218.63.149 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Buenas tardes, parece ser que se abrió una discusión sobre la propiedad de esta imagen (supongo) y que se procedió a borrarla. Esta fotografía ha sido realizada personalmente por mí y no hay derechos de imagen algunos sobre esta publicación, con lo cual a mi parecer no debería haber problema alguno con su publicación. Gracias y un saludo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.218.63.149 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

solicito que se reinstaure esta imagen, puesto que no incumple ningún copyright (no existe copyright de El Caso y por tanto el único copy pertenece al autor de la foto, que soy yo) 87.218.63.149 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose These are photos or scans of pages of a 1988 newspaper. The only copyright here belongs to the newspaper and there is no evidence that the uploader has the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hood (1995).jpg, File:Hood play the Sausage Machine.jpg & File:Iggy & the Stooges (2005).jpg

These files were licensed CC-BY-2.0 by the author. However, user:Elisfkc seems to think the mere presence of a copyright sign is enough to speedydelete them. He does not respond to my arguments. See [9]. Originals here: [10], [11], [12]. Tekstman (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Support That's not quite correct. These files appear as (c) ARR on Greg Neate's web site. They also appear, with a CC-BY license on a Flickr account that purports to be owned by Greg Neate. Since we do not assume good faith on the part of Flickr accounts, and there is a lot of license laundering there, the deletion of these was entirely correct -- when there is a conflict between two site's licensing, we assume the more restrictive license -- in this case ARR -- applies. However, Ww2censor makes the point that the Flickr account has a great many images on it, so I think we can safely assume that Greg Neate actually owns it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I completely understand your reasoning, and I am quite aware of the Flickr washing phenomenon. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the Flickr account is indeed owned by Greg Neate himself, not only because of the sheer number of images, but also because of the extra info (which for instance consistently mentions his URL, which increases the validness of the account and which I faithfully copy to commons) and his comments. Btw, the point Ww2censor makes is about another case, but surprisingly well fits into this undelete request. ;-). Tekstman (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion and added the LR-tagg. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:UnaOHagan-1Web.jpg

Hi,

This image has been deleted because it did not have the required licence on Flickr. However, the photographer who took the photo emailed wikicommons to say that he has given it the correct creative commons licence. He did that on the 8th of March, the same day the image was uploaded to Flickr. The ticket number is #2016030810022061. I trust you will correct this. --Anne O'Donnell (talk) 08:27, 29 March 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) 10:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gideon Patt 1980 crop.jpg

Hi team, the above file is a crop i made of the following file: File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - Mayor Katz at Opening of Tourism Season.jpg The cropped image was missing the source, so it's here now. Please restore the file. BR --kippi70 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Updated the source field. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MattoPraesens.jpg wiederherstellen

Hallo! Am 20.1.16 ging eine Mail mit der Einverständniserkärung zum Bild Datei:MattoPraesens.jpg von Praesenfilm an Wikimedia. Trotzdem wurde sie am 26.3.16 von einem Bot gelöscht. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung. Herzliche Grüsse--Archive Aurora (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose That's not correct. This is a scan of a 1948 page from the magazine Mein Film which you claimed was your own work. It was deleted on March 26 by one of our most experienced Administrators because it was obviously not your own work and there was no evidence of permission from the magazine. Since the magazine ceased publication in 1957, getting a license for the free use of this page seems very unlikely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand, what you mean. But the for the fotos, I have the permission from Praesens-Film. Is that not enough?--Archive Aurora (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it's a magazine page, so the magazine (or its successor, if any) is the only one who can license it. It's almost certainly an orphan copyright which, unfortunately, we cannot keep here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: PEr above. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BCUL 20151125 Pilloud P 01.jpg

There is an OTRS ticket ongoing for this file. --Chandres (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, Ticket:2016031810000314, and you are the volunteer working on it. But as far as I can see, there's no free license there. When there is, it can, of course, be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's an ongoing discussion started by the subject of the picture, not by the author or the library that ordered the picture. I need to check the picture(s) before contacting directly the library in order to clean the situation. --Chandres (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I just receive the info that the pictures should have been upload in a large batch later this year, so for the moment I cancel the Undel request, thanks for your time--Chandres (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn by requester .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:All the way back to Liverpool.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS Ticket 2016022910013523. Rrburke (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Done. Please add the correct template and remove the {{Npd}}. --Storkk (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Files provided by Dubai Parks and Resorts

These files have been deleted for copyright violation. The uploader requests that they be restored.

At ticket:2016030110011405 the uploader User:DPR 2016 writes from "dp-r.com", the domain of Dubai Parks and Resorts. I expect that these deleted files are created and owned by this organization. The person writing identifies as their social media manager.

The files were deleted on the premise that a representative of the company was not releasing the files with a free copyright license. In fact, this is happening, and for that reason the files should be restored. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

First, the OTRS system tells me that there is no ticket 2016030110011405. Assuming that there is, as Lane describes, and either OTRS is hiccuping or the number is wrong, my take on it is as follows  Support two:

 Oppose the rest, as follows:

The following four all show copyrighted architecture. There is no FOP in Dubai, so in order to keep them we will need a license from each of the architects involved.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Riverland™ Dubai" by this user, not deleted, perhaps not reviewed
Jameslwoodward I confirm that when I click ticket:2016030110011405 I go directly through to the ticket. I am not sure how linking in OTRS works, or if the ticket is in a queue with restricted access. I think it is grouped with "info-en", and not "Commons".
I have not seen any of these pictures, so I cannot respond to some of what you say. I saw File:Riverland™ Dubai.jpg in this user's uploads and assumed that the other uploads might be similar. I expect that this one would have been deleted if it had seemed like it was owned by the same company, but right now, it is still up.
James- for the architecture pictures, can you say a little more? Look at this Riverland picture. It has copyrighted architecture, but the architecture is not the focus. Is it correct that in pictures like this which show a scene and more than architecture, that Commons keeps the picture? Assuming that, for the deleted pictures, is it the case that those pictures do feature the architecture as the focus, and are not showing a crowd and location scene? I was expecting all the pictures to be showing a location and not focus on copyrighted details, based on what I saw of other pictures on the company's website.
Also - about copyright of architecture. I presume that we are in agreement that the architecture in the pictures was designed for and owned by the company which is providing the pictures, because these are new buildings on their land made for the park. Is it current practice on Commons that when a company owning a building provides an image of their building, the default presumption is that they do not own copyright, and that we require them to secure copyright release permission from the designers? I assumed - but do not know - that in the case of buildings, the owner of the real estate would be presumed to be empowered to release images of it without permission from others. I know we do differently with photographs, but then also, buildings typically come with legal agreements and small artworks typically do not. Is there some consensus in Commons that says that we assume by default that companies which commission buildings do not own the copyright to the buildings they commission?
Thanks for your review in this case. I think this is an interesting upload and situation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As a general rule, the owner of any copyrighted work -- book, painting, sculpture, building, whatever, is very rarely the copyright holder and does not have the right to license images of the work on Commons -- unless, of course, the owner is the creator. It is certainly possible that the architect of these buildings has licensed the copyright to the owner, but I have never seen a case of that on Commons. I have probably deleted 10,000 or more images of buildings in non-FOP countries for lack of a license from the architect.
As for the image above, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riverland™ Dubai.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Company_commissions_a_building_-_does_Wiki_presume_they_own_copyright.3F for main discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
? The main discussion on an UnDR must take place at the UnDR. Opening a second discussion elsewhere is a waste of people's time as we would need to make comments in both places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
To me it is very unreasonable to question the assumption that the rights of copyright of visual images of buildings on something like world disney or another theme are owned by the park. For me a doubt of this would not qualify as significant. It would be very hard for such a park to make profit if it was not licensed to release its visual imagery in such things as advertisements or for media articles about the park. Rybkovich (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Company_commissions_a_building_-_does_Wiki_presume_they_own_copyright.3F to keep discussion in one place. The discussion here is about two things -
  • Did the organization do an OTRS release (yes)
  • Can Wikimedia Commons presume they are copyright holder (not sure)
Because the uncertainty is about Wikimedia Commons policy, and not this particular case, please go to the discussion at the pump. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Rybkovich, what you say above makes sense, but two thoughts about it. First, I've never seen a building owner claim on Commons that it had the right to freely license images of the building. Second, if I were counsel for the architect, negotiating such an agreement, I would limit the building owner's rights to exactly what it needed and no more. That would include use in the park's advertising, media articles, and informational signs in the park, but it would not include the right to license images of the architecture freely and generally including commercial use by third parties. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward Sorry here - there was a hiccup in OTRS and it is embarrassing. I had the email for this locked and either my lock timed out or possibly I accidentally unlocked it. Someone grabbed the ticket and executed the un-deletion. It was not my intent to have this happen before the end of the discussion. Again Please comment at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Company_commissions_a_building_-_does_Wiki_presume_they_own_copyright.3F to keep discussion in one place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, Rybkovich, Jameslwoodward, and Ronhjones:  Comment I believe that there is enough doubt regarding the capacity of the park owners to license the files (given some other information like watermarks, etc.) that have re-nominated them at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DPR 2016. Storkk (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Since these files have been restored and are now the subject of a new DR, this UnDR is moot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:© Nussan1.jpg

Hi, I sent you an email with the relevant permission for the above photo file but I see it has been deleted. How can I ensure it is reinstated please? Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrius1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC) copied from Special:Diff/189896194


  •  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) 09:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cardiff Arms Park (Finals weekend 2014).JPG

I have just noticed that this image was deleted...Can you look at this file again (if it isn't too late) and undelete it. This is my own image, although I no longer have the original. I take photos mostly from my Pentax OptioE20 and I can complete the remaining license information etc. This was my error. The image was taken the same time as File:Millennium Stadium (finals weekend).JPG...thanks. SethWhales talk 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in the United Kingdom. The image infringes on the billboard's copyright and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the creator of the billboard. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Stefan Christmann.jpg undelete

Hello please undelete the photo. Im the copyright owner and me and as well the pearson on the photo allowed to use it on wikipedia and aswell for other internet uses. Therefore its open to use it and we accept all wikipedia rules.

cheers Lars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars.lehnert (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit (c) ARR at http://www.fotocommunity.de/fotograf/stefan-christmann/fotos/485862 so policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS.

Please note that:

"allowed to use it on wikipedia and as well for other internet uses"

is not a sufficient license. Commons requires that images be free for all uses anywhere by anyone, including commercial use, print, television, billboards and any other media. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TDVN.jpg

Also File:Sotto Family.jpg

File:TDVN.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victormae43 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Victormae43: Can you please provide a reason why the file should be undeleted? Seeing the delete reason, the file was deleted because it is out of our project scope. Can you prove that this file is in our scope? Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-03&oldid=700020061"