Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-07

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:Bijou-et-Idéal.jpg

I scanned a postcard posted in 1905 at Amiens (France); there is a lot of old postcard on Commons , so why this one is deleted ? Geoleplubo (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose 1905 is 20 years too recent to assume that the author has been dead since 1946. If you can show that the postcard does not have the photographer's name on it, then it can be kept as an anonymous work. It was deleted, however, because you used a strange format for the file description with the result that none of it actually showed. Also, you claimed to be the author, which you clearly are not, and you have no right to license it under CC-BY -- it is either PD-OLD or not acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

you write = «If you can show that the postcard does not have the photographer's name on it» ; question : the photographer's name is not on the postcard, how I can show it ? about the strange format for the file description it's not me who upload this file from pcd.wikipedia to Commons. Geoleplubo (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You can show, that the postcard is anonymous, by uploading front side and back side into Commons. This can be done using the same filename: at first back side and then front side on top of it, so that everybody can see: author is not mentioned. After that license {{PD-scan|PD-Anonymous-EU}} will apply. Taivo (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Taivo. Back of postcard should be uploaded, then front of postcard should be uploaded over it with the "Upload a new version of this file" function. --INeverCry 22:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


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

caneria2013.jpg, caneria2016.jpg

caneria2013.jpg and caneria2016.jpg are covers from CDs recorded by Cañeria band. These images were taken from my website (www.rockhechovenezuela.com/C1/caneria.html) and I´m autorized by Caneria band (www.caneria.com)

--RockVzla (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In the case of images that have appeared previously on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (usually that is the photographer) must send a free license to OTRS. If the Cañeria band claims to be the copyright owner, it must include a copy of the written agreement transferring the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Loma Larga Monterrey.jpg

In Flickr: File:Collage de San Pedro Garza Garcia.jpg. --Balsupli (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support? The file is situated in https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardogz10/16855134437/ and it has free license there. Deletion was in my opinion mistake. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose It is marked on Flickr with the Public Domain Mark, which is not acceptable on Commons because it is not a license. It can be revoked at will. In complete contrast to the CC licenses, the person using the PDM explicitly denies any responsibility for knowing the actual state of the copyright -- he merely expresses an opinion that the work may be free. A CC license requires the user to state that he or she is the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Flickr uploader needs to switch from PD-Mark to an acceptable free license. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. --INeverCry 22:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:CM Harish Rawat.jpg

I DERIEVED THIS FILE FROM AND I FILL ALL NESSECARY DETAILS LIKE SOUTCE'S URL & AUTHOR'S URL. SO, PLEASE RESTORE THIS FILE. Head-Tail (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was deleted by Jcb with reason "All rights reserved: https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/140472323@N04/26860221931/". It is prohibited to upload the photo into Commons. Taivo (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: All rights reserved license is unacceptable for Commons. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. --INeverCry 22:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ankita Shrivastav.jpg

This picture belongs to the actress in question. Don't see why it's been pulled down. would appreciate if it's put back. It will help eliminate the confusion regarding the two actresses with the same name "Ankita Shrivastav" in question. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aru Desilva (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo was deleted, because it violated photographer's copyright. The photographer (not you as uploader, not Ankita Shrivastav as photo owner) must send OTRS-permission and after that the photo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS-permission from photographer required. --INeverCry 22:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Oudstrijder.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Last piece of information that was needed for the permission (name of the photographer) was sent in today. All information can be found in ticket:2016051910017373 Mbch331 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mbch331: Please update the OTRS info. --INeverCry 22:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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


File:Vishnu_Manchu.jpg Upon Vishnu manchu request i uploaded this picture in to wiki. i am his employee and authorised to update his latest pic. it is not copyrighted pic.

Upon Vishnu manchu request i uploaded this picture in to wiki. i am his employee and authorised to update his latest pic. it is not copyrighted pic. http://www.newyorkacademy.com/about-us/founder-chairman/ this is his school and we are authorised to update this pic in wiki profile also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subbup7 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 01 July 2016 (UTC)

Please follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS-permission required. --INeverCry 05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Universal Map, Al-Idrisi (1100-1165).jpg

copyright expired --Filbluz (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support These were deleted because they do not have a license or reason why they are PD. When they are restored, they should all have {{PD-old-100-1923}} added. By the way, most of these are old enough so that it is incorrect to say "copyright expired". They are older than the concept of copyright and therefore they never had a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Filbluz can you please provide sources for this files? A source information "internet" is not helpful. It does not allow for verification if this files show what you say they show. The files will be here on this project because we assume you uploaded them in good faith, but the information is unverified and the files are useless for educational purposes. Thats a bad situation for all of us and a worsening for Wikimedia Commons. See en:Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Information_to_include for example. I request not to undelete this files but upload them again with accurate source information. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe that we should be asking people to reupload a file that's already been deleted. Citing the original Internet sources is nice, but it's not a huge step up on the verification process in many cases, and lack thereof does not prevent people for verifying them using Internet sources or paper sources themselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's obviously a scan of extremely old material, I'm not sure the Internet source is all that important for us. Really though we should document where we got them from, to give credit even though it's not germane to the copyright. But that can just as easily be updated as re-uploaded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
w:Battle of Cúl Dreimhne says that they do not predate the concept of copyright. By the time of most of those works, the basics of the copyright idea were in play; publishers had legal exclusivity of many of their works in Venice by the start of the 16th century.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Aha, Thank you. Perhaps you should edit the WP:EN article on Copyright, which was my source for the 18th century as the beginning of the concept. Of course, my comment was an aside -- whenever the concept started, these works have clearly been PD for centuries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Restoring (except one, scaled-down duplicate). Could you please fix the sources, and the authors. Yann (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. ★ Poké95 02:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)

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

File:max wingen 2004.jpg

Discovered that the copyright is not with me, so I have to look for another picture. Sorry. Klaus Wingen 02/07/2016 --Klaus Wingen (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've deleted it. --INeverCry 18:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:God Complex Cover.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the original artist of the image, thus own it. I may be confused about copyright in regards to the images uploaded here, but as the owner I should be able to upload it freely, correct? NPCZoey (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission/confirmation required. --INeverCry 18:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Xavierd80

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Multiple OTRS valid permissions received.

There is a huge amount of tickets for these files and their might be duplicated pictures. I will sort everything after restoration..

Main ticket (french) : otrs:8845285

--Scoopfinder(d) 17:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: They're all yours. --INeverCry 18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Growell-india-green-logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Growell India logo was made by Growell India via a paid competition on 99designs.com which can be seen here and is not a violation of any copyright. It is sole property of Growell India and is original content not made/ used by anyone else on the internet. An agreement of transfer of logo to Amit Goel - Marketing Director of Growell India can be seen here Josve05a‬ deleted the Growell Logo under suspicion that it may be a copyright violation. I request to kindly revert this deletion as it is Intellectual property of Growell India. Thanks. Dudegols2891 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If you intend to release your logo under a free license, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, using an official company email address. --Storkk (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lolita Aniyar de Castro - 2008.jpg

Hello,

I have contacted the author of this image and he updated the license to Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). The original file can be seen at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/periodismodepaz/2444744986/in/album-72157604746369572/

Is that all we need to undelete the file?

Thanks in advance, Maor X (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Now licensed under CC-BY-2.0, as confirmed in the Flickr page. Thanks for contacting the author to release this file under a free license. --★ Poké95 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do I need to re-upload the file? --Maor X (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. Looks good now. --Storkk (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:WineCom 160x44.png

This is the new updated wine.com logo and was uploaded by a wine.com employee. It is not a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyWojtczak (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per INC. Instructions to confirm license are at COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Marina Inoue-RINNE.jpg

File was deleted with the summary "Per nomination" (without considering de minimis and better solutions like cropping). I cropped the picture to remove the non-free elements, but the uploader undone that. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per INC. --Storkk (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg

Please restore File:First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg the official anthem of the Republic of Ingushetia, as this file may be freely distributed on the basis of {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Sheet music of the musical work also officially published in the law. Thanks. Adam-Yourist (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As you know from the deletion request, this is not enough. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adam-Yourist. Thuresson (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Is below source/info sufficient for the anthem to be considered to be in public domain in Russia?
From the "Public Domain. Textbook." by Sudarikov S.A.
"In the Russian Federation in the first category of un-copyrightable objects are ... state symbols and signs (flag, emblem, anthem, awards, banknotes and other signs)"
Aвторские Права. Учебник. Судариков С.А.:
В российской федерации к первой категории неохраняемых авторсим правом обьектов относятся ... государственные символы и знаки (флаг, герб, гимн, ордена, денежные и иные знаки)
LINK Rybkovich (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sheet music for the anthem may or may not be PD in Russia, but this is a performance, which is much more complicated. Music that is performed may have all of the following copyright holders:

  • Composer - may be covered by {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see below)
  • Lyricist - probably covered by PD-RU-exempt
  • Arranger - not covered by PD-RU-exempt
  • Performer(s) - not covered by PD-RU-exempt
  • Producer - not covered by PD-RU-exempt

{{PD-RU-exempt}} calls out "official documents". That probably includes the words to an anthem. It may well not include the music and certainly does not include the performance. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We also need a United States copyright tag. If this is a government work, then {{PD-RU-exempt}} maybe counts as {{PD-self}} in the United States, although that's debatable. It's also unclear if or to what extent the file is covered by {{PD-RU-exempt}} in the first place. If this isn't a government work, then {{PD-RU-exempt}} doesn't count as {{PD-self}}, per [1]: toys are "PD-JP-exempt" in Japan, but Japanese toys are copyrighted in the United States, and the same would apply to PD-RU-exempt works (at least non-government works), and therefore a different copyright tag needs to be identified for the United States copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Jim - Regarding a bigger issue - I disagree with your doubts about notes being exempt. Russian government anthems are listed as excluded from copyright in a copyright textbook. An anthem consists of both music (notes) and lyrics, I think that it is reasonable to think that if notes were a protected part of an anthem that would be specifically stated. There are problems with copyrighting the notes - there would need to be specific approval to print notes for music classes and performances, which would go against the patriotic purpose of an anthem.
Stefan2 - I think we should go with PD-RU-exempt as the rational assumption would be that it is a government work.Rybkovich (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why should we assume that the song is a government work? How many national anthems are there which are government works? The Swedish national anthem is not a government work, for example.
The template {{PD-RU-exempt}} lists four things which are not subject to category:
  1. Official documents: Based on the description, this only covers various legal and administrative texts. An anthem is not a legal or administrative text but a work of fiction, so it would not appear that the song is covered by this line.
  2. State symbols and signs: This only seems to cover works of art, based on the listed examples. A song is not a work of art.
  3. Works of folk art: A song is not a work of folk art.
  4. News reports on events and facts: This essentially seems to mean that Russia doesn't copyright facts, but that's not relevant here.
Furthermore, none of the examples seems to cover performances or sound recordings. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright status is unclear on several levels (performance, music, etc). --INeverCry 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:X0001 Regeln Einhorn2 blaugrün türkis ohne Rand 10x10 groß.png

What's wrong with this file? I can't see differences with my other files, e.g. thumb|left|387px|Großes Schach 10x10 Adler. Please tell me, what I should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schach100 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion yourself: Commons:Deletion requests/File:X0001 Regeln Einhorn2 blaugrün türkis ohne Rand 10x10 groß.png. You suggested there was a mistake with it that you presumably fixed with another upload. Requests by the uploader of this type would typically be respected -- so it would be up to you if it was restored or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Uploader requested deletion. No response for a week now on this UDEL. A new UDEL request can be filed if the image is needed. --INeverCry 18:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Aubrey arms up. 700X941.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061510021266. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please confirm ticket submitter is actually author, as specified in the note on the ticket. Most problematic is the first item (email signature field appears to be a totally different person to purported sender). Storkk (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Further information requested. I also have these doubts at the moment of requesting the UDEL. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please post a new UDEL request if/when the OTRS permission is sufficient. --INeverCry 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Karnatisk fiolin chowdiah spelar Manasa Srirama.ogg

User:Ellin Beltz - says no source, but gives no source for that claim. The source was given with https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Karnatisk_fiolin_chowdiah_spelar_Manasa_Srirama.ogg and on that page it says who plays. So what? 91.9.122.245 14:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the upload template, plus revisions until it was nominated as no source, read
{{No source since|month=May|day=29|year=2016}}
== {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information
|Description={{nn|Song: "Manasa srirama"<br> Ishamanohari raga<br> Adi tala<br> Instrument: Karnatisk fiolin<br> Spelar: Mysore T. Chowdiah}}
|Source={{transferred from|nn.wikipedia|}}
|Date=1944
|Author={{original uploader|Vadakkan|wikipedia|nn}}
|Permission=Denne songen var framført i 1944, og er ikkje verna av opphavsrett i Noreg i følgje åndsverkloven § 42.
|other_versions=}}
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{Author missing}}
{{Source missing}}
<!-- Templates "Template:PD-alder" were used in the original description page as well , but do not appear to exist on commons. --> [[:nn:Template:PD-alder]] = "Denne fila er offentleg eigedom (Public Domain) på grunn av at kopirettane har blitt forelda. Det vil seia at opphavsmannen døydde for minst 70 år sidan. Dette gjeld på verdsbasis." {{PD-old}}
== {{Original upload log}} ==
{{original description|nn.wikipedia|Karnatisk+fiolin+chowdiah+spelar+Manasa+Srirama.ogg}}
{| class="wikitable"
! {{int:filehist-datetime}} !! {{int:filehist-dimensions}} !! {{int:filehist-user}} !! {{int:filehist-comment}}
|-
| 2004-12-28 12:31 || 0×0× (1651955 bytes) || [[:nn:User:Vadakkan|Vadakkan]] || ''<nowiki>Songen "Manasa srirama", Ishamanohari raga, adi tala, spela på karnatisk fiolin av TM Chowdiah i 1944. Ikkje verna av opphavsrett Noreg i følgje åndsverkloven § 42.''|}
{{Uncategorized|year=2016|month=May|day=24}} <!-- Remove this line once you have added categories -->
As written in the upload template "|Source={{transferred from|nn.wikipedia|}}" is not a valid source. There is no indication on this file who is the author of the piece, or the source of the recording. The release of the person performing cannot release the copyright. The line "This song was performed in 1944, and is not protected by copyright in Norway in consequence Copyright Act § 42" would imply that any song performed in 1944 would be automatically free of copyright due to Norwegian law, and I don't really think that's possible. Additional information is needed which was not available at the time I closed the file. COM:EVID requires the uploader to provide complete information. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Copyrights for songs are often very difficult. Usually there are separate copyrights belonging to the composer, the lyricist, the arranger (unless the work is played exactly as composed), and the performer(s). In order to keep this you will have to prove that all of the relevant copyrights have expired or been freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Performed songs have several copyrights. We need valid copyright tags from both the source country and the United States. Norway doesn't seem to be the source country for any of the copyrights, so the copyright status in Norway appears to be irrelevant.
The copyright to the song belongs to the composer, and the source country is the country in which the song was first published (not necessarily the same country as the country in which the song was made). nn:Fil:Karnatisk fiolin chowdiah spelar Manasa Srirama.ogg states that the composer is w:Tyagaraja. Since the composer died in the 19th century, the composer's copyright should have expired in all countries worldwide (so we do not need to identify the source country).
The copyright to the performance belongs to the performer, and the source country of a performance is the country where the performance was made (not where it was first published). Almost all countries seem to protect performances for 50 years since the performance was made. This also appears to be the case in India, where the performer and composer seem to have been residents (see [2] page 26, article 38). If the performance was made in 1944, then it is presumably fine in the source country. Performances do not seem to be copyrighted at all in the United States, so the performance is probably also fine in the United States. However, we do not have any evidence that the performance was made in 1944, so we would need to find evidence of this before we can make any assumptions about the performance.
The copyright to the sound recording belongs to the person who created the sound recording, and the source country of a sound recording is the country where the sound recording was made (not published). In most countries, the copyright to sound recordings expire between 50 and 70 years after the sound recording was first published. In India, where the performer and composer seem to have been residents, the copyright expires 60 years after publication. We don't have any evidence of publication, but it might be reasonable to assume that the recording was made for the purpose of being published and that it was therefore published shortly after it was recorded, so if the song was recorded in 1944 (of which we have no evidence), then it's probably in the public domain in the source country. If the sound recording was created in 1944, then it was created before 1972, and according to m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972#What This Means for the Wikimedia Community, the copyright rules for old sound recordings are complex and different in different states. Therefore, in order to undelete this, the uploader would need to find out what the rules are in the states which are relevant for us (not sure which ones) and prove that the file is in the public domain in those states. It seems to be difficult to find the correct rules for each state. Also, depending on the source country of the sound recording, the sound recording might be protected by copyright in the United States under COM:URAA, so the source country needs to be identified in order to determine that. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ellin, Jim, and Stefan as above. --INeverCry 18:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Shinsuke Nakamura Pose.jpg

The source of this image was clearly attributed to a reddit user, who in turn released it for any usage via comments on their original submission. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 100.34.89.189 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This image came from https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/4nlma9/grabbed_a_good_photo_of_nakamura_during_the_6916/. We don't see reddit much here, so I had to look around a bit. I see "© 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the page. I also see "Feel free to use it anywhere. I don't need any credit." That's not an irrevocable free release as required by Commons:Licensing -- he could change his mind at any time. It also doesn't get around the fact that reddit inc. claims copyright in all images on their site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Reddit cannot claim copyright over photographs of others. That would only be for content they author, so their copyright notice is meaningless to any user content, and not relevant here. The license from the user... hrm. It's more or less what {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is, though it's a bit loose and unspecific. I probably wouldn't vote to delete it if uploaded, but I can see perhaps asking for a more formal license as well (like CC0). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Formal free license required. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. --INeverCry 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Leung Tsang.png

I am creating an article for my advisor Prof. Leung Tsang. This picture is from his personal webpage and since he is famous, you can find this picture anywhere on the internet. http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~leutsang/LT_files/tsang100.png This is his homepage and in fact it is me who create his homepage. I am not quite clear what to do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joestc (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please read and obey WP:COI. Creating a WP:EN page for your professor is a violation of WMF policy. Doing it without disclosing your conflict of interest is a serious violation of policy and may lead to your being blocked from editing.

Second, the image appears on several pages with clear copyright notices. They may or may not be valid, but in any event, the copyright almost certainly rests with the photographer and not the subject. In order to have the image restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from photographer/copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Misplaced, untitled section from the top of the page

Respected Sir/ma'am, My name is Siddhant Dixit and I the founder/CEO at CRASS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. I have my account on wikipedia as Siddhant1998 from which I made a page of my company CRASS Infotech.Later I saw that my Company's logo was deleted from the page.I am the owner of CRASS Infotech and all the logos and trademarks have copyright.Please do look into this matter and restore the logo of my company . Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhant1998 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 03 July 2016 (UTC)

Siddhant1998: Please read Commons:Guidance for paid editors, which covers your situation, and then go be a spammer somewhere else. I've tagged the promotional article that you created on English Wikipedia for deletion as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:ADVERT. --INeverCry 18:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vértes György rajzos válasza Film Színház Muzsika 1972-es évkönyvében.jpg

Per OTRS ticket 2016061710004996. --Regasterios (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Regasterios: Go ahead and add the OTRS ticket. --INeverCry 18:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:VisitCIMM.jpg

I am requesting that you undelete this picture as it is my own work.

--InarusT (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This photo has been published previously by the Cleveland Mine Museum. Please ask the museum to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Makkovik sunset.png

I was the original uploader to Wikipedia and was happy someone else moved it to Commons. Yes it was scanned from a paper copy. If you want, I can re-save it as a jpeg. Verne Equinox (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:神戸の夕焼け1982、Img747.jpg. Obviously a useful photograph for the article Makkovik. @Verne Equinox: would it be possible to upload it as JPEG instead? Thuresson (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Now I'll have to go find it. It's around here somewhere ... Verne Equinox (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Looks like a jpg will be uploaded. If the png is needed, a new UDEL request can be filed. --INeverCry 19:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Crâne 17 de la Sima de los Huesos.jpg

Hello, the file comes from a PLOS One article that can be found here. PLOS One CC-BY-4.0 licencing is here. The admin at the origin of the deletion is not actually sure about it and would like another admin's advice. Thanks ! -- UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: actual file is File:Crâne_17_de_la_Sima_de_los_Huesos.png. There are two other files as well: File:Biface de la Sima de los Huesos.jpg and File:Coupe statigraphique du sol de la Sima de los Huesos.png are from the same article.  Support all three. Storkk (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Tanks ! Actually the stratigraphic sequence picture was not perfect for the article so I made the most of the deletion by drawing a personal one. Unfortunately the handaxe picture, which is such a wonderful one, is not from the article but from someone who put the CC-NC-BY-SA licence on it. It was deleted because I did not ask for a ticket (im new here) and in between I realized I also misread the licence, the non-commercial thing preventing it from being on Commons. Still undeleting the skull would be particularly great --UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw two and assumed the handaxe was there as well. I see now that it's not. Thanks for correcting me. Storkk (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: PLOS One is CC-BY-4.0 as claimed by uploader. --Storkk (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:avant_garde_cover_preview_700_700(1).jpg

The reasons this file should not be deleted. It is simply because the file properties indicate a creation date of {Friday, December 19, 2014, 9:37:08 PM) The art in question is cover art from a commercially available music album that is common practice to promote on the worldwide web. The file originates from SIX2SIX Records from which i represent as VP and art director. The uploaded with its unique creation date could not have appeared anywhere until we uploaded online for our publicist and record distributors to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethruler (talk • contribs) 04:26, 04 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: @Sethruler: We only accept media with licenses that permit usage by anybody for any purpose (including commercial). If you own the copyright and wish to license the cover art under a free license, please confirm that by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. You will likely need to demonstrate your legal ability to license the intellectual property. --Storkk (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:1-2-3.jpg.jpg

Please, return this file, cause Author rights belongs to me.--Normunds Rutulis (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Normunds Rutulis: please confirm this by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Upon confirmation, an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS-confirmation needed#. --Storkk (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lisa Adams.jpg

{{File:Lisa Adams.jpg}} EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Though the file in question was in fact posted at http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-05-30-LisaAdams5.jpg this image was supplied to the Huffington Post BY ME, where I am currently a blogger for the Arts and Culture page and have been since 2010. This is a photograph created by me and used by me on the huffington post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biirdy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 01 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this was published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons, you should send a quick permission email through COM:OTRS to confirm that you're the copyright holder. It's a pretty easy straight-forward process and will protect your copyright and Commons. INeverCry 05:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This file is not deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lisa Adams.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KIM150922257509.jpg

无框|河村友歌

無侵權，是為該圖片的網站上傳(PAKUTASO)*https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAKUTASO 

                                      *https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAKUTASO
Google translate: "No infringement is to upload images for website". This photo has been published elsewhere before uploaded here. Please clarify why this particular image should be restored. Thuresson (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Kondrashin Nikolaу autoritratto-1.jpg

Прошу восстановить файл в связи с тем,что являюсь наследником архивов семьи Кондрашина Н.М. и считаю обладаю правами на это изображение. Kgsjd5 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Kgsjd5: По умолчанию, владельцем авторских прав на фотографии является их создатель - фотограф. Все остальные лица обладают лишь правами на экземляр (фотокарточку). Является ли Кондрашин Н.М. фотографом или каким образом он получил авторские права от фотографа? --sasha (krassotkin) 11:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @krassotkin подскажите тогда пожалуйста как мне поступить?Как правильно оформить файл?Значит в имени файла мне надо написать имя фотографа? Kgsjd5 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Kgsjd5: На мой взгляд, лучшим способом будет описать все подробности не публично, а письмом в OTRS, приложив этот файл и ссылки на это и другие связанные обсуждения. Там можно описать всё подробно в свободной форме - кто что снимал, кто загружал, кто кому приходится родственником и каким образом права от этих людей перешли к загружающему. Только поставьте себя на место сторонних людей, которые Вас не знают, но должны максимально убедиться в достоверности Ваших слов - нужно привести как можно более прозрачные пояснения. Если OTRS-агенты убедятся, что всё соответствует законам об авторском праве, они сами сюда напишут свою резолюцию или повторно загрузят файл с необходимыми разрешениями. Дополнительную информацию, стандартное разрешение и адрес для письма можно взять тут Commons:OTRS/ru. Если доберусь, то может даже сам там посмотрю. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Before I have recommended to send details to OTRS. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Ladislaus Weiss, 1994.jpg

Hallo Zusammen, ich habe nun die Bildrechte an dem Portrai von ladislaus Weiss erhalten. Hat leider etwas länger gedauert. Ist es irgendwie möglich, dass Bild wieder auf die Seite von Weiss einzufügen? LG --MissBoo2312 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

OTRS erforderlich, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ladislaus Weiss, 1994.jpg --Frze > talk 17:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:CIMMLogoMasthead.svg

Again, I am requesting that this is undeleted as it is the official logo of the Museum and I created it.

--InarusT (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the logo of the Cleveland Mining Museum. Please ask an official representative of the museum to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Oxjam Portobello.jpg

This logo was designed by me, I gave copyright permission when the file was uploaded.

This request shouldnt have been actioned without prior warning. Please reinstate the image asap

--Davidmorgans (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yakov Rubinstein.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Portrait shot by User:Tanyarubinhoro (Tanya Rubinstein-Horowitz) in Moscow, USSR, ca. 1975. Rotakiwi (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rotakiwi and Tanyarubinhoro: please have Ms. Rubinstein-Horowitz confirm that she is the original photographer by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

BK Syngal - Photograph - New.jpg

The image I had used on the Wikipedia of Mr. Syngal was exclusively shared by Mr. Syngal to me privately for the purposes of the Wikipedia page. I cannot see how that would be a cause for copyright violation. If you've any doubts on the veracity of the image, please feel free to contact the subject of the Wiki page as well for verification at: syngal@duaconsulting.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjash13 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 05 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. Please ask the copyright owner, usually the photographer, to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Texada Tia.jpg is my own photo

This is my own photo and is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiaTia2222 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 06 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo by Stephanie Girard, published elsewhere. The copyright owner should go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg

The image in question File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg should be undeleted and restored for these reasons:

  1. Wikipedia's long-standing use of trademarks in related discussion involving the trademarks; such use is a reference so the user knows what the trademark looks like related to the page topic.
  2. Wikipedia's long-standing use of photographs of directional signs containing copyrighted material; such use is a reference so a reader knows what to look for.
  3. The submitter is the author of the photo, and the photo was properly submitted to Wikipedia. Gfgbeach (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Image is of a trademark, Shanghai Disneyland Fastpass. Image is a reference to discussion of the use of that trademark in Disney's Fastpass.

File:Oreo Cookie logo.png
Wikipedia's reference of the Oreo trademark
MTA Trademarked logo in Wikipedia page

Defense of this reference use is that it equivalent to Wikipedia's long-standing reference of the Oreo trademark in discussion of the Oreo cookie. Or Wikipedia's long-standing reference of the MTA trademark in discussion of the New York City area transit system.

The Wikipedia's Disney's Fastpass page also has long-standing Wikipedia references to 2 other Fastpass trademarks. The image in question File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg is significantly different from the other Fastpass trademarks pre-existing in the page. :Fastpass Logo and FP+ logo See the talk at Add Shanghai Disneyland Fastpass for discussion of the ingenious differences in this Shanghai Fastpass logo trademark.

The image in question File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg is also a photograph of a directional sign in an overall related topic. Wikipedia has many similar approved photographs of directional signs in an overall related topics. Directional signs often have copyrighted material, such as fonts. One may not use a copyrighted font without license. However, a reference photograph of that use of a font is not using that font, it's a reference of a sign so that the reader knows what to look for.

Photograph in Wikipedia of copyrighted glyphs of a font
A long-standing Wikipedia photograph of a directional sign with a copyrighted font is seen here. A photo of a portion of a New York City subway directional sign. This sign contains the copyrighted Helvetica font. The purpose of the photograph is a reference so that the reader knows what to look for.

The photo in question File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg is of a portion of an overall sign, so the reader knows what to look for.

Wikipedia also has a separate page Helvetica with many examples of the Helvetica glyphs, and the history of Helvetica in MTA's New York City Subway. This Helvetica page also describes details of the glyphs.

The photo in question File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg is to be used in a paragraph describing the details of the glyphs. The trademark ingeniously combines a Chinese glyph with two Roman glyphs. See the talk at Add Shanghai Disneyland Fastpass Gfgbeach (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia but Wikicommons, a web site for freely licensed or public domain images. Hence your arguments are irrelevant. Thuresson (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If the elements depicted in the deleted photo is bellow the COM:TOO (like the referenced files above), then, "Copyright violation" without a detailed reason was not a valid reasoning for deletion. If you aren't unable to follow the arguments by Gfgbeach, then follow the U.S. Copyright law and explain if the deleted logo is above or bellow the TOO (if bellow, then, restore). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The "clever" combination is not a copyrightable aspect for the U.S. -- it would still be lettering and not enough elements for an arrangement copyright. If first published in China, then we might look at Chinese law too, which is where things are unsure. The Chinese copyright law does specifically say "calligraphy" -- that is different than simple lettering though. Pretty sure this would not count as calligraphy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
As the one who nominated the image originally for speedy deletion as a logo, I have to remain strongly  Opposeed. The logo seems to be past the point of simple letters and/or shapes of the threshold of originality. As for Amitie 10g's argument, the Shanghai Resort is owned by Disney and the Shanghai Shendi Group. Since the logo is not transferred from the US and is instead a new logo, the fact that Disney is a US company does not apply. In fact, Disney has never translated the logo before, even in the one other location where Roman letters are not used in the primary or secondary language, Tokyo Disneyland, as shown on this Japanese map (in an even more confusing twist, that resort isn't owned by Disney, but is licensed by them to OLC, but I digress). However, my biggest reason that I oppose this undeletion is the fact that Gfgbeach has reuploaded the image already (for which I opened a normal deletion request), and after the reupload, decided to open this undeletion request and the one below it. Elisfkc (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably should not have been speedied in the first place -- it is not cut and dry; speedy should be for obvious copyright problems. It's not past the U.S. threshold of originality, at the very least. Less sure on China. Let's just decide on the country of origin and decide on their law. The Chinese law mentions calligraphy, but that is a hand-painting art, not just any lettering. Unsure if there is any aspect that would qualify as copyrightable there or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: We can discuss it here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:FP-Shanghai-Wiki.jpg. --Natuur12 (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Shanghai-Disneyland-FP-logo.jpg

Same undelete request and discussion as at File:FP-Shanghai-Wikipedia.jpg

Gfgbeach (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Image is a dupe and please discuss it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:FP-Shanghai-Wiki.jpg. --Natuur12 (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Khanty script with codepoints.gif

File is marked PD-ineligible at mhr:Файл:Хант2.gif. File transfer not possible since the deleted file is the same. 91.9.115.46 14:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-ineligible. --Storkk (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Request by User:Bv Parikh

Gus..I have taken the permission no issue of copyright..!! Pls undelete it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bv Parikh (talk • contribs) 12:48, 05 July 2016 (UTC)

For images that have been published before, the copyright holder needs to send permission to COM:OTRS. --rimshottalk 06:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Matthias Morgenroth.jpg

This File was handed to me explicitly for publishing it here by Matthias Morgenroth himself. We talked about the rights before and even when the image appeared in the internet before, he has all rights for it and wants it to be published here. I requested him to send an email to permissions-de@wikimedia.org. --Johannes Horak (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose When you first uploaded the photo you claimed that you are the photographer and own the copyright. If a mail has been sent to the OTRS team a volunteer will process it in due order. This may or may not take some time. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Photographer must confirm the license by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BuggedPlanet Logo.png

Not sure why it was deleted. The logo comes from http://buggedplanet.info/index.php?title=Main_Page which states "Content is available under Public Domain unless otherwise noted." --Fixuture (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-ineligible. Thanks!. --Storkk (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gugudan.full.49688.jpg

1. Technically if you have not seen already , this photo is not under any copyrights 2. The photo has been modified to be considered my personal work , thus would not be further under any copyright

 Oppose Apparently you took a still from this video to create the image in question. The video is in fact copyrighted and non-free. Copyright is granted by default to the authors of any creative work like this. And the making of modifications of an original copyrighted work requires the consent of the original copyright holder. I.e. before you can claim your own copyright for your derivative work, you need to have permission from the original authors to modify their work. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from video copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Khanty script.gif

File is marked PD-ineligible at mhr:Файл:Хант.gif. File transfer not possible since the deleted file is the same. 91.9.115.46 16:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No deleted file presented for undeletion. --INeverCry 01:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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

I hold the copyright for this picture, because I am the filmmaker (Johannes Grenzfurthner) in question. It's perfectly ok to use this image on WikiCommons to illustrate my movie. Grenz (talk)

Hallo Grenz, für solche Freigaben brauchen wir leider eine Email. Eine Anleitung, wie das funktioniert, findet man unter COM:OTRS. Vielen Dank für das Bild und viele Grüße, De728631 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sam Charles Painting.png

I own the painting and its copyright. Please do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.208.204.182 (talk) 19:13, 06 July 2016 (UTC)

Owning a painting or a copy thereof does not normally make you the copyright holder. If you obtain a painting, the copyright rests with the artist unless the painter is deceased and you inherited his work. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I own the painting and its copyright. The artist is deceased and I inherited the painting. Please do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTParker1000 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 06 July 2016 (UTC)
When you uploaded File:Eve Ryder Painting - 1.png you claimed "So far as I know, when the artist gave me the painting that included the copyright to it (The artist is deceased, so it's too late to ask her now). However, in case not, the picture also qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia under fair use." Copyright do not lie with who owns a painting but normally with the artist. You need a permission from the artist or from whoever the copyright has ben transferred to after her death to be allowed to license photos of the painting. Thuresson (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Prof. Ramulu Mamidala.jpg

The file is not copyright. It is provided by Prof. Ramulu Mamidala itself and has been uploaded on the research website by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishipahuja2004 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 06 July 2016 (UTC)

Previously published with a claim of copyright by University of Washington here. Thuresson (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Flag of EWR.png

--101szm (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This file has not ben deleted. Thuresson (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --INeverCry 01:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

This the high school logo and shouldn't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelramLL (talk • contribs) 00:39, 04 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is about File:Legacy Longhorn L3.png. You claim that you created this logo in April 2016 but a high school in Nevada has used this logo at the very least since 2014 ([3]). Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. Logo belongs to a school. --INeverCry 04:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Theodor Bastard promo photo.jpg

Hi! This photo is the promo photo of the band 'Theodor Bastard'. It uses on huge amount of different sites and resources. Because we (Theodor Bastard band) give permissions to do this. What documents do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aokoroko (talk • contribs) 14:29, 05 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to send an email of consent to Commons. Please note though, that only the original photographer can release an image under a free licence. Owning a physical or digital copy of your promo shoot does not make you the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 04:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mamadou DIABY URLC.jpg

I have uploaded a picture of my friend to create his wikipage but you've deleted it without any concrete proof of copyright violation. I think that Wikipedia should rethink dits way of copyright vérification because it's way too anarchic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christdca (talk • contribs) 21:49, 06 July 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded on July 6, 2016. Previously published on March 30, 2015, by Le Nouvelle Gazette here. Thuresson (talk)"

 Not done: Previously published. OTRS permission from copyright holder required. It's "archaic" btw. --INeverCry 04:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lisa Heller with Rachel Platten.jpg

We have 100% rights to the picture and it should be readded to the Lisa_Heller page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljhpublishing (talk • contribs) 07:52, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

This image was previously published on the web. Please follow OTRS procedure to confirm you have the rights to publish it. BrightRaven (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lisa Heller NYC.jpg

WE HAVE 100% rights to this picture, we represent Lisa Heller and the photographer gave her permission. PLEASE re- add immediately. This is so irritating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljhpublishing (talk • contribs) 07:53, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

This image was previously published on the web. Please follow OTRS procedure to confirm you have the rights to publish it. BrightRaven (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jean-Pierre Vielfaure 13.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission received and alright. ticket:201606141001332 Scoopfinder(d) 08:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: Please add the tickets. --INeverCry 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Doume grave

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016042010007114 received and valid. Scoopfinder(d) 08:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: Please add the tickets. --INeverCry 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Catedral de San Cristóbal de las Casas 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: :The commons uploader flickr account is here and you can find the image in question here on his flickr account. The image on the website that was used for the deletion request is lower resolution than the original. Also the image has been uploaded to flickr and commons since 2013, so it is understandable to find it in use on other websites after 3 years. The image had been here since 2013, no DMCA notices had been made in those 3 years, the user has uploaded many other high quality images. The website in question also has another commons image in use on the same page (again at a lower resolution), but that doesn't mean we also delete that image from commons. Evidence points to the image originating from our uploader gameoflight so the image should be undeleted. Offnfopt(talk) 13:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I agree that this looks like the original, making my deletion a mistake. I've restored the image and switched to keep on the DR. --INeverCry 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tortelli - Orthographia Graeca.djvu

According to the deletion log, the file was deleted before someone could provide date and authorship information.

Well, here it is:

Johannes <Tortellius> / Nicolaus <Papa, V.>: De orthographia dictionum e Graecis tractarum, mit Vorrede des Autors an Papst Nicolaus V., Venedig, 1471 [BSB-Ink T-384 - GW M47219]

Source: [4]

So the book is over half a century millennium old, putting it in the public domain. 80.114.146.117 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Half a century is 50 years -- copyright lasts much longer than that. However, I think you meant to say half a millennia -- 500 years old. Yes, for those, copyright is long expired. The only chance would be if it was a modern republication with additional matter -- the additional matter could have a copyright. The UK (if a UK publication) has a 25-year typographical arrangement copyright. If this avoids those situations, then  Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

‘I think you meant to say half a millennia’ — Yes of course. Looking back at my post I cannot fathom how I got that wrong; I'm also well aware that copyright terms are really long (like 70 years after the author's death) so this wasn't a maths error. Anyway, as for your question, I think the Bavarian library would have mentioned it if it was a republication and going by the scans it doesn't look like something printed recently. Granted, you could print and bind any book and make it look like a film prop if you really wanted to, but why would you? 80.114.146.117 23:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Possibly unfree OpenStreetMap images

This is an administration category (part of Category:Copyright violations). @JuTa: could you explain why you deleted it? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it was empty and there was no real hint that it is still activ in use. Anyhow: its back now. I left such a hint now on the description. --JuTa 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Microscope polarisant.ogg terms of use for this video have been modified

Deletion was asked because previous terms of use of this animation were retricted to non-commercial reuse only. But we have now removed this mention so that it can be compatible with commons.wikimedia terms of use.

So could the file be undeleted and put back in commons.wiki  ?

Thanks Julien Bobroff (I write here on behalf of the authors and producers of these animations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubobroff (talk • contribs) 08:50, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

"Works on this website (video, leaflet, poster) are free to download." does not look like a valid permission. You need to precise explicitely that it is free to use and modify. --Scoopfinder(d) 09:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Julien, you should go with something like this: "Works on this website (video, leaflet, poster) are free to download under the CC-BY-3.0 license". There are other licenses available at COM:L, but CC-BY-3.0 is very widely used. INeverCry 18:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Clear free license needed as noted above. --INeverCry 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sven Nilsson.jpg (OTRS received and duly registered)

Hi! I'm a bit startled that this deletion request went through on 4 July, despite the fact that the licensing by the photographer was received and processed on 1 of July (three days earlier). The permission from the photographer (duly entered in the appropriate place) was added on that same day. Here is my own public log for the day. I, as an OTRS volunteer, received the e-mail containing the licensing info, considered it to be in good order and entered the info as {{PermissionOTRS|id=2016070110007618}}, at the same time removing the by then dated deletion request link. I thought that it by then was unnecessary to add the info om the deletion request page, as the updated file presentation page info would speak on its own accord. Maybe I was wrong. Please check the quality of that permission, if unsure. Best, though a bit bewildered, of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per OTRS. --INeverCry 17:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Wappen Weiz.jpg

Was deleted as duplicate, but it was a clear example of what {{BadJPEG}} is, see there!? ↔ User: Perhelion 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --INeverCry 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Fantine Harduin.jpg

Hi,

Please restore File:Fantine Harduin.jpg per Template:OTRS ticket.

Thank you. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored (+ added to her fr.wiki article). --INeverCry 21:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AFCC Exhibition Catalog.jpg

The picture and the catalog are made by me. Tvkosone (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tvkosone: Hello, if you are the copyright holder of 'the picture and the catalog, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release your catalog and picture under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 07:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Kaan Akalın - NYC Profile.jpg

Hello, This image does not contain any copyright violation. You may check it from copyright@kaankalin.net if needed. However as I placed the image as no copyright required, it really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayipadam (talk • contribs) 23:32, 09 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kayipadam: Hello, please ask the copyright holder to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the copyright holder irrevocably agree to release their file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 07:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello email sent after requested from artists manager. Please undelete this file aswell: File:Kaan Akalın - Arar Mı? Album Cover Art.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayipadam (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Oschwartz2009.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2015121710020235 - Valid permission Scoopfinder(d) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Scoopfinder Please add the ticket. --INeverCry 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Didier A..CHARTIER

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2015122710011637 - Valid permission received. There might be duplicates or other problems with this file that I will solve as soon as they are restored. Scoopfinder(d) 14:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Scoopfinder Please add the tickets. --INeverCry 16:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mynewt Logo.jpg

File:Mynewt Logo.jpg

Apache Mynewt is a fully open source project under Apache Software Foundation and this is the project mascot. The persons who associated a work with this deed have dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission, just like the codebase in the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditihilbert (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeThe software and the logo is covered by the Apache License, v2.0 which has some fairly difficult provisions, see [5]. Among other things, any use of anything covered by the license must include a text copy of the full license, which you did not do. You also claimed that the logo was your own work, which is a violation of the license and put a CC-BY-SA license on it, which also violates the Apache license.
Finally, the Apache License says:
"This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."
Since the logo is a trademark of Apache, any use of the logo must fall within those restrictions. That is far more restrictive than is acceptable here. For example, a Commons image must be free for someone to silk screen it on to t-shirts and sell them. That is plainly prohibited by the Apache license.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The Apache License v2 is a free license. Any trademark restrictions are not relevant to keeping a file here -- those are non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg, I think you misunderstand the language. It explicitly carves out anything that is a trademark from the license. While we are, as you say, not concerned with trademark restrictions, the logo is a trademark and therefore is not covered by the free license, but only by the very limited (and unacceptable to Commons) permission I quoted above. As you surely know, it is not all unusual for organizations which freely license their work product to restrict use of their logo on both trademark and copyright grounds. WMF is, of course, one such organization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: That depends on how you interpret the word "use" in that sentence. If you interpret it to mean use in the copyright sense, then you may be correct. However if you interpret it to mean use in the trademark sense, then it is only stating that the copyright license does not affect the trademark rights in any way -- if a trademark also exists, then the trademark rights exist in full and must be complied with. The latter interpretation makes the most sense to me -- they put the Apache license directly in the source of File:ASF-logo.svg, which would be nonsensical if it automatically excluded the entire file. Secondly, their trademark license page explicitly says: Unlike ASF's word trademarks (such as "Apache" and "Foo"), our graphic logos are also licensed to the public under the Apache License. That license permits you to create derivative works of those logos, as with any other Apache copyrighted work. However, trademark law does not allow you to apply any "confusingly similar" derivative logo to software if a relevant consumer would likely be confused by that use of that derivative logo. So, that would appear that they mean to interpret the word in the trademark sense -- you are free to use such works in the copyright sense so long as it is not a use (i.e. something which is likely to be confused with being associated with Apache) in the trademark sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Carl -- So you're saying that, to use my example, one could silk screen a batch of tee shirts and sell them with this logo and not violate the paragraph I quoted above? They may say that in the place you quoted, but it seems to me that the license itself carves out a clear exception to the generality of the license for anything that has the status of trademark. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: You would not be violating copyright. You would be violating trademark. The license means you could not be sued for the former, but does not protect you at all from the latter. That to me is all the license is saying -- just because there is a "free" license on the copyright does not mean you can then ignore trademark laws. You need to obtain a separate license for those rights if you want to use them. There are lots of possible copyright derivative works though (using just a part of the drawing) which no longer look anything like the trademark and as such would not be a trademark violation anymore -- and the license means such uses should not be a copyright violation either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Carl -- You're still missing the point -- the Apache license explicitly says that the free copyright license does not cover things which are trademarked. It's not a trademark issue -- it's that the license use "trademark" as a shorthand descriptor for a set of things, including the subject logo, that are not included in the free copyright license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: -- Not in my opinion, and not according to the statement on Apache's trademark page. Their graphic logos are fully licensed under the Apache License. The clause simply states that the copyright license does not affect the trademark, i.e. it grants no rights to use such works in a trademark sense. If what you say is true, then Apache is incorrect when they say our graphic logos are also licensed to the public under the Apache License. In the context of that clause, the word "use" is not referring to the copyright, but to the trademark, and thus does not exclude the copyright aspects from being licensed. As such, it's no different than any other PD-ineligible trademark we have hosted -- there is no copyright for those, but that does not affect the trademark, so re-users still have no right to use the trademark (outside of trademark fair use, as mentioned in the Apache License). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that the license and their description of the license differ. However, as a matter of simple law, in that case we must obey the license. That sets very clear limits -- unacceptable to Commons -- on any use of those things that are "trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that they differ. To me, the license text states exactly what they say on their trademark page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact that other things exist is not a reason why this or any of the others should be kept here. The restriction I quoted is very explicit and is clearly not acceptable to Commons. As I noted above, you would clearly be violating the Apache license if you sold t-shirts with the logo on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Jim, the license does not apply to the logo. It is explicitely excluded in paragraph 6. A logo is a trademark as a design that identifies something from another thing. Then if the license does not cover trademarks = license does not cover design that identifies some product from another product = license does not cover logos. No matter if we don't care about trademarks, we care about license and about its explicit restrictions. And above all we care that the license does not cover. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  No, this apply only to the Trademark, not to the logos (binary files) themselves. If the logo is found in the Source tree of the software, then, it is covered under the license as part of the source code (the source code is not limited to text files, but also to binaries like media files). This applied historically to all logos of ASF products licensed under the Apache license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs)
 Comment I see some confusion here on relations of copyright rights and trademark rights. It is essential to understand that logo is subject of both of these rights. Logo being a trademark doesn't exclude it from being a work for which one can apply a free copyright license regardless of rather restrictive trademark protection. Non-copyright rights may make it difficult to follow the criteria given by the definition of free cultural work (as refered in Commons licensing policy), but they don't exclude a free (in sense of copyright) work from Commons. That's what COM:NCR is all about, isn't it? It's just up to reusers to take in account that other rights than copyright rights may apply too.
What the Apache License says on trademarks should be understand in a way that the trademark rights aren't released to the same extent as are other rights (i.e. copyright rights). It does not specifically say copyright rights are not released for a specific work (i.e. logo).
Now, as refered by Carl above, if Apache's trademark license page explicitly says that our graphic logos are also licensed to the public under the Apache License then there shouldn't much of a doubt that this free license applys to logos. There is no contradiction keeping in mind that copyright rights and trademark rights are different things.
By the way, we have already kept a bunch of logos where heavily restrictive trademark rights apply, but which at the same time are explicitly released under a free copyright license, e.g. this. 90.191.109.9 09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no confusion between trademark and copyright -- as I have tried to point out in several ways above, the license use the word "trademark" only as an identifier for things that are not covered by the general license, but only by the more specific and unnaceptable terms I quoted above. It is true that they describe the license as including logos, but the plain wording of the license excludes them. In a case where the license and their description of the license differ, we must follow the more restrictive terms of the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't suggest that the license and trademark license page differ, and I think that neither did Carl. The license only clarifys that trademark rights for the logo (as a trademark) are mostly not released. This doesn't contradict with releasing copyright rights for the same logo (as a work, not trademark) per free license. The term that you quoted is about using trade names, trademarks etc. (i.e. in sense of trademark rights), not about using a logo as a copyright subject. This means that the license excludes trademark rights, which is different from excluding a logo (trademark) that is as well a subject of copyright rights. 90.191.109.9 11:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, the Trademark restrictions apply only to the Trademark, not the media files themselves (aka. the files depicting logos in raster or vector formats, and this is specially true if the source of the logos found in the Source tree repository is SVG; this is why the Mozilla Firefox logo have different licenses for raster and vector source files). That paragraph indicates that it exludes the uses of the Trademarks under the Trademark Law (selling T-shirts with the logos are a Trademark violation), but that does not mean that it forbids the use of the logos (namely, media files depicting logos) in some way under Copyright (since the License is a Copyright agreement, again, every file part of the source code is covered under the License, even media files, unless a separated agreement inside the Source tree —the «NOTICE» file— explicitely exclude some filenames and directories), and it includes uploading these logos to Commons (Trademark restrictions does not apply to Commons, everyone know that).
Keeping this file deleted following the misinterpretation of the Apache License will make a very bad precedent: The Apache License is a free license approved by the FSF and acceped in Commons for years. So, due your interpretation of the Apache License, every file containing any ASF product logo should be deleted, and that incude screenshots of HTTP Server, Tomcat, etc (files widely in use, and the depicted logos are integral part of the screenshot, and even, them are part of the software). Therefore. their deletions will be very disruptive.
Finally, the only who are allowed to request the removal of these kind of files due copyvio (by the nature of the Free Licenses) is the Copyright Holder (the ASF), and Commons was never received a DMCA takedown for the use of the logos, simply because there are no copyvio (but maybe uses outsaide the Trademark, and that does not matter, and I doubt that the ASF will take care with that, specially taking actions against the WMF and its projects). --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not read the license as excluding logos or other trademarks. It simply says that the fact they are licensed under the Apache License does not give you the right to use the trademarks in violation of trademark law. I don't read it as excluding anything at all from the license (unlike the {{OGL}}, which does exclude symbols). That interpretation is backed up by the explanation on the trademark page; they state the same thing to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I am sorry Jim but I am with Carl on this one. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:SCDSB_tagline.svg

A website saying their works are not in the public domain means nothing if they are COM:TOO simple. Under Canadian copyright law, "A creativity standard implies that something must be novel or non-obvious — concepts more properly associated with patent law than copyright law. And for these reasons, I conclude that an “original” work under the Copyright Act is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work. That alone, however, is not sufficient to find that something is original. In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise."

I would like to know how this text constitutes as "skill" (typing and choosing a colour is not skill whatsoever) and used "judgement". SVG was hand made by myself. As reference to those who can not view the file since it is deleted, a copy is available here https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/HFY4WXas/ (please do no upload this to commons, as we don't need two copies while a dispute is currently in process). Thank you. --CoolCanuck eh? 23:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support The font (glyphs) is too simple, imo to be considered copyrightable, especially since it is drawn and not incorporated in the svg code as a font. The vector image that is displayed is also too simple, so I support an undeletion of this file. Josve05a (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Josve. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sculpture Mob in Graz, Austria.jpg

I am the author and copyright holder of this photo. I license this image for use under Creative Commons Attribution/Sharealike. I received a notification that it was marked for deleted for "possible copyright infringement" and in that notification I was asked to respond to justify why it shouldn't be deleted on the image's talk page. Less than 30 minutes later, as I'm responding, it's deleted! It's as if you don't actually want content creators to contribute here. --Ekai (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Support The problem was that the image was apparently licensed as CreativeCommons-Non-Commercial at Flickr when you uploaded it at Commons. And although you granted a free "commercial" CC licence for your upload at Commons, in such cases we can never be sure who is the original photographer – the person on Flickr or you behind the Wikimedia account or are they the same? We get all sorts of ownership claims every day so please understand that a mere statement on the talk page is usually not enough to prevent speedy deletion.
But apparently you have now changed the Flickr licence too, so we should be able to restore the image over here with the same 2.0 licence. In my book this is proof of authorship, so I think we could even accept the new 4.0 licence at Commons. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I've restored it as is, but if anyone wants to change the license, a quick note at the Flickr source saying the image is released under CC-BY-SA-4.0 would be needed to avoid future confusion IMO. Not sure if it's worth the effort or not. INeverCry 00:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, it's just frustrating to have to jump through hoops to prove legitimacy, especially when the submissions process isn't consistent. Anyway, to prove that the Wikimedia and Flickr accounts are both controlled by me, I've put a link to this request in the description of the original Flickr image. Yes, I did change the Flickr CC license to match the one required here. Thanks. --Ekai (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored it, sourced it to Flickr, and passed the license review. --INeverCry 23:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I am the copyright holder of this image, because I am the filmmaker who created Traceroute. Please undelete, thanks. Grenz (talk)

You received instructions to use COM:OTRS on July, 6. Thuresson (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I sent the OTRS form via email. Grenz (talk)

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

File:AITE Exterior.jpg

This file is not the property of SchoolDesigner. It was published in one of their materials when Fuller D'Angelo won an award. Because Joseph fuller could no longer find the original file, the file was downloaded from the Fuller D'Angelo web site and manipulated in Photoshop to provide acceptable resolution.

Eperless (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Fuller did not remember this photography was work of Kyle Norton. He has been sent a OTRS form to fill out. Fuller will also fill out OTRS forms as architect of all work.

 Not done: Image can be restored if/when the OTRS permission is processed/approved. --INeverCry 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Robert Perless has filled out OTRS form as both photographer and sculptor of work and sent it back under Ticket#2016070910010555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperless (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Image can be restored if/when the OTRS permission is processed/approved. --INeverCry 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:NAPOLI.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo is from personal archive Today Eurovision (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't re-upload this out of process. This image bears the watermark of Alexander Yampolski. OTRS permission from Mr. Yampolski is needed. INeverCry 20:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Today Eurovision ★ Poké95 08:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

regarding deletion of my latest picture File:Anders Behring Breivik.png

The photo was itself released by Norwegian police for public use. How could it possibly be copyrighted?

See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT#Press photos. All works are copyrighted by default, and copyright lasts for an exceedingly long time (on average over 100 years). Such copyright must be explicitly licensed, or have expired by law -- press photos are typically for editorial use only, and do not qualify as a "free" license. If there is a source which explicitly addresses the copyright, such that it allows adaptations and commercial use, then it could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose per Carl Lindberg. Please ask the copyright holder to send an email to the OTRS. --★ Poké95 08:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:One point less on the sky cover.jpg

The picture you deleted is product of my own work, it does not contain any violation of copyright. I am requesting undelete this file because it is a necessary file for the article: One point less on the sky.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rober_cm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober cm (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rober cm: Movie posters are rarely created by Wikimedia volunteers, so we have a little doubt that the poster is your own work. If you are really the copyright holder of the poster (and any photographic work on it), please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release the poster under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 17:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo buku berkaki. 1024px-1 copy.jpg

Bukuberkaki logo is the work of one of our volunteers, Riwis Sadati. I've included his name in the logo. It is an error to account Josve05a reported logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moh. Ali Zaenal (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo is not licensed under a free license like CC-BY-SA-4.0, please ask the copyright holder (Riwis Sadati) to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, Riwis Sadati, the copyright holder of the logo/work, irrevocably agree to release this logo under a free license. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Moh. Ali Zaenal ★ Poké95 08:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Repusurance_logo.jpg

The logo is the logo for the company, completely designed by the company itself. the logo doesnt fall in copyright of any other logo. Please do not remove it. And if there is a problem then what is the solution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazeorb (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from a company representative is required. --INeverCry 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Monochrom--Soviet Unterzoegersdorf Sector 1.jpg

I am the copyright holder of this image, because I am the artist who created Soviet Unterzoegersdorf Sector 1. Please undelete, thanks. Grenz (talk)

I sent the OTRS form via email. Waiting for response. Grenz (talk)

 Not done: Image can be restored if/when the OTRS permission is processed/approved. --INeverCry 17:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Teemo.JPG

This lantern is a caricature of League of Legends character and not a direct rip of the 3d model. Such expressions are protected, at least in the US, by fair use laws.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Strong oppose Fair use is strictly not allowed on Commons, please see Commons:Fair use for the explanation. Please upload this file locally in enwiki (en:Special:Upload) or any other wiki that accepts local uploads and fair use. Don't forget to follow their strict fair use policy. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Prisencolin ★ Poké95 08:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is unacceptable for Commons. See COM:FU. --INeverCry 17:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kaan Akalın - Arar Mı? Album Cover Art.jpg

Hello, email from copyright holder sent to OTRS system. Requesting immediate undeletion. Thank you. --Kayipadam (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(assuming it was sent yesterday or just a while ago)  Oppose 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. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then you should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If you have not had a reply, please check that you have sent it correctly and try again. 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. ★ Poké95 08:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Kayipadam ★ Poké95 08:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Image can be restored if/when the OTRS permission is processed/approved. --INeverCry 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kaan Akalın - NYC Profile.jpg

Hello, email from copyright holder sent to OTRS system. Requesting immediate undeletion. Thank you. --Kayipadam (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(assuming it was sent yesterday or just a while ago)  Oppose 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. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then you should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If you have not had a reply, please check that you have sent it correctly and try again. 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. ★ Poké95 08:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Kayipadam ★ Poké95 08:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Image can be restored if/when the OTRS permission is processed/approved. --INeverCry 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Massoud Foundation Logo.png

This file has no copyright and it was created by me. Please undelete it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarmeen123 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please ask "Massoud Foundation" to verify this using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 17:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Michał Gałkiewicz w 2015 roku..jpg

This is my photo (made in 2015). I really don't understand why they were removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parauszek (talk • contribs) 18:30, 04 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from Michał Dondzik required. --INeverCry 18:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:AppStudio 4.2.9.png

این عکسی که بارگزاری کردم در سایت ویکیپدیا توسط خودم از نرم افزار گرفته ام لطفا ان را بازیابی کنید Behnam nazemi 31 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

en:NS_Basic.--Wdwd (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: non-free software per above. --INeverCry 18:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Traceroute--Johannes Grenzfurthner and Matt Winston.jpg

Press page of Traceroute states that image is CC BY-SA 4.0.
Traceroute press page
Please undelete. Grenz (talk)

 Support Looks like the press photos are indeed cc-by-sa 4.0. Storkk (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored, and http://www.monochrom.at/traceroute/ added as source. I've done a license review to make it more clear that this is definitely under a free license. --INeverCry 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cartel de Sinaloa.png

File:Cartel de Sinaloa.png

this emblem created by myself so there is no copyright violation. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidinformer (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This was uploaded again two hours later, File:The Emblem Of Sinaloa Cartel.png. Thuresson (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Deleted again speedy simce this was a re-upload out of process. Drug cartels don't have logos, so this is unquestionably out of COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 18:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ariobarzan statue in Yasuj.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The source page (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/75744075) has Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license. HaDi (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The license of the photograph is OK. But if the statue itself is still under copyright, then the photograph would count as a derivative work, and thus distributing it without a license from the statue's copyright owner can be a copyright violation, so the photo is not "free". See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Iran. It was this latter reason why it was deleted. It sounds like the statue was installed in early 2011, and copyright of the statue would last at least 30 years (and likely the lifetime of the sculptor, plus 50 more years). So, we would need to know the details on the statue -- who created it and when, etc. This is a tough situation, as using it in educational contexts is OK (which is all that Wikipedia does), but it's not "free" unless it can also be used commercially. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: 2011 statue that violates Commons:Freedom of panorama#Iran. --INeverCry 18:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Inflando o paraquedas.jpg

... ¬¬

This image is related to a class at Wikiversity in Portuguese, if either nominator or sysop entered at the placed that the image was used (yes, another image in used deleted), they could notice that the image have purpose and was not a "private photo album". INeverCry should check at least the use before he take actions with the trustworthy administrative tools. -- RTA 08:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Semanadobrincar7.jpg

Same here. -- RTA 08:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored both files and reverted the delinker at pt.wikiversity. --INeverCry 18:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Brian May e Roger Taylor ricevono award da Music Empire Awards.jpg

I am one of the 2 persons who gave the award to Queen, so I can say that I'm legitimate to put it on wiki. You can see it also on Music Empire Awards facebook page and on melodicrock.it web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastacolsugo (talk • contribs) 08:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a photoraph of an award, as such will be affected by at least two copyrights: that of the photographer, and that of the award. Both entities need to confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Norman Gobbi Consiglio di Stato.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of this file because I work for Norman Gobbi, the politician, and the photo that I want to upload is free of copyright (never used on internet before). I understood you deleted the photos that I tried to add before because they were used in his website, but this one was never used before and we decided to use it for Wikipedia, free of copyright. How is it possible to use it? What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara Rosian (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sara Rosian: please have the photographer confirm the free license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:SAG Dna.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These images are not under any copyright other than ours. The images are the crest of the fraternity which have permission to use the images. GammaMan (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please ask an official of the SAG to use the procedure outlined at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:2014-07-07-085940 1180x844 scrot.png

File nominated by me to deletion, but this is properly GPLv3 licensing, see GitHub page. Rodrigolopes (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --INeverCry 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tabelas do teste de correlação linear simples.png

Neither nominator or sysop transcript the image to a Wikitext, as they suggested here, they simply removed the information, they could, at least, warned the local community to we have a chance to transform the content in a wikitext, nothing of that was made. Can you revert that, or grab the information and transcript in a wikitext? Obs: " if useful." the image was in use. -- RTA 05:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Same as here:

Nice job EugeneZelenko, and INeverCry, great for the community. And I really want to find "tables is out the scope". -- RTA 08:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For File:VALORES ESPERADOS.png, you could use something like:
Cor do Veículo
Acidente de Trânsito Preto Branco Cinza Vermelho Azul
Sim 1404 277 517 139 57
Não 3127 617 1264 310 28
And similar for the other tables. As for scope, tables aren't explicitly mentioned in COM:SCOPE, but are usually included in the definition of "purely textual content". If you need help with the table markup, you can ask at the Help Desk or at your local Wikipedia help page. The files can be temporarily undeleted if you need them for reference. It's quite unfortunate that the images were deleted before they could be replaced, but the nature of cross-wiki file usage often means that deletion notices are not seen until the file is deleted. We might want to work on that, but that should be discussed in a different place, for example the Village Pump. --rimshottalk 12:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Rimshot, I just need the info, I can do tables (actually I'm pretty good on it), however I need the content of those, could temporarily undeleted it? I transcript into a wikitext, then I request the deletion of those, could be? -- RTA 18:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
RTA, I've restored the files. You can nominate them for speedy deletion when you're done or write a message on my talk page. --rimshottalk 19:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted to enable creating wikitables. --rimshottalk 19:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:GameStar,_KKND2.pdf

The article was released to the public many years ago and is free available on the internet. Nobody pled any copyright claims. I also named the authors of the article and the magazine name, to make sure the source is known.

This is an article that appears to be from 1998. What evidence is there that the authors released it into the public domain? Please have the authors follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I got a signed letter from the editorial office "GameStar". How can I show the public that I am allowed to use this article? Where is the function for that?LOEweNzAHn (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bangalore India location.png

The file was deleted because of having no source. I think the source was File:IndiaMap.png. I would like to clean up the summary. --Regasterios (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 19:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KKND2 Krossfire Desert.jpg

This picture is displayed on the thai language version of the wikipedia article "KKND2: Krossfire". Isn't it allowed to take a picture from somebody elses uploads and include it on the german page? It is already uploaded there so why can't I use it already? Same with the files "KKND2 Krossfire Highland.jpg" and "KKND2 Krossfire Urban.jpg".LOEweNzAHn (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

These are images from a copyrighted game. Thai Wikipedia seems to allow some kind of fair use exception (guessing from the icons, as I don't speak Thai). Commons does not allow fair use (see COM:FU), and neither does the German Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 22:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is uacceptable on Commons and de.wiki. --INeverCry 00:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KKND2 Krossfire Highland.jpg

This picture is displayed on the thai language version of the wikipedia article "KKND2: Krossfire". Isn't it allowed to take a picture from somebody elses uploads and include it on the german page? It is already uploaded there so why can't I use it already? Same with the files "KKND2 Krossfire Desert.jpg" and "KKND2 Krossfire Urban.jpg".LOEweNzAHn (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

These are images from a copyrighted game. Thai Wikipedia seems to allow some kind of fair use exception (guessing from the icons, as I don't speak Thai). Commons does not allow fair use (see COM:FU), and neither does the German Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 22:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is uacceptable on Commons and de.wiki. --INeverCry 00:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KKND2 Krossfire Urban.jpg

This picture is displayed on the thai language version of the wikipedia article "KKND2: Krossfire". Isn't it allowed to take a picture from somebody elses uploads and include it on the german page? It is already uploaded there so why can't I use it already? Same with the files "KKND2 Krossfire Desert.jpg" and "KKND2 Krossfire Highland.jpg".LOEweNzAHn (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

These are images from a copyrighted game. Thai Wikipedia seems to allow some kind of fair use exception (guessing from the icons, as I don't speak Thai). Commons does not allow fair use (see COM:FU), and neither does the German Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 22:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is uacceptable on Commons and de.wiki. --INeverCry 00:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Polichinelle333

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016010610014568 - there might be duplicates that I will take care of after restauration since I can't view them Scoopfinder(d) 21:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: restored. --INeverCry 00:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Stavanix_2016.jpg

The rights to the picture belongs to www.stavanix.com and those rights were given to use this picture on (Stavanix) Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek17 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please have someone at stavanix.com follow the procedures at COM:OTRS -- it is not enough to give permission for just the Wikipedia page; permission must be given for much wider use than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:CATS in SPACE promo shot 2016.jpg

Please undelete as we own the photo's. Thankyou

File:CATS in SPACE promo shot 2016.jpg

File:CATS in SPACE.jpg

--Wassily K (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wassily K: Hello, if you are the copyright holder of the images, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to releases your files under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 16:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sarah-Dawn-Finer 2016 foto Morgan Norman.jpg

Hi,

I'm requesting undeletion of File:Sarah-Dawn-Finer 2016 foto Morgan Norman.jpg

We (Blixten & Co) are the booking agency for Sarah Dawn Finer and we have been asked by the artist (Sarah Dawn Finer) to change the existing picture.

--Blixten & Co (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For photographs which have been previously published, we ask that photographers/copyright owners go through the COM:OTRS process to verify the permission. There are thousands of copyrighted images uploaded every day which need to be deleted, and user accounts are essentially anonymous. The process is also to avoid any misunderstanding about which rights need to be licensed. If Mr. Morgan Norman is the copyright holder, we would need emailed permission from an address associated with him. Once received and processed (which can take a little while), then the files get undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 16:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license

I am writing to request the undeletion of Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license. This template was generated in the context of a GLAM project, bringing together the University of São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy (MAV-FMVZ-USP), the RIDC NeuroMat and the UG Wikimedia in Brazil. The expectation of this GLAM project is that hundreds of high-resolution images will be published in the Commons, with the potential to be used in many WMF projects. The license to OTRS was submitted by the Chief of the Administrative Section of the University of São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy (MAV-FMVZ-USP), Dr. Mauricio Candido da Silva, Ticket#: 2016071210013681. The Museum is the legal owner of the images is the museum, and the photographer was hired under a temporary contract called in Portuguese "Contrato de prestação de serviços, em caráter eventual, sem vínculo empregatício, para criação determinada de imagens" (this detail of this particular case was discussed with Jameslwoodward, here). Given this context and the reference to the license to OTRS, I hope this undeletion request will be taken into consideration as fast as possible, since we hope to move forward with our GLAM project. Thank you in advance! Joalpe (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Info This was deleted following a deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license. Thuresson (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. An authorized official of the museum did send a license to OTRS, so the need of a license "license using the procedure shown at OTRS from an authorized official of the museum," as written in the deletion request, was fulfilled. Joalpe (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Joalpe: I undeleted the template. An OTRS-agent still needs to confirm the ticket though and I am not keen of the statement provided myelf. All museum images is a bit vague plus an update at the source website would be far better than any OTRS-permission. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Star wars land Concept Art.jpg

It is the same type of concept art as on the 'Star Wars Land' wikipedia page

--Jacquesca (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done, images in en:Star Wars Land are unfree and used under Non-free use rational. There is no non-free fair use content on Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pokemon-GO-2.png

Deleting this file was utter nonsense. It was an image I created myself using a tool that Nintendo created for that very purpose. The inclusion of the Pokemon character was an editorial fair use. The notion that all news organizations posting photos like (there are thousands of them) this are committing copyright violations is nonsense.

News stories about Pokemon Go use photos like this. Otherwise, it's nearly impossible to illustrate what the game is all about. And again, Nintendo actively encourages the creation of images like this.

Fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmdetroit1 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jdmdetroit1: I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding on the purpose of the Commons. The Commons is a repository of freely licensed images; in other words, we host media that is licensed in a way that allows anyone to use the image for nearly any purpose. As a result, we don't accept non-free images - and thus, we don't host images under a claim of fair use. Many (but not all) Wikipedia projects do let you upload images under fair use, but that is separate from the function of the Commons. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


I am sorry that you don't understand that decades of direct experience actually means something and that you apparently think that someone with zero experience in a field can claim to be an expert just because they want to.

I posted those images because I knew that bloggers and small publications were writing about Pokemon GO, but there were no really pertinent images on Wikimedia Commons related to this important cultural phenomenon. So, I generated two images that show what the gameplay looks like. Editorially, they tell something about the story. And because they were intended for editorial and non-commercial use, they do not violate anybody's copyright. If everybody interpreted copyright law the way you do, a whole lot of journalism would be shut down. Again, I can guarantee that, when news organizatiosn like around the world used and distributed photos like this from the NY Times: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/12/insider/12-Insider-Pokemon-Photo/12-Insider-Pokemon-Photo-master675.jpg, they didn't send a letter to Nintendo asking for permission.

By denying a right to post images like the ones I have posted, you are forcing bloggers and others to pay for very similar images created by organizations that did not get any more permission than I did.

I really think decisions like this should be made by experienced people with at least some first-hand knowledge of journalism. --Jdmdetroit1 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)jdmdetroit1

Wikimedia Commons does not store "images which are for editorial, non-comercial usages". Wikimedia Commons only host images which can be used by everyone in all settings (even for commerical usage), and therefore such provisions is not allowed on Commons. It might be 'legal', but it is agains out own rules. Josve05a (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you folks been contacted by Nintendo? Or is Nintendo a donor? Otherwise, none of this conversation makes sense. Based on your arguments, there are possibly thousands of images now on Wikimedia that ought to be deleted ... including every single photo of a corporate headquarters, or of any copyrighted product.--Jdmdetroit1 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)jdmdetroit1

No one is claiming that the journalists are violating copyright. The point is that the images do not follow our rules here on the Commons, which are to host images that allow anyone to use them for almost any purpose, including commercially. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read com:L and com:PCP. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


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

FilePokemon go.jpg

Deleting this file was utter nonsense. It was an image I created myself using a tool that Nintendo created for that very purpose. The inclusion of the Pokemon character was an editorial fair use. The notion that all news organizations posting photos like (there are thousands of them) this are committing copyright violations is nonsense.

News stories about Pokemon Go use photos like this. Otherwise, it's nearly impossible to illustrate what the game is all about. And again, Nintendo actively encourages the creation of images like this. This is really no different than taking a photo of a building that also happens to have corporate logos on the signage.

Fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmdetroit1 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It might be ok under the claim of fair use, however Wikimedia Commons does not allow files to claim fair use (since it would go against Wikimedia Commons' goal and mission), instead the files have to be free. Josve05a (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read com:L and com:PCP. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, I tried to be active in Wikimedia Commons and was chased away by abusive comments by a horrible person who called me names. I think there is a culture there that treats "newbies" with suspicion and contempt and in which certain people feel the need to exert control of their little fiefdoms. I think a lot of decisions here are driven my motives like that. That's a shame. --Jdmdetroit1 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)jdmdetroit1

Pokemon characters are protected by copyright law. One could use them under the fair use docterine but this isn't allowed since the board of trustees decided that Commons may not allow fair use. Therefor we cannot hoste files of Pokemoncharacters even if the usage is covered by the fair use docterine. Creating a creature that looks quite similar makes it a derivative of non free content. Natuur12 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Re-closing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Df bei-dia 0000056.jpg Verweis auf Fotothek nicht ausreichend?

Wie ist das mit der Fototohek? Warum werden viele Fotos, welche aus der Fotothek entnommen werden, nicht gelöscht?
Beispiel: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Fotothek_df_ps_0003562_Universit%C3%A4tsgeb%C3%A4ude.jpg

Wie erkenne ich, ob ein Bild aus der Fotothek zulässig ist, oder nicht? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebostein (talk • contribs) 14:09, 04 July 2016 (UTC)

Hier sind die AGB der Fotothek. Darin steht, dass die "für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate" unter einer Creative Commons Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt wurden. Es hat mal eine Art Spende der Fotothek an Wikimedia Commons gegeben, was man auch in dem Lizenztext auf Deinem Beispiel lesen kann: "Dieses Bild wurde im Rahmen einer Kooperation zwischen der Deutschen Fotothek und Wikimedia Deutschland für Wikimedia Commons zur Verfügung gestellt." D. h., alle Bilder auf Commons, die diesen speziellen Lizenz-Baustein haben, sind auch ordnungsgemäß freigegeben und können im Rahmen der Creative-Commons-Lizenz verwendet werden.
Grundsätzlich gilt aber, wenn die Fotothek auf ihrer eigenen Homepage Bilder anbietet, sind diese nicht automatisch frei verwendbar. Auf der Original-Inventarseite des Beispielbilds, gibt es z. B. keinen Hinweis auf Creative Commons, sondern nur den nichtssagenden Text: "Freier Zugang - Rechte vorbehalten." Solche Bilder sollten auch nicht auf Commons hochgeladen werden, wenn sie nicht schon hier sind. Man könnte zwar hergehen, und die Lebensdaten der Fotografen prüfen, da das Urheberrecht 70 Jahre nach deren Tod verfällt, aber zur Sicherheit sollte man eben nur die markierten Bilder auf Commons benutzen.
Zu guter Letzt: das hier ist eine spezielle Webseite zur Wiederherstellung von gelöschten Dateien und nicht für allgemeine Fragen zum Urheberrecht gedacht. Copyright, Lizenzen und Co. werden hier behandelt. Falls Du also weitere Fragen zur Verwendung von Fotothek-Bildern hast, stelle sie bitte dort. Es sei denn, du möchtest eine oder mehrere Dateien aus der Fotothek prüfen lassen, die zuvor gelöscht wurden. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Anscheinend habe ich vorgestern die Überschrift nicht richtig wahrgenommen, Entschuldigung dafür. File:Df bei-dia 0000056.jpg hatte keine Angaben zur Lizenz, und ein einfacher Verweis auf die Fotothek reicht tatsächlich nicht aus. Allerdings kann man hier {{PD-art}} anwenden, darum habe ich die Datei wiederhergestellt. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Boerentoren01.jpg

Please undelete all images in this category: [6]. FOP is legal in Belgium sice 15 July 2016. As Commons:Village_pump#Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Belgium_starting_15_July_2016.--__ wɘster 12:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files are not in a category. Please write the file names of the deleted files. Thuresson (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

All former FOP cases which is not longer relevant since FOP is legalized in Belgium since today.--__ wɘster 14:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Polichinelle333

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016010610014568 - CC-BY Scoopfinder(d) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: Boy am I a dumbass sometimes. I restored these yesterday, and then deleted them an hour later because the CSD tags were still in place... . --INeverCry 19:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Inuyamabashi.jpg

Since the request sentence in English is not good, it will be rude in Japanese.

このファイルは「Copyright violation」という理由により、 2016年7月8日 (金) 23:59に削除されています。これは、こちらのサイトに全く同じ画像があったという理由とのことです。

しかし、削除された画像が2008年にアップロードされたものであるのに対して、このサイトは「1910年に設立された学校が、創立100周年を記念して作成されたサイト」であり、作成されたのは2010年であると思われます。この件については、日本語版の私の会話ページにおいて、日本語版の管理者であるVigorous action様が直接当該学校に確認し、「ホームページの作成は2010年以降であることは間違いのない事実」との確認を行っていただいております。

2010年に開設されたサイトの画像を、2008年にコモンズにアップロードすることは出来ないので、コモンズにアップロードされていたこの画像のほうが先に存在していたことになります。また、現時点では当該サイトからは当該画像も削除されております。

以上の理由により、削除撤回依頼を提出させていただきます。審議をよろしくお願いいたします。Cassiopeia sweet (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. looks like the person who tagged this was incorrect, and that my deletion was also incorrect. --INeverCry 05:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KKND2 Krossfire Desert.jpg

The source of the files is the official KKND2 Website. Look here: http://melbournehouse.kknd2.com/terrains.html

The three images highland, desert and urban are also included on the thai-wikipedia-article. Look here: https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKND2:_Krossfire#.E0.B8.9B.E0.B8.A3.E0.B8.B0.E0.B9.80.E0.B8.A0.E0.B8.97.E0.B8.82.E0.B8.AD.E0.B8.87.E0.B8.A0.E0.B8.B9.E0.B8.A1.E0.B8.B4.E0.B8.9B.E0.B8.A3.E0.B8.B0.E0.B9.80.E0.B8.97.E0.B8.A8

The rights owner is "Beam Software".

Happy now? Redo the Deletion.

Thank you

--LOEweNzAHn (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image you claimed that you are the copyright owner. Web site say "Copyright © Beam Software 1998". Thai Wikipedia use the images under fair use. Thuresson (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per COM:FU, there's no fair use here. OTRS from Beam would be required. --INeverCry 05:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Monochrom REsearch----Arse Elektronika Anthologies.png

The author, Scott Beale, changed the licensing of this image on Flickr to CC BY-SA 2.0 [7]
Please undelete. Interstellarpoliceman (talk)

✓ Done: restored per the request at my talk. --INeverCry 05:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hot Woman-on-Top.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: becauase this type of files if not banned Likethisjust (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning of Commons:Deletion requests/Second life img was copyright problems. --Martin H. (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation per the long linked DR. --INeverCry 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Please undelete this file. I sendet the permissins of Frau stöß the maker of the photograph to publish it under creative common license. I will send the email again now to permissions-de@wikimedia.org Thank you --Wolkengold (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file will be undeleted by an OTRS member, or they will request undeletion. This could take a week or more. --INeverCry 05:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:30-Tukumsi purskaev.JPG

I don't get this. Could the closing admin or someone else care to explain the decision here. Per nominator the fountain surpasses threshold of originality because one includes the "water sculpture" as copyrightable element in it. In response, reffering to COM:CSM, it was shown in comparision with fireworks displays that water bursts of a fountain probably shouldn't be considered copyrightable as they are not recorded on a fixed medium. This leaves us a simple circle of stone blocks regarding which so far not even the nominator has expressed significant doubt about its freedom. Now, from this state of the relevant dicussion, how did we get this outcome? Am I missing something? If not, then the file should be restored. Pikne 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This could very well be a flubbed close on my part. I have no personal objection to its being restored and kept, but Taivo would have to be consulted. INeverCry 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I still think, that the decision is correct. Firework is not a good comparision. Firework is very temporary, it lasts only short time and if you want to see it next day, then it is impossible. Fountain is available every day and has always the same shape. In my opinion the water bursts are enough fixed medium. Taivo (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I ask again, how is the temporal difference relevant regarding copyright? Which law provisions make you think that?
Not that it would seem relevant, but it is arguable whether water burst is a long-lasting expression or whether it is cast again and again in slightly different shapes as the water flows. Also, specific brands of fireworks are usually designed to produce more or less the same shape.
How do you draw the line between water and mixture of hot gases (as for fireworks)? Both as a medium are pretty much useless for recording an expression in a "fixed" state. That is, compared to, say, rock or paper. Pikne 15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 Support At least in the U.S., it would not be copyrightable. It is not expression from a human hand; the shape is due to gravity and other natural effects -- they are not drawn lines. For the EU, I doubt it would qualify either -- not sure how you show the personality of the author in a water fountain, to the point that a photograph would be deemed a derivative work. If we can find a court case where such a photo was ruled as derivative, then OK, but otherwise untold thousands of such photographs have been taken over the years and if there has never been a single one ruled a derivative work (as opposed to photos of buildings which have), then that is probably an indication that such photos are not derivative. To me, the above is an unproven and very, very theoretical doubt, and not something we should delete over. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per Carl Lindberg above. --INeverCry 06:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bob Dotson.jpg

On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:17 PM, "Mickie Smith" <redacted@oeta.tv> wrote:

I shot the photo of Bob Dotson after his interview at OETA. You have my permission to post that picture, at no charge, with appropriate credit.

Best wishes,

Mickie Smith Producer On the Record Production Manager OETA - The Oklahoma Network (405) redacted - Direct Line (405) redacted - Cell redacted@oeta.tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightWorkCorp (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This has no EXIF and is identical in facial expression to the frame displayed when I go to http://videos.oeta.tv/video/2365156822/. This looks like an HD screencap to me. INeverCry 22:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree that there is no parallax between the two, so they were either shot through the same lens (more likely) or the one camera was swapped for the other in the same location. However, they are not the same photo -- in the version we deleted, you can see his tongue -- his mouth is slightly farther open. The deleted image is higher than the video -- his right cuff shows and there is considerable space above his hair. Also, it's 3088 × 2056px, which is considerably larger than HD video. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per above. --INeverCry 06:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Fleets

Added a comment to the user in question requesting details on what license to use when detailed by the uploader on picasa as publicly shared. To this point no interaction from the user in question, just final action, no assistance, no advice, no human interaction, almost like they were acting like a bot performing a laborious task, and not someone encouraging wiki to grow in a positive fashion Fleets (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

'Visible to everybody' does not mean 'free from copyright'. The source website did not mention a CC license or another compatible free license. Absence of a free license means: 'all rights reserved'. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Every day Commons gets 10,000 new images and must delete 1,700 of them. 95% of that work is done by 25 Administrators, who are currently falling seriously behind the workload, so, unfortunately, your description is largely correct. If we had significantly more volunteers we could be more personal, but as it is personal service is impossible.
I also note that your only work here has been uploading a series of copyright violations, some of them more than once. Therefore, so far on Commons you have been nothing but a nuisance who dives in without bothering to read the rules, the basics of which are carefully laid out for you on our Main Page. Jcb's curt warning that you must stop violating copyright was entirely appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr Woodward. I understand the protectionism angle and that being undermanned the actions of administrators must be that first and foremost. That could lead anyone to short, shrift answers. Fully appreciated. My position is that I thought I was in the right, saw my images being cleared and saw one who did not, and did not get the explanation until persistent questioning and deeper reading on my part. I was not seeking a personal service, more a helpful hand boilerplate template that turns people on to how to do things correctly, not to turn them off from wiki.Fleets (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Following discussion here it appears that jumping between Picasa and Google was the issue, with Picasa showing the appropriate licence and Google not. JCB advised me to use this 'new' information to try and get the files I uploaded restored.Fleets (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Upload log of files that are sought for undeletion Fleets (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


If this is one of the above images, and the others are in the same gallery, then  Support. They are marked as CC-BY-SA-3.0. It would be best to change the source links to use the picasaweb URL, as clicking around can change it to a plus.google.com URL and at that point I can't see the license anymore. And it would also be good to do a {{License review}} on them (or really {{Picasareview}}), as I'm not sure how long the picasaweb pages will exist (Google is retiring them I think). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I undeleted 3 picassa files. The rest seems to have no license information. --Jarekt (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Jarekt. The others should have the same issue, jumping from Picasa to Google and thus not showing the license that was shown on Picasa.Fleets (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Re-uploaded as per admin suggestion. Request closed by user, awaiting admin action to do so.Fleets (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: files are live - I'm not seeing any reason to keep this open. --INeverCry 06:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Logotipo da PJE.jpg

O arquivo foi deletado, pois, em tese, violou a política de licenças e direitos autorais do Wikipedia. Ocorre que o arquivo contém o logotipo de uma organização histórica brasileira, sobre a qual a página https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_da_Juventude_Estudantil trata. A organização em questão (a Pastoral da Juventude Estudantil), legítima detentora dos direitos autorais, está sob a coordenação deste subscritor, de forma que, ao utilizar-me da imagem, automaticamente cedi ao Wikipedia e à página em questão os direitos de o uso e reprodução. --Iagoervanovite (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 06:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

plik ten powinien być przywrócony z tych samych powodów co [Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg] --wkaczura (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This file should be restored for the same reasons as File: Chelm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg (translation by google)

 Not done: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg. --INeverCry 06:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s19a.jpg

plik ten powinien być przywrócony z tych samych powodów co [Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg] --wkaczura (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This file should be restored for the same reasons as File: Chelm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg (translation by google)

 Not done: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg. --INeverCry 06:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s19b.jpg

plik ten powinien być przywrócony z tych samych powodów co [Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg] --wkaczura (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This file should be restored for the same reasons as File: Chelm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg (translation by google)

 Not done: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg. --INeverCry 06:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg and File:Brasaojaguariaiva.png

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:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg

According description this was created 2005, which is not pre 1983 which the license requires. JuTa 15:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Restored per {{PD-BrazilGov}} and Lei municipal 525/1967. Alan (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg

[Renomination, see below, @JuTa: , more infos: above] Flag (bandeira) of Brazilian municipality pt:Jaguariaíva, created by municipal law nº 1636/2005 only in 2005, failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "(...) published or commissioned (...) prior to 1983." No trivial text/shape logo, failing {{PD-textlogo}}/{{PD-shape}}. All flags (and also coats of arms) of Brazilian municipalities are established by municipal law. Generally for most of the Brazilian coats of arms and flags: unlikely also that these symbols were digitized in there present form prior to 1983 (when "Internet" was available only for a few institutions, TCP/IP was standardized in 1982). Their creation date could be quite recent, maybe not even by an employee of the Brazilian government (mostly some years after official federal constitution, see also this extreme case, where a Brazilian municipality created his official symbols in 2014: 81 years after emancipation...).

Obs.: Restored via Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-10#File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg (part 2) by @Alan: (and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-10#File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg). "Part 2" was argued with basic & vague infos from Commons:Marcas de direitos autorais (inserted in 2007 via this edit) without mentioning the 2005 creation date (and ignoring the pre-1983 restriction of {{PD-BrazilGov}}) and the first undeletion request ended unattended considering @Revent: "(...) Google indicates that this is indeed not a unique depiction of the flag by the uploader, but instead an image taken directly from an official government website... (...)" Gunnex (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 17:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose8122 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 04 July 2016 (UTC)


These two files are the official flag and coat of arms of Jaguariaiva's Municipallity

Based on federal law nº 9279 of 1996 May 14 (Industrial Property Law), in your title III (About Marks), chapter I(About Registrability), section II(About the non-registrable signs as Mark), Article 124, first Paragraph, is cited:

Art. 124. Não são registráveis como marca:
I - brasão, armas, medalha, bandeira, emblema, distintivo e monumento oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais, bem como a respectiva designação, figura ou imitação;
Art. 124. are not registrable as marks:
I - public arms, coats, medals, flags, emblem, badge and official monument, national, foreign or international, as well as the respective designation, representation or imitation;

And, being the Flag and The coat being officially public by municipal law, it is an object in public domain, since it wasn't registrable by the law mentioned in this request

Accordingly, seeks approval

Jose8122 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct, state symbols like that are not registerable as *trademarks*. However, we are concerned with copyright, which is a completely separate area of intellectual property, and so we would need the copyright law (not the trademark law) to exclude such items. I believe that is Law No. 9.610 of 19 Feb 1998. Typically, each rendition of a flag can have its own copyright, if the design is complex enough to allow for artists to have variations. So, we would be interested in who drew that particular version, and where it came from. If it was copied from a government website, there is likely a copyright still existing on it, and we would need a license.
It does look like our guidance at Commons:Marcas de direitos autorais#Brasil is wrong -- that seems to say that PD-BrazilGov cover flags, but I think the law explicitly says only the text of laws, decrees, etc. is not covered -- I'm not sure why someone added flags etc. to the list. Looks like that guidance has been there since 2007 (yikes). I'm guessing that was based on reading the trademark law, without realizing that has no effect on the "free" status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, Carl. This is all based on a conflation between copyright and trademark law that was thoroughly debunked back in 2011 in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-BrazilGov 2, which led to the rewording of the template. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Even with this misunderstanding, the official logo is public, since it will be the municipality/state/country symbol for years and years, making your differece from an institucional logo, which is changed at each mandact
But returning to Jaguariaíva's case, this vigent Law (post 1983) is a rewrite of the same previous Law (dated by 1950), which was revoked at the promulgation of the new law, due to addiction of new official symbols Jose8122 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that each drawing of the symbol would come under copyright law. It's certainly possible for someone to make a new drawing from scratch (or one using already-free elements) of the flag, but simply copying a work from elsewhere is more problematic. It's not a matter of when the design was from (see Commons:Coats of arms) but rather when the specific drawing was made. I am presuming these were simply copied from a website. Even if the drawing was done by the government, they still own copyright I believe. It is published, yes, and public record, yes, but not public domain (in a copyright sense). For Commons, it is the latter which matters. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
But, Like Alan described on flag image restoration, the flag (Like the coat} are created by the Lei municipal 525/1967, being An symbol commissioned by the municipal government before 1983, the images are able to use {{PD-BrazilGov}}, being a pre-1983 commissioned art Jose8122 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Each individual rendition of the flag is likely to have its own copyright. Is this an exact (or close to exact) copy of artwork which existed before 1983? Or is it a more modern rendition of an older design? It's not the age of the design, it is when this particular graphic was drawn. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
These images are An close to exact copy of the original flag and coat, which existe before 1987. Being An official municipal symbol, the state government can't edit to make the art "more modern", being the images close exact copies of the images commissioned and published in 1967 by Jaguariaíva's Prefecture Jose8122 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone can replay?? Jose8122 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --INeverCry 06:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logonewl5.jpg

Nous avons envoyé un mail stipulant que la photo du logo est officiel et libre de droits pour utilisation dans les magazines. Que pouvons nous faire de plus afin que la photo officile du groupe puisse apparaitre sur la page wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wely35 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 05 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If you emailed OTRS on 5 July, and nothing's happened, you need to email them again or post at COM:OTRS/N to see what's happening with it. --INeverCry 06:08, 16 July 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:Files from Taiwan Executive Yuan Website

行政院修改全球資訊網站資料開放宣告為「部分的影音、圖像、樂譜、專人專案撰文或其他著作，經機關特別聲明須經同意方可使用者。」，由於前部分授權與共享資源相容，在為事前聲明的情況下，這些來自行政院的照片應當恢復。--KOKUYO (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:PRP as above. --INeverCry 06:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Qibennygwinxiaojian.JPG‬

no copyright. I'm in the picture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwang09 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 08 July 2016 (UTC)

By default, photographers automatically have copyright over their work immediately upon creation, so your statement is most likely not true. In any case, it's irrelevant, since the file was not deleted on copyright grounds, but because it was outside of the project scope of Wikimedia Commons as a repository of media useful for educational purposes – as clearly indicated in the deletion log. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Bwang09 ★ Poké95 07:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: out of scope personal pic- no response to ping - no valid reason given for undeletion. --INeverCry 06:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Paul signac, donne al pozzo (giovani provenzali al pozzo), 1892, 01.JPG and File:Paul signac, strada di gennevilliers (faubourg di parigi), 1883.JPG

Hi! I uploaded thousands of pictures of artworks, and these two were deleted for a reason I cannot understand. I am the author of the images. They are not blurred or low-quality, there is not problem about the death of the artist (Signac died in 1935). One image showed the frame of the painting (unique image showing the frame on Commons). The other showed a slightly different color rendering, according to the lighting situation of the museum room, compared to other images of the same painting. The admin said the template needed a fix, but is this a reason to delete an image? Are all my uploads of artworks in danger??? (in the link more Signac paintings). Thank you --Sailko (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like they were nominated as duplicates. The deletion reason seemed to be more why they preferred the other, while deleting as a duplicate. But if these images show different colors, or show the frame, then that could be reason to keep. There are many many paintings where we have several uploads -- we typically just delete those if it's the exact same photo, or low enough resolution that there is really no aspect which could be better. If in doubt, we should keep both. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Sailko: Please adjust the description/author/source to properly attribute the painter and give the paintings' titles if you know or can find them. --INeverCry 06:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Monicagonzalezsantana.jpg

Tengo permiso de la persona para publicar esa fotografía, me ha cedido los derechos — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.27.187.229 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose El fotógrafo debe confirmar la licencia siguiendo estas instrucciones. Storkk (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


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

domohk]

Domohk

I would like to ask why Domohk is being put in the delete section this is our company which we have already founded for more than 10 years we are willing to place this page back thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domo international footwear ltd (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Domo international footwear ltd: There's no Wikipedia article on your company and it doesn't seem to be notable enough to create a one, so there's no educational value of this file yet. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:SCOPE/COM:ADVERT. --INeverCry 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ramapo HallMiye ou Miye.jpg

Hi, Mr. Børre Ludvigsen scanned the picture from a calendar and posted it with other pictures on http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/mieh-ou-mieh/stgeorge-cal/ I took the picture and sourced it to the link above. I would greatly appreciate it if you can un-delete this picture because it is very hard to find old pictures. Thanks. --Philbous (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently published in 1996. Lebanese copyright law from 1999 states that works are protected for 50 years after the author's death (#49) and 50 years after publication for anonymous work (#52). Moral rights are perpetual. Thuresson (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson above. --INeverCry 22:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Imruh Bakari.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent (verify): The reason the file was deleted was due to the face that there were multiple ticket numbers not connected or merged in our system. The first ticket (from 1 February 2015) included the file, but not the release statement. The second ticket included the statement, but not for which file the ticket was referring (2 February - 19 April 2015). After an email today, this issue has been resolved, and the tickets has been merged in ticket:2015020210017689, which confirms {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}}. Josve05a (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Trusted agent who knows what he is doing. --Natuur12 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Delors Building, Brussels

Deleted as an empty category, but it is no longer empty. —Mr. Granger (talk  · contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thuresson (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Arthur Schaarschmidt.jpg

This image depics a person of public interest. My grand-grandpa. The pic was released to the public in 1959 when he died. --Dunkelhase (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Nur der Fotograf selbst kann die Rechte an dem Foto aufgeben, und in solch einem Fall benötigen wir eine Bestätigung durch den Fotografen oder dessen Erben, aber nicht durch die Angehörigen der abgebildeten Person. Dass Arthur Schaarschmidt 1959 gestorben ist, bedeutet also für das Bild leider ersteinmal gar nichts, denn der Schutz des Urheberrechts gilt während der Lebenszeit des Fotografen plus 70 Jahre danach. Weiß man denn, wer diese Aufnahme gemacht hat, und wann das war? De728631 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Das Bild stammt aus der Publikation "Röntgen-Blätter", Ausgabe 2/1959, die einen Nachruf enthielt. Der Verlag ist m.E. nicht mehr existent, keiner seiner Nachfahren hat sonst ein Photo dieses Menschen. Ich denke, das Photo ist aus seinem persönlichen Besitz. Als sein Ur-Enkel nehme ich die mögliche Copyright-Verletzung auf mich, sollte hier der Photograf Ansprüche erheben wollen. --Dunkelhase (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as per De728631. Thuresson (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Prusa i3 MK2 printing farm.webm

The source video was mistakenly switched back to full copyright for a short time and so the file was deleted from Commons, this has now been corrected.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and reviewed. --INeverCry 22:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:نورا المطيري.jpg

the image for very well-known TV Presenter, and its available every where, there is no copy-write, i am sure of that, and i will be responsible about it, i used this image before with full acceptance from Noura Almotairi her-self, it was interview. also the image is available on all social media related to the Noura Almotairi. i hope you return it back. regards--Uaemediaexpert (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Copyright is automatically granted to the photographer and usually only the photographer can decide on who may use their work. That the image has been widely distributed does not mean that it is freely available for anyone, nor can the subject depicted in the image decide upon the distribution and use by third parties. So we require a permission from the photographer. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Filming at Sea Life Bangkok Ocean World.JPG

Hello, This photo's copyrights belong to me and there is no way I am violating any law. Hence kindly put my image back on the Wikipedia page of Elisha Kriis. --Ravi2388 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Proof of copyright ownership must be verified through the COM:OTRS system in place. ~riley (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Elisha Kriis promotional photoshoot in Hollywood, Los Angeles.jpg

Hello, This photo's copyrights belong to me and there is no way I am violating any law. Hence kindly put my image back on the Wikipedia page of Elisha Kriis.

Thanks so much!--Ravi2388 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Proof of copyright ownership must be verified through the COM:OTRS system in place. ~riley (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cosiioeza.jpg

This file is 400 years old. Thats why is a public domain.--Kosiyopii (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)--Kosiyopii (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)17.07.2016

✓ Done: restored and license added - this was COM:OVERCATted so I clipped a few off. --INeverCry 03:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:YInMn Blue - cropped.jpg

An rights release email has been sent to OTRS. --Jtangosu (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed/confirmed, the file will be restored. It could take a week or two. --INeverCry 03:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Marianmorenollaneza.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Tengo los derechos de la fotografía y los liberé 46.27.187.229 10:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This photo has been published on a blog earlier. The copyright owner, normally the photographer, should verify the license by using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Theophrastus redivivus (Paris manuscript).pdf is used by la.wikisource

File:Theophrastus redivivus (Paris manuscript).pdf is needed for la:s:Index:Theophrastus redivivus (Paris manuscript).pdf, created and edited by la:s:User:Ithinkicahn, but it has been deleted after a request of @Reedy: , reason: "Too big". There are 17 pages into nsPage that are linked with the broken la.source Index page. I sent too a message into Reedy talk page. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Restore: Out of process deletion (invalid deletion summary, no DR, etc). Since Reedy is not longer an admin, another one should take care of this case (but Reedy still should explain his admin action). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've restored it, but I got a couple errors. The file doesn't look quite right yet. I'll look at it again in a little bit. I may have to delete it again and restore it again. INeverCry 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question: Did you downloaded the whole file and tried to see it locally? Should be better to download, then optimise the graphics in some way (like by extracting the scanned images, optimizing, and then re-create the PDF) and then reupload. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: new smaller overwrite looks good. --INeverCry 00:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Thüringer Staatsanzeiger 1996, 1091.pdf

Hallo!

Meines Erachtens handelt es sich um ein gemeinfreies Werk im Sinne des § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG. Deshalb bitte ich um "Entlöschung".

--Finø (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: This was re-uploaded out of process after you deleted it. INeverCry 02:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: 1995/96 publication. No reasoning given why this would be PD. No OTRS permission from copyright holder. --INeverCry 04:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Martyn Hedges.jpg

This file is my own work. I have the original 35mm slide. This was digitized to produce the file, hence no metadata Please undelete — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:C0:C006:9300:813C:9410:C64F:F516 (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not even requested by the uploader. Also, requesting only one shot to be restored sounds like a tacit admission that the other 2 files are copyvios. Not done per COM:PRP. --INeverCry 04:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


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

platinelas pandeiros artesanais de papel

projeto platinelas. pesquisa do percusinista e luthier em percussão Juraci de moura matos. vem buscnado sons Organicos e sustentavel utilizando embalagens de saco de cimento. com sons e timbres indenticos aos convecionais o artesão vem produzindo instrumentos como. pandeiros caixas zabumbas alfaias bateria cajons, etc. nesse caminho vem fazendo um trabalho ambietal importates pra novas gerações pensar e, reutilizar matérias primas. o estudo vem buscando sempre novas inspirações. sonoras. somd e papel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juraci de Moura matos (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no file requested to be undeleted. The mesage is promotional of some project. --INeverCry 04:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Hellcat666

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: aphses are my band check my facebook https://www.facebook.com/jesus.aphses?ref=bookmarks Hellcat666 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: uploader is now blocked for a month. I don't see these getting restored on the word of a user blocked for repeated copyvio uploads. These easily meet COM:PRP. --INeverCry 04:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Blue Embrace Fenix 2012.jpg

File:Blue Embrace Fenix 2012.jpg

Copyright holders of this image (Tarot Records) have released all the rights as Wikimedia Commons 4.0

please check link below

http://tarotrecords.com/tarot-records-agreement-distribution-of-media-content/

--Spell26 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Indeed, that's correct. --Rezonansowy (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. I've got rid of the Flickr source in favor of http://tarotrecords.com/tarot-records-agreement-distribution-of-media-content/blue-embrace-02/, which is better and clearer. I've adjusted the license. The categories need a bit of work. --INeverCry 04:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Logo merlim

Trabajo en el departamento de comunicaciones de la compañía Magitek Internacional, dueña de la marca en mención (Merlim Network) y hemos sido autorizados a subir dicho contenido a Wikipedia y otras fuentes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammaelle (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/a company representative is needed. --INeverCry 04:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Code Club AB Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I think this could be brought back, though maybe in a different fashion? I try my best, but sometimes I have a hard time understanding the nuances of these things. Being an official company logo, I assumed there was some sort of fair use that would be appropriate here, but I guess I was wrong. Jokubas (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 04:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dario_Wikipix.jpg; File:DarioDedicatedAlbumCover.jpg; File:DarioRevolutionAlbumCover.jpg;

Hi Wiki admin,

I added these free images to wiki commons and I have permission to add it to wiki; I have an email to prove the permission; please let me know what I can provide to undelete these image so, I can add them to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_(entertainer) page.

Many thanks, --Laviniaknowswiki (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Lavinia

 Not done: Please send a permission email to OTRS. --INeverCry 04:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:IBM thin client.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo is own work released under CC-BY. It had not been previously published and is not especially amazing so there should be any doubt about authorship. Cspurrier (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored - someone switched the {{Own}} tag for a weblink in 2013 - I've reversed that. --INeverCry 04:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ZNTU Library logo.jpg

This picture is composed of the a logo of our library (without licensing restrictions) and photo, which I made myself in 2014(also without licensing restrictions). --Natalishka-natka (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The library logo is published here. I don't understand Ukrainian so if the logo is freely licensed a bit of guidance is welcome. Thuresson (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It`s our library website and if you scroll down, you will see on the right banner Wiki, who lead to the page about our library, where was deleted image File:ZNTU Library logo.jpg. And accordingly wiki page links to the library's website. --Natalishka-natka (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It is not obvious that uploader is the copyright owner of a university library logo nor is there any reason to assume that the university library has transferred the copyright to a Wikimedia commons user. Thuresson (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Savannah_Cat_portrait.jpg

other file by uploader has been keept: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Savannah_Cat_closeup.jpg Amada44  talk to me 09:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and a note about the DR/keep added to the talk. --INeverCry 19:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Plameco hoofdkantoor Zaltbommel.jpg

There is no copyright violation, as we, as Plameco, hold it ourselves.

--P.Dijck (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul.jpg

This is a photo provided by the NYS Government. This is NOT a coyrighted photo. It is 100% public domain. Please replace as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.11.121.120 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe that a 2015 photo has entered the public domain? Thuresson (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose because US federal government works are in the public domain. This is only true however, for very few states. New York State isn't one of them. --rimshottalk 18:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: NY gov images are not PD. --INeverCry 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ramapo HallMiye ou Miye.jpg

Hi, I have obtained permission from the person who posted this on Al Mashriq website. Below is the communication between both of us: " Børre Ludvigsen <foo@bar> 4:10 PM (3 hours ago) to me 

 Of course you may use it, but only if it is properly credited to the
 website Al Mashriq. Have you seen Jessup's remarks on Ramapo? As I
 recall, he explains the name and early history of the hall.

 - Barre"


source: http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/mieh-ou-mieh/stgeorge-cal/mm06.html

Thank you --Philbous (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Electric cars group photo.jpg

Hello,

I work for the Go Ultra Low campaign (www.goultralow.com) and can confirm we own the copyright for this image - the photoshoot was intended to boost the publicly available photos of modern electric cars. See this page for confirmation: https://www.goultralow.com/press-centre/photos-videos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdodavies (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done goultralow.com says explicitely: «Materials on this site may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or transmitted in any way except for your own personal non-commercial use, or except as otherwise expressly permitted. Any other use of the materials on this site requires the prior express permission of SMMT or applicable third party. (…)» [8]
We would need a OTRS permission from the copyright holder.
Platonides (talk) 21:16, 19 July 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:Electric cars outside UK Parliament.jpg

Hello,I work for the Go Ultra Low campaign (www.goultralow.com) and can confirm we own the copyright for this image - the photoshoot was intended to boost the publicly available photos of modern electric cars. See this page for confirmation: https://www.goultralow.com/press-centre/photos-videos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdodavies (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: goultralow.com says explicitely: «Materials on this site may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or transmitted in any way except for your own personal non-commercial use, or except as otherwise expressly permitted. Any other use of the materials on this site requires the prior express permission of SMMT or applicable third party. (…)» [9]

We would need a OTRS permission from the copyright holder.
Platonides (talk) 21:16, 19 July 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:Electric car charging.jpg

Hello,I work for the Go Ultra Low campaign (www.goultralow.com) and can confirm we own the copyright for this image - the photoshoot was intended to boost the publicly available photos of modern electric cars. See this page for confirmation: https://www.goultralow.com/press-centre/photos-videos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdodavies (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: goultralow.com says explicitely: «Materials on this site may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or transmitted in any way except for your own personal non-commercial use, or except as otherwise expressly permitted. Any other use of the materials on this site requires the prior express permission of SMMT or applicable third party. (…)» [10]

We would need a OTRS permission from the copyright holder.
Platonides (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:GPS - APRS - Radio - data - sanomaserveri - Kaavio tnx Matti OH3EGY.png

I am filling this undeletion request on behalf of User:OH7HJ. The file was deleted deletion discussion which I started. The file is made by a different person (Matti Pyykkönen), but OH7HJ has assured me that he does have the permission from Matti. I have directed him to OTRS, and hopefully an official permission is forthcoming. I am  Neutral. MKFI (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

{not done}}: Undeletion request will be filed by the OTRS agent when pemission is confirmed. --Reventtalk 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Banging Mature Female From Behind.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i need this file now its not against any of wikimedia rules Likethisjust (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This file was deleted because its claim to be freely licensed was in doubt. If you can show that it has been released by the copyright holder with a free lience, it may be undeleted and emailed to you, but not restored because it was also doubtfuil that the image was within the scope of this project. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Intended to also close as 'not done', for exactly the same reason. Call this a confirming 'vote'. Reventtalk 00:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Actually 'close' per above. --Reventtalk 00:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AniketJadhav.png

The file photo does not breach any copyright as it is a personal work and complies with wikipedia policy for images.--Football india (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This was deleted as coming from https://twitter.com/ANIKET_11_/media. INeverCry 03:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as above. It is also possible that any photo photo of this subject may be out of scope. Thuresson (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ReLIFE logo.png

There is no copyright violation since the logo perfectly fits the {{PD-textlogo}} & {{Trademark}} descriptions. Also, read Commons:Threshold of originality#Japan for more information: Although the shape is stylized, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters.--Sakretsu (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not speedy material anyways. --Natuur12 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Untitled section from the top of the page

The file was made available by the copyright holder and it's being used with his permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daftsena (talk • contribs) 11:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Banging_Mature_Female_From_Behind.webm&action=history

ok i need a quick undeletion to check the file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likethisjust (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Likethisjust: Honestly, not seeing much point. It's exactly as described, and appears to have been grabbed from a VHS tape, at a low framerate. I don't see how it could be possibly in scope. Reventtalk 01:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


ok then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likethisjust (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It has been stated on the DR that this file may be not the own work of the uploader, so this is possibly a copyright violation. And, we already have a lot of nudity! Low quality porn will be simply deleted on Commons for being out of scope. --★ Poké95 11:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --INeverCry 15:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Untitled section from the top of the page

I obtained these pictures from an acquaintance and did not copy these from the Internet. If you look on the Internet for these images you'll find hundred and why would I go out of my way just to steal an image when my friend has them in which he can send me. I request that my photos be undeleted as I didn't take these from the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22327k (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I obtained these pictures from an acquaintance meaning this is not your own work. If your friend is the copyright holder of the image, please let him send an email to the OTRS and irrevoably agree to release the image under a free license like CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 15:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Madek (Brons).JPG

GIven the new law on freedom of Panorama in Belgium, this file can now be made available IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyxian (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 July 2016‎ (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Dmunozfig

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All this images are screenshots to my work, and the peopple in my work needs to understand all aplications.

Please, is for a fundation to cancer figth. Dmunozfig (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 No Esas imágenes contienen contenidos bajo copyright de terceros. Si necesitas documentar las herramientas con las que trabajáis, seguramente sea mejor que lo hiciérais en http://fundacioninnovagen.org/
Es posible instalar este mismo software: https://www.mediawiki.org pero también podríais hacerlo con cualquier otro.
Como mucho podríamos facilitarte las imágenes en caso de que no tengas localmente una copia, pero no cumplen los requisitos de licencia, por lo que no pueden permanecer en Wikimedia Commons.
Platonides (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Sería de gran ayuda poder tener de regreso esos archivos, ya que no tengo una copia de seguridad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmunozfig (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Files have been temporarily restored. Will delete again in a few hours if nobody beats me to it. Platonides (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: temp restored and re-deleted. --INeverCry 06:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:LlanerosFC.png

--Mompita (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)steven bavativa--Mompita (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use from en:File:LlanerosFC.png. Thuresson (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:FU. --INeverCry 06:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Webb_Canyon_Chronicle_Front_Page_2015.jpg

Hello,

I do not understand how this can be copyright infringement, because I took the picture of the front page of the newspaper myself.

Thank you.

--Orez123 (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)July 21, 2016

 Not done Copyrighted newspaper. Thuresson (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logoturó.png

This file has been deleted from "Turó de l'Enric" page due to copyright problems. I state that I am a member and activist from Salvem el Turó de l'Enric and co-owner, with my other companions, of all the images deleted from the page:

File:Logoturó.png , File:Turoenric.png and File:Mercadonano.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufalà amandla (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mercadonano.png

This file has been deleted from "Turó de l'Enric" page due to copyright problems. I state that I am a member and activist from Salvem el Turó de l'Enric and co-owner, with my other companions, of all the images deleted from the page:

File:Logoturó.png , File:Turoenric.png and File:Mercadonano.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufalà amandla (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufalà amandla (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Turoenric.png

This file has been deleted from "Turó de l'Enric" page due to copyright problems. I state that I am a member and activist from Salvem el Turó de l'Enric and co-owner, with my other companions, of all the images deleted from the page:

File:Logoturó.png , File:Turoenric.png and File:Mercadonano.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufalà amandla (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 05:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gerald O'Brian & Steve Sexton.jpg

Hello,

Please undelete .

The photo (File:Gerald O'Brian & Steve Sexton.jpg) was uploaded with Mr. O'Brien and Mr.Sexton permission for this wikipedia article. FYI: Same condition apply for the picture (File:Gerald O'Brien.jpg) only with Mr. O'Brien in the same article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_O%27Brien_(composer).

"I give permission to post this photo of myself Gerald O'Brien and Stephen Sexton on Wikipedia." - Authorized by Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Sexton (gerald@geraldobrienmusic.com , stvsxtn@aol.com)


Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyIsBowers (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose A permission to only publish the photo at Wikipedia is not acceptable. Photos must be made available for any type of use, including commercial use. Thuresson (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Permissions for use at Wikipedia only are insufficient. Moreover, we would a need free commercial licence from the photographer and not from the persons depicted in the photograph. De728631 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Achraf Baznani Exhibition.jpg

Hello, The image is under CC BY-SA 4.0 [11], please restore it. Alfabytes (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored, this photo was added on the webpage after the deletion. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:DuckDuckGo logo and wordmark.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The duck logo inside circle is licensed under free license - dual-licensed under GPLv1+ and Artistic License (license here). It's available on official GitHub repo here. The rest is obviously {{Pd-textlogo}}. Rezonansowy (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done It seems that GPLv1 is not sufficient for Commons. At least I couldn't find any appropriate licence template while we do have tags for GPL v2 and v3. However, {{Artistic}} does the job. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo_celanova.png

That logo is from Council of Celanova and I am the person who has to update de Wikipedia page. Now the logo of the Wikipedia page of Celanova isn't the official. So it's important to update it.

Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmquercus (talk • contribs)

Please have the copyright owner of the photo use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to verify the copyright status of the photo. Thuresson (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Reckless Wolf Into the Woods.jpg

I'm the owner in photographer of this picture and shareholder of the brand. please visit http://www.recklesswolf.com/credits to show this.

I can also provide trade mark registry UK00003020475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgaller (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lets Have a Butchers.jpg

I'm the shareholder of the brand. please visit http://www.recklesswolf.com/credits to show this.

I can also provide trade mark registry UK00003020475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgaller (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Roger F. Gibson, Jr.jpg

File:Roger F. Gibson, Jr.jpg

Greetings to Wikipedia editors:

Please consider my request to undelete the abovementioned image file.

The image in question is a photograph of Roger F. Gibson, Jr., who was a professional philosopher. He died in September 2015. He himself circulated this photograph both for official business and for any promotional purposes (conferences and colloquia). It can be found in any number of places on the internet. This one happens to be posted along with a notice of his death at the website of his last place of employment (Washington University in St. Louis). But the exact same file is available elsewhere. The reason I uploaded it is that I am in the process of writing a Wikipedia article on him and intend to provide a link to this image file.

Best wishes, House of Mogh. (Student of Roger Gibson)

23 July 2016 17:26


House of Mogh (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Serero_as_Shylock.png&action=edit&redlink=1

Hello, This photo is my creation (I appear on it) and I'm the sole owner. I own 100% of the copyright. Please undelete it. Thanks David Serero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidopera (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go through the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Serero_as_Othello.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Hello, This is my photo and I'm the sole owner and own the copyright. Please undelete it. Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidopera (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go through the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Bilder von der "Stiebitz" und "Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Stiebitz gelöscht?

Hallo, ich bin noch recht neu beim Uploaden von Bildern und daher noch unerfahren....aber...warum werden mein Bilder von den Seiten gelöscht?

Sie betreffen sowohl "Stiebitz" als Dorf an sich und auch die "Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Stiebitz".

Die Bilder zeigen die alte Fasanerie des Gutshofes, dieser wird auf der Wikipedia Denkmalliste auch so erwähnt.

Da der Verfall des Gebäudes schnell voran schreitet und sicher auch nicht gestoppt wird halte ich diese Bilder für sinnvoll und zu erhalten.

Nach bestem Wissen (und nach meiner Einschätzung recht umständlichem Verfahrens die Bilder mit der Wikipedia Seite zu verknüpfen) habe ich die Bilder

hoch geladen und in einer eigenen Kategorie zusammen gefügt.

Ähnlich habe ich es auch beim "Kinderspielepark Kaltwasser" und "Panzerdenkmal Rothenburg" getan. Da war es ok.......

Sollte ich da grundsätzliche Fehler beim Einstellen meiner Bilder begehen erklären sie mir bitte warum....?


Danke und Gruß Frank Lemon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Lemon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

None of your photos have been deleted. If you want to create a page to have an image gallery you must actually add an image gallery. See Commons:Galleries for more information. Thuresson (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --INeverCry 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Informatiepaneel Thedingsweert.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All needed permissions have been granted. See ticket:2016061310014376 Mbch331 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Ciell (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 20:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Señaletica Carretera Austral.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no valid claim for a Copyright violation, since it was a picture from a Public Traffic Sign, on a open blog. I think the user ‪Sfs90‬ is harrasing me for political reasons, he has deleted all my contributions and requested to delete my file , without valid Reason. Alguerre (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: "Open blog" doesn't mean that the author of the photographs don't have copyrights over their images. By the way, the fact that a "Blogspot.com" it's a blog doesn't mean that this is effectively a "free blog" and all their contributions have a free licence. --Sfs90 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose @Alguerre: Sfs90 is right: just because the blog can be accessed freely it does not mean that anyone can copy and re-use the images or text found there. Copyright is automatically bestowed upon photographers even if they photograph public signs, so you cannot upload such images without there being a free licence at the blog. Moreover, the entire blog is full of likely copyright infringements (various old photos, book covers, newspaper articles, etc.) so even if there was a free licence it would be questionable whether the blogger was actually the original author of this photograph. De728631 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631 above. --INeverCry 21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request

Please review this deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg#File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg

The decision made was incorrect. Thank you Grayghost01 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to present new infomation for your request to be considered. Thuresson (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Grayghost01: You can post it here below. --Rezonansowy (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale request. No response to request for undel rationale or pinging. --INeverCry 05:56, 25 July 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_from_fotopresidencia.cl

Per Template:OTRS ticket, I request the restoration of the files from Prensa Presidencia. As many user already know, all the contents of all the websites from the Government of Chile are licensed under the {{CC-GobCL}} license according to the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 (that is mandatory), and this include any of these websites, even if them lacks of the link to the CC-BY license and even if the page contains any restriction statement (these restrictions are just invalid and I requested the updating of the website to be aligned with the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010). (the request at the OTRS Noticeboard is more related with the issue with mail delivery).

Please restore these files as soon as possible in order to be checked by me. The licensing of the contents published by the Government of Chile at its websites after December 2010 shouldn't be questioned anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[One again, ignoring the bold... ] Just advising, that I was engaged in some discussion with that topic, especially via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inicio de las obras de la nueva Línea 6 de Metro.jpg... well, I have no desire [in German: Ich habe kein Bock...] to re-engage in this discussion (and I can't see the OTRS-ticket). For now, I only rechecked some links and copyrights of related sites via my comment Special:diff/152187162 from 03.2015 and... well: after now 6 years they remain as they were (as also some related Flickr accounts, see discussion). As I already said in 2015: I would say: it is a mess... . So... do what you want, I don't care anymore. Currently, I am trying to identify Cross-wiki uploads from pt.wikipedia.org which are +/- 85% bad... Good luck. Gunnex (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there is unclear copyright status. I think OTRS permission is needed. ★ Poké95 11:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1.- I started this thread with OTRS ticket. An OTRS volunteer already answered to me and confirmed its reception, as well the validity of the answer form the Presidency of Chile. Just ask to the OTRS team how many tickets related to {{CC-GobCL}} received... overwhelming.
2.- The Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 is very clear and applies to every content found in every digital platform (aka. Websites) published by every organism of the Government of Chile (most of them .gob.cl) after december 30, 2010, and this was explained for years. Neither disclamier at websites can supersede this official document. Several organism of the State of Chile (Presidency, SEGEGOB, DIBAM, etc.) given the same answer for every Transparency requests by B1mbo and Me.
Again, neither user (specially foreign ones) should questionate our legislation and how it is applied, there is already concensus about this and no doubts should have anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Howicus← ticket owner. @Amitie 10g: Has there been discussion here on Commons that agrees with your reading of the Chilean law? If so, it might be relevant to link it here. I can't find any relevant discussion (using "Chile" as the search term) at COM:VPC. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Alan: (as Spanish-native talking user) already know this situation and already checked previous OTRS tickets related to the Ord. 112/14 of 2010. Alan, please check this ticket, too.
Just AGF and undelete the files, the scope of the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 was explined for more than a year, and it is the only document that establish the licensing for works fro the Government of Chile in its digital platforms. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe you are acting in good faith... but assuming good faith (see Commons:Assume_good_faith#Good_faith_and_copyright) is irrelevant to this discussion: I'm wondering whether your interpretation of Chilean law has been agreed with by anyone else here. The question isn't whether you are trying to comply with copyright law, but rather whether you are correct. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Just restore the files, please. If the admins are too fast when deleting files following the little proof of Gunnex and his misinterpretation of the legislation of Chile, why the admins are too slow to restore these files with the proof that I given (four or five OTRS tickes with the same answer from the Government of Chile)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am personally unconvinced, and am waiting for you to show that at least one other person whose copyright opinions are generally respected agrees with your interpretation of this law. You mentioned a single ticket (ticket:2016031510005968)... which are the other three or four? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? Why you're still questioning the message from the Presidency of Chile and questionating an Ordinance published more that 5 years ago? So WTF?. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, as I have continually said, I am questioning your interpretation. Storkk (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent, I want to explicitly state that ticket:2016031510005968 does not contain a release under a free license. "Creative Commons Atribución" and "CC-BY" are not free licenses, this isn't a matter of Chilean copyright law.    FDMS  4    10:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
FDMS4, I don't understand your comment. "Creative Commons Atribución", which is the same thing as "CC-BY" is a "free license" as we understand those words here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: When releases lacked a CC suite version number, files were generally (from what I've seen) always deleted since there is no way of knowing which legal text exactly they are referring to.    FDMS  4    14:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, is true that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 don't mention the specific version of the CC-BY licnense, but most of the organisms (starting with http://gob.cl) adopted the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license. Should we accept this implicit adoptation of that specific license, or I should communicate directly with the SEGEGOB? (considering that I already requested Transparency information (answer pending), asking if the CC-BY-3.0 Chile is the license offically adopted, and what document ratificate it). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy that calls for deletion of a file that is marked CC-BY without a version number. The summaries at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ are word for word identical. While the two full versions are different, the differences are by way of clarification and do not change the basic legal theory underlying the license. I have no problem at all with accepting CC-BY-3.0 as the intention of the Chilean government -- or perhaps the latest version in existence at the time the law was passed? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a Commons policy (other than COM:PCP), it's copyright. When an upload of mine got deleted back in 2014, it confused me a lot, therefore I asked around onwiki (ping Jkadavoor) and on the CC IRC channel, and the response I got was that one cannot assume what the copyright holder meant unless he explicitly refers to the legal text of a license. This makes perfect sense (I was quite new back in 2014) since a license is simply much more than its summary – when CC updated their license suite, they did make some changes that can make a big difference in court.    FDMS  4    20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall that happening much. We probably just assume the most recent version number, even though legally yes it would be better to point at a version. If on the other hand something just says a "Creative Commons" license without specifying which one, that is a problem. There isn't that much difference between the CC-BY versions in terms of intent though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Got the ping; so this comment. Yes; we can't assume the copyright holder's intention on version number and country porting. The differences between versions may be marginal; but there are indeed some differences on handling attribution, adaptations, etc. Otherwise we can ignore the previous versions and move to newer one whenever CC release new versions.
There were a lot of previous related discussions at VP and AN earlier when attempting to change the redirects of Template:CC-BY and Template:CC-BY-SA to latest versions; all rejected based on these arguments. I can't find the links from my weak Internet; but think Denniss had some similar arguments (like mine). Jee 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not changing the version that a file is pointing to, but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that a tag of "this file is CC-BY" has no legal effect, to the point we actually delete them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a slightest consensus to consider CC BY as CC BY 1.0 which is the initial version. But that version is almost obsolete. The latest version (4.0) is not acceptable to all due to some reasons. I don't know how we can get into a consensus to assume CC BY=CC BY 3.0. Even if accept such files, we may forced to take them down when asked by the copyright holder due to this vagueness. Keeping files until there is a complaint is against COM:PCP. Jee 04:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that that is a reasonable doubt. I don't think 4.0 was current at the time of the statement in question, so agreed on that, but whatever was current at the time would seem to be reasonable. And I think versions 2.0+ allow a work to be used under any later version anyways -- it's not like mixing a CC-BY-2.0 work in a CC-BY-3.0 derivative is a copyright problem. I'm not so sure we would be forced to take them down. Now, it's possible that the instruction in question was basically an order that material should be released with such a license, while perhaps allowing some exceptions, but not an actual release itself -- that could be different. It's one thing to have a policy, but perhaps another to make an actual release. But while I think it's best that OTRS press for a specific version if possible, I don't think deletion is the answer if the version is the only issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection if this is accepted uniformly. My memory, in my OTRS time, we asked for version number when not mentioned. I had asked same question in CC mailing list and the answer was also version number is a must. (if I remember well) Jee 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:ET does indeed state that a version number is required (since 2011).    FDMS  4    20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info: Considering that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 effectively does not specify the exact version of the CC-BY license, I already contacted to the SEGEGOB three weeks ago, asking what is the exact license officially adopted by the Government of Chile (we accepted implicitly the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Chile license for years, considering that most of the Government websites —like gob.cl— have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license), but their answer was not satisfactory, so I requested a Denying reclamation. Therefore, I just contacted to the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales of the DIBAM (at the time to requested an interview), in an attemp to get reliable information about the licensing, at the time to urge the SEGEGOB to give a reliable answer. That answer will be mandatory. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info: The SEGEGOB already answered, but they're still finding the proper and competent person who can answer this issue. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info: No answer yet. I'll go to the OIRS of the SEGEGOB during this week if they found the answer. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: any progress? Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly nope. I'll go personally to the OIRS of the SEGOB next week. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale request. No comment or activity for 1 month. Perhaps this would be better sorted out at COM:VP/C and/or COM:OTRS/N. --INeverCry 06:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Illume OS 2.1 apps window.png

File was not used prior to the nomination (and Illume OS is not longer developed and was superseded by Fluorite OS), but was properly categorised under PCManFM and LXDE, perfectly in scope of Linux screenshots (and considering that the Linux distributions have different customisations in look and feel), and no copyvio in any way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Restore It has educational value. --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --INeverCry 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg

plik został usunięty z powodu rzekomego braku dowodów, że należy do domeny publicznej !!! pomimo, że stanowi część oficjalnej dokumentacji inwestycji publicznej, która została zrealizowana przez polski rząd i mieszkańców miasta Chełm, stanowi część kultury narodowej i nie wymaga na to żadnych dowodów, gdyż jest faktem dokonanym, publicznym i powszechnie znanym, ale także ignorując "Anonymous-EU template" oraz "PD-polski template", poprzez retroaktywne zastosowanie nadrzędności prawa prywatnego nad własnością publiczną do pracy wykonanej dla domeny i użytku publicznego, a ponadto do pracy wykonanej także przed wprowadzeniem jakiegokolwiek prawa autorskiego w Polsce 14 juin 1926 - plik został usunięty bez jakiejkolwiek dyskusji, ignorując wszystkie przedstawione argumenty tylko na podstawie błędnej, niepotwierdzonej i nieuprawnionej supozycji o autorstwie i śmierci rzekomego autora w 1945, z pominięciem publicznego charakteru tych prac, który jest oczywisty i nie wymaga żadnych dowodów - i dlatego plik ten powinien być przywrócony --wkaczura (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

file has been deleted because of an alleged lack of evidence that it belongs to the public domain !!! although that is part of the official documentation of public investment, which was implemented and accomplished by the Polish government and the residents of the city Chelm, is part of national heritage and does not require any evidence for this, because it is a fait accompli, public and well-known, but also ignoring the "Anonymous-EU template" and "PD-Polish template", by owing to the retroactive application of the superiority of private over public property to the work done for the public use and domain, and the work done well before the introduction of any copyright in Poland 14 juin 1926 - file was deleted without any discussion, ignoring all the presented arguments, only on the basis of incorrect, unsubstantiated and unjustified suppositions about the authorship and the death of the alleged author in 1945, bypassing the public nature of the work, which is obvious and requires no proofs ! - therefore, this file should be restored (translation by google)

  • I can't see the original file, but it sounds like it was a photograph of an original drawing, and the author of the drawing died in 1945. PD-Polish is only about the photograph, which in this case may not qualify for copyright in the first place, as it's basically a copy of the drawing, and the copyright of the drawing is the important part here. PD-Polish does not apply to the drawing; that is a straight 70pma by current Polish law. If the author died in 1945 as claimed, then the original deletion was correct, as copyright had not yet expired -- but it would have expired on January 1, 2016. And since Poland was 50 pma on the URAA date, that means it became PD on the URAA date itself, and its U.S. copyright would not have been restored. Its Polish copyright got restored shortly thereafter when they implemented the EU directive, but just expired again this year. So... given the information in the DR, it's a  Support for me. The only mistake on the original DR though was not adding it to Category:Undelete in 2016. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Wkaczura: , @Rezonansowy: @Clindberg: No objections, so I've restored these. The licensing needs to be fixed up. If any of these need to be re-deleted let me know at my talk. INeverCry 06:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg

Requesting undeletion of file on this reply.

I want to request to kindly restore the file as it was deleted as understanding it as a wallpaper. Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama says that screenshots, wallpapers and promotional posters uploaded should be considered as copyright violations and should be deleted. But this file was not a wallpaper. It was a still image of that person. Example, File:Mandana Karimi.jpg is also a still image of a person. It's been linked to "Photos" section: Take a look. The same is with File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg. The first version of File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg even contains "Bollywood Hungama" watermark justifying that the image is not a copyright violation from other website. In the second version, I removed the "Bollywood Hungama" watermark for a clean image. But this file File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg is neither a screenshot from any film, a wallpaper, promotional poster nor a copyright violation. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Another explanation: This File:Mandana Karimi.jpg can also be taken from this site or even this site. It's available on many websites. How do you guarantee that this image is only taken from Bollywood Hungama website? This image File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg is also available on many websites, but the first version of the file uploaded contains the "Bollywood Hungama" watermark. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, at which Bollywood party or event was this photo taken? Thuresson (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The image is not from any Bollywood party or event. The image was just a still image of Jennifer Winget. This is the link which I had given in the file, and it's link is going to "Photos" section. And the same is with File:Mandana Karimi.jpg. The link is given to this source ("Photos" section), and its license review is passed. As per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, no restrictions have been given to still images of persons as these images contain "Bollywood Hungama" watermark. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Than how come this File:Mandana Karimi.jpg's license review is passed. And how is it a valued image. It is not from any Bollywood party or event. The same is with File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg. This comment I've also made above. If the template says that only Bollywood parties and events images should be uploaded than File:Mandana Karimi.jpg should also be deleted. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 12:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

These are some more examples that these images are still images of celebrities and they have been reviewed by Yann. Take a look: File:Deepika Padukone image from Bollywood Hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor Khan - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Sachiin Joshi.jpg, File:Aish N Madhuri.jpg. There might be more files like these.

When your guidelines say that Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may notreview their own uploads unless the account is an approved bot., than how come a user (who is not even image reviewer) Abyjohn1991, has reviewed his own uploads. One example: File:Barkha Madan bhoot party.jpg. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thuresson, Mr. Smart LION: Your understanding of the permission is wrong. Bollywood Hungama does not organise any party or event. It takes pictures of parties and events organised by and for Bollywood people. "Parties and events" has to be taken in a broad sense: any event related to Bollywood people where cameramen are invited or allowed. Are excluded movie materials and pictures taken outside India, as these pictures are not made by Hungama staff/contractors. It is a paparazzi company which sells high quality pictures, and licenses low quality ones with a watermark under a free license. A very clever business model, IMHO. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be very careful here. Bollywood Hungama also watermarks and hosts images they very likely don't own the copyright for. Compare for example the now-deleted File:Bipasha Karan at their Reception.jpg. Huon (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that any material with a watermark is OK. I could agree that the distinction between allowed pictures and others is not very easy. Wallapers are under a different type of URL, within the "wallpapers" subdirectory (e.g. [13]). Please notice that pictures under the "photos" subdirectory are of low resolution, while pictures in the "wallpapers" subdirectory are also available in medium and high resolution. Your and Czar's arguments in the DR do not prove anything. Since Hungama sells high resolution pictures, it is not surprising to find them elsewhere. Pictures on Hungama website are not attributed. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As per Yann's above comment and non-deletion of above mentioned persons' images in the "Photos" subdirectory of Bollywood Hungama, I want File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg to be restored as this image is also the same case. But what about the movie still images File:Aish N Madhuri.jpg and File:Barkha Madan bhoot party.jpg? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yann, so you're arguing it's likely that a couple would, instead of hiring a wedding photographer, invite paparazzi and buy their wedding photos from them? That doesn't sound like a plausible scenario to me. Huon (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Huon: Bollywood weddings are hardly private. These are public events, where dozens of photographers are present. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Smart LION: File:Aish N Madhuri.jpg is clearly not a movie still. For the other one, I am quite undecided. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether the wedding was private or public, the married couple published (a higher-quality version of) that image on their private Instagram channel. So you're arguing it's more likely that they bought photos of their own wedding from paparazzi than that Bollywood Hungama scraped it from Instagram and put their own tag on the image. I happen to disagree with that. Huon (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Now as per Yann's above comment and non-deletion of File:Mandana Karimi.jpg, File:Deepika Padukone image from Bollywood Hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor Khan - Bollywood hungama.jpg and File:Sachiin Joshi.jpg, will File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg be restored? Because this file is also the same case as these files. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 17:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose The license only covers photos from a Bollywood party or event. This looks like a studio portrait. Thuresson (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 Support File:Mandana Karimi.jpg, File:Deepika Padukone image from Bollywood Hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor Khan - Bollywood hungama.jpg and File:Sachiin Joshi.jpg are also studio portraits of persons. These files also don't belong to photos from any Bollywood party or event. When these files haven't marked for deletion, File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg should be restored. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 03:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sreejithk2000: Pinging Sreejithk2000, as he knows the Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. You are required to kindly read the above discussion and vote for the file. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Got reply from Sreejithk2000 on his talk page. He also confirmed that such images are not accepted by Bollywood Hungama template. All images have been marked for deletion by him. I'm now satisfied. This discussion can now be closed. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn as per above. --INeverCry 06:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hakeem khaaliq.jpg

I am the photographer for Hakeem khaaliq.jpg a photo I shot. why was it deleted when I uploaded to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Khaaliq. I proved this link before http://www.mag.nation19.com/team.php showing that I am the photographer. I also explained the META data is not correct and I uploaded the original un cropped, non-photoshopped, file. which I shot on my camera. What more can I provide to prove this is my original photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69thstreet (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Where did you upload the original? All I see here is a 366 × 550 (93,318 bytes) image with no EXIF. INeverCry 05:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
[14] says "Copyright © Nation19.com". EXIF data on that photo say "Copyright Jacob B Murphy" and camera used was Nikon D700. OP should clarify why it is claimed that Jacob Murphy did not take the photo nor was a Nikon camera used. Thuresson (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: stale request. More than 1 week with no response to or clarification of copyright concerns. --INeverCry 06:24, 25 July 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 Svilen1970

Please restore the following files:

Jcb bulk deleted the files listed in the DR, but the above files come from Wikimapia (and Google Image Search didn't returned results prior to the uploading to Wikimapia), therefore, these files are properly sourced and licensed ({{Wikimapia}}). --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Restore Per above. --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --INeverCry 06:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:David Carroll.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The owner emailed a statement of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but I know management is volunteer based and takes time. If you have time to restore the file that'd be appreciated. The ticket number of the owner's message is 2016071410020061. Davidcarroll (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the instructions at the top: "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers." —LX (talk, contribs) 09:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. --INeverCry 18:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:NabilAyers.jpg

I am seeking to have this photo restored. It is a crop of another photo, yes but the copyright belongs to the wikipedia subject, Nabil Ayers as originally posted to his instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/p/8SEAwiNKN_/?taken-by=nabilayers Being that the full photo features Taylor Swift, the photo has been reposted in various places. If there is a way to verify this origin further, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.88.234 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Unless there is a written contract of employment, a written contract mentioning the words work made for hire, or a written copyright transfer agreement, the copyright belongs to whoever created the photo. For this to be restored, that person needs to send in a licensing declaration via e-mail to our permission archive. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pattaya United Logo.jpg

We are the owners of this image and it is free to use for all. Please restore this file. Please let usknow if you require further documentation. Fooballprothai (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"We"? Is that pluralis majestatis, or is your account being used by multiple people?
If you are a representative of Pattaya United F.C. authorised to speak on behalf of the club on copyright matters, you need to send a licensing declaration from your official @ptyutd.com e-mail address to our permission archive in order for this to be restored.
Also, since you have edited the club's article on Wikipedia, if you are indeed a representative of the club, you need to declare your conflict of interest in order to stop violating the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. See Commons:Guidance for paid editors for further details. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Adekunle Ajasin Senate Building.jpg and File:Ighare Iloro.jpg

Hi folks,

Please, I want the above deleted files restored. I am the owner of the files. I took the images with my device. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:INeverCry, could you please take a look at my request? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The image of the building is low-res and dark, which is bad enough, but the other one, of the man, is a very low-quality thumb-sized image. Do you have larger versions of these with EXIF by any chance? INeverCry 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, INC. I only have the low quality versions. Since the images are not too good. I suggest we shouldn't border to restore them. Thanks for your willingness to help. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn per above. --INeverCry 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TheGazette 2016.jpg

I have stated the source to this.--BurnMyHeart2010 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Source: Flickr. --Emha (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Universidad de Málaga.png please undelete because this is the official trade-mark logo for the University of Málaga

Please, we need to replace the file File:Seal University of Málaga.png, that is really located in some wikipedia systems, and appear on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_M%C3%A1laga, with this other image that is the officially sanctioned logo for our University. The use of the image by itself could infringe Picasso Family rights, as the center of the seal is Picasso's famous dove. We have been granted permission to use such image on any non-revenue generating University materials, as long as the University of Málaga or Universidad de Málaga text is together with the seal.

You can check the official rulings at http://www.uma.es/secretariageneral/normativa/propia/consejo/Julio_2007/default.htm plus our corporate identity manual at http://www.uma.es/servicio-comunicacion/cms/menu/imagen-corporativa/marcas-corporativas/

We would like to use the same, or most similar, permissions that are now attached to the seal on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_University_of_M%C3%A1laga.png

Imagencorporativauma (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission do not include commercial use. Thuresson (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Commons. See COM:L for licensing guidelines. --INeverCry 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:The Swallows.pdf

Hello,

The copyright holder (Laurentius Van Acker) sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to declare he has the copyright and that he aproves releasing the image under creative commons license. Can you please undelete this picture?

--Daantje (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the image can be restored. You can check on progress by posting at COM:OTRS/N. OTRS volunteers are busy, so it could take a week or more to get the permission processed. --INeverCry 18:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Multiple files request

Hello, please undelete following files:

per ticket: 2016061310009131. Although the permission is okay for those 3 pictures (one seems to be just differently scaled copy of another) I am pretty unsure whether those images hit the project scope. You might consider further actions. Thanks --Mates (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I left the duplicate deleted. If there's a scope issue, that can be handled in a deletion request. --INeverCry 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

undelete: Virginia_Tech_Libraries

The following original graphics should be UNDELETED from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Virginia_Tech_Libraries

Business and its Environment Economic Systems Demand Curve Supply Curve Equilibrium Price U.S. Unemployment Rate U.S. Inflation Rate U.S. National Debt

All of these graphics are Works for Hire with copyright belonging to the Virginia Tech Libraries. The Dean of the Virginia Tech Libraries has given permission for these images to be licensed with a CC BY 4.0 International license and released in advance of Virginia Tech Libraries' forthcoming book: Fundamentals of Business (aka Open Educational Resource, open textbook) which will be published with a Creative Commons license. The book is a collaboration between the University Libraries and Stephen Skripak's department, the Pamplin College of Business. The images exclusively belong to the University Libraries.

We own these images and would like to release the images to the world under a CC BY 4.0 license. Please let us share them!!

I would be happy to send you written evidence of this permission by the Dean of the Libraries. Kindly reinstate these files as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Virginia Tech Libraries (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Anita Walz Open Education, Copyright & Scholarly Communications Librarian University Libraries, Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginia Tech Libraries (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Virginia Tech Libraries (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Virginia Tech Libraries: As mentioned elsewhere by Ellin Beltz, please forward the written documentation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so it can be verified that your account is indeed connected to the Library. Wiki accounts are inherently anonymous.
Since the images were previously published under a license that is not acceptable on Commons (CC-BY-NC-SA) we cannot undelete them until OTRS verifies the less-restrictive licensing. Reventtalk 03:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS will request undeletion once the relicensing of the specific parts of the work is verified. --Reventtalk 03:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Aeropuerto internacional de maiquetia pasillo.jpg

Hi, Someone could take a look to this nomination, it was closed before I could share the right link. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Photographer: That's still not the right link, it's not the archive of the website given as the source. Also... searching TinEye indicates the same image was visible, as part of a collage, on http://www.aeropuerto-maiquetia.com.ve/pages/tips3.html as far back as 2007, which rather indicates that the website you used in 2011 (which had, per the archive, a very 'generic' claim that they used a 'creative commons license') probably didn't own the image anyhow. Sorry. Reventtalk 02:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Revent. --INeverCry 06:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Alexander Van der Bellen (Stimmen für Van der Bellen, Konzerthaus, 2016-05-16) B01.jpg - Transfer zu WP.de

Sehr geehrtes Commons-Team, ich bitte hiermit um den Transfer von diesem Bild (und allen gleichzeitig mitgelöschten Bildern) zur deutschen Wikipedia - in dieser ist der bemängelte Hintergrund (bei der einmaligen Wahlveranstaltung am 16.5.2016) sicher kein Problem. (Bitte jeweils auch auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite in der WP.de den Vermerk für 'nicht-Commons-fähig' setzen.) -- Schönen Gruß, Sonne7 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Auch auf de.wikipedia gilt der Grundsatz: "Nicht erlaubt ist allerdings die Veröffentlichung von Fotos, auf denen Kunstwerke zu sehen sind, die noch urheberrechtlich geschützt sind, oder sofern die Fotos andere Rechte Dritter (z. B. Persönlichkeitsrechte) verletzen" (siehe de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Die Hintergrundposter auf dieser Veranstaltung sind nunmal urheberrechtlich geschützt, und insbesondere bei dem hier genannten Beispiel sind die Dimensionen so eindeutig, dass eher der Redner als de minimis gelten muss, als das Poster. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. --INeverCry 06:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Evolution of the IHMC-Parañaque Seal.jpg

That image just shows the evolution of our school's seal from the very first one to the present, It doesn't intend to infringe copyrights nor do I as the original uploader claim the logos as my own Drewnewvillage (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drewnewvillage: "For wikipedia use only" images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. The statement "To serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", which you made, is a fair-use justification based on the Wikipedia Non-free Content policy, and can only be used for images uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Commons does not permit fair-use material. Reventtalk 09:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use material is not allowed on Commons, upload to Wikipedia directly. --Reventtalk 09:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RTHK 31A.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is just a capture from the Hong Kong analog channel "31A" from the services provider Radio Television Hong Kong. RTHK started to provide analog TV services at 1 April,2016 to replace the services of that provided by HKATV before and I upload this image to help the readers to see the way how RTHK provide analog TV services (which convert the digital signal of digital channel 31 and 33 into analog signal named "31A" and "33A”.) I will not and I cannot earn money or even violate the copyright of RTHK from the image. For the one who will read this, I hope you can undelete the image uploaded by me. Thank you! A860529259 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose – you can and you did violate the station's copyright by redistributing their content without appropriate permission to do so. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dodge charger Carabineros 2.jpg

Nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Deablith and deleted by INeverCry with the summary Per nomination, despiste that the file has Exif, and no proof of copyvio found. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This is a Cross-wiki upload from es.wikipedia with only "screenshot" in the EXIF. This has no camera metadata and is 623 × 628 (164 KB). I would keep this deleted per COM:PRP. INeverCry 21:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose. Taking a screenshot of someone else's copyrighted work does not make it one's own work to license. The uploader has demonstrated time and time again that their authorship claims are not to be trusted. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Coin_-_Achraf_Baznani.jpg

Hello, I think the image is under licence CC BY-SA 4.0 as mentioned in http://www.baznani.com/contact/ Alfabytes (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lackawanna College Angeli Hall.jpg

I would like to appeal the deletion of File:Lackawanna College Angeli Hall.jpg from the College's Wikipedia page. The file in question was uploaded to Wikipedia by me as a full-time staff member of Lackawanna College. In an effort to improve our search engine results and the accuracy of information about the College across the web, I uploaded the file in good faith as a representation of our main campus building in Scranton, Pa. The image in question is readily available on the College's website, www.lackawanna.edu, and is commonly used in our marketing materials. --Peterparkerpa (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required (Lackawanna College representative). --INeverCry 18:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lackawanna PrimaryLogo FullColor.jpg

I would like to appeal the deletion of File:Lackawanna PrimaryLogo Fullcolor.jpg from the College's Wikipedia page. The file in question was uploaded to Wikipedia by me as a full-time staff member of Lackawanna College. In an effort to improve our search engine results and the accuracy of information about the College across the web, I uploaded the file as it is our primary brand representation. This logo is readily available on our website at http://www.lackawanna.edu/news-events/media-relations/brand/ --Peterparkerpa (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required (Lackawanna College representative). --INeverCry 18:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KUDD.png

Sorry if I am late, but I request this image to be undeleted, because I have the link to the image!

KUDD's logo link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan7157 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't really help. I already told you back in April what you need to do. You're not going to get a different answer here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Since the logo is copyrightable, we would need COM:OTRS permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for OTRS Ticket:2016072710025185

We got OTRS-permission for the files listed below (ticket:2016072710025185; in Ukrainian). I confirmed it. Please restore these files:

Full list of files
  1. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 1.jpg
  2. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 2.jpg
  3. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 3.jpg
  4. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 4.jpg
  5. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 5.jpg
  6. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 6.jpg
  7. File:Археологічний музей Національного історико-етнографічного заповідника «Переяслав» 7.jpg
  8. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 1.jpg
  9. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 2.jpg
  10. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 3.jpg
  11. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 4.jpg
  12. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 5.jpg
  13. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 6.jpg
  14. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 7.jpg
  15. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 8.jpg
  16. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 9.jpg
  17. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 10.jpg
  18. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 11.jpg
  19. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 12.jpg
  20. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 13.jpg
  21. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 14.jpg
  22. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 15.jpg
  23. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 16.jpg
  24. File:Вітряки та водяні млини 17.jpg
  25. File:Гамазей с. Нечипорівка 1.jpg
  26. File:Гамазей с. Пристроми 1.jpg
  27. File:Хата селянина-безземельника з с. В’юнище 1.jpg
  28. File:Хата селянина-безземельника з с. В’юнище 2.jpg
  29. File:Хата селянина-безземельника з с. В’юнище 3.jpg
  30. File:Хата селянина-безземельника з с. В’юнище 4.jpg
  31. File:Комплекс споруд «Двір бондаря» 1.jpg
  32. File:Комплекс споруд «Двір бондаря» 2.jpg
  33. File:Комплекс споруд «Двір бондаря» 3.jpg
  34. File:Комплекс споруд «Двір бондаря» 4.jpg
  35. File:Комплекс споруд «Двір бондаря» 5.jpg
  36. File:Двір вдови 1.jpg
  37. File:Двір вдови 2.jpg
  38. File:Двір вдови 3.jpg
  39. File:Двір гребінника 1.jpg
  40. File:Двір гребінника 2.jpg
  41. File:Двір гребінника 3.jpg
  42. File:Двір гребінника 4.jpg
  43. File:Двір гребінника 5.jpg
  44. File:Двір священика 1.jpg
  45. File:Двір священика 2.jpg
  46. File:Двір священика 3.jpg
  47. File:Двір священика 4.jpg
  48. File:Двір священика 5.jpg
  49. File:Двір священика 6.jpg
  50. File:Двір селянина бідняка 1.jpg
  51. File:Двір селянина бідняка 2.jpg
  52. File:Двір селянина бідняка 3.jpg
  53. File:Двір селянина бідняка 4.jpg
  54. File:Двір селянина бідняка 5.jpg
  55. File:Двір селянина бідняка 6.jpg
  56. File:Двір селянина бідняка 7.jpg
  57. File:Двір селянина бідняка 8.jpg
  58. File:Двір селянина ткача 1.jpg
  59. File:Двір селянина ткача 2.jpg
  60. File:Двір селянина ткача 3.jpg
  61. File:Двір селянина ткача 4.jpg
  62. File:Двір селянина ткача 5.jpg
  63. File:Двір селянина ткача 6.jpg
  64. File:Двір селянина ткача 7.jpg
  65. File:Двір селянина ткача 8.jpg
  66. File:Двір селянина ткача 9.jpg
  67. File:Двір чинбаря 1.jpg
  68. File:Двір чинбаря 2.jpg
  69. File:Двір чинбаря 3.jpg
  70. File:Двір чинбаря 4.jpg
  71. File:Двір чинбаря 5.jpg
  72. File:Дзвіниця с. Бушеве 1.jpg
  73. File:Дзвіниця с. Бушеве 2.jpg
  74. File:Будинок А. О.Козачковського 1.tif
  75. File:Будинок А. О.Козачковського 2.tif
  76. File:Будинок А. О.Козачковського 3.tif
  77. File:Будинок А. О.Козачковського 4.tif
  78. File:Будинок А. О.Козачковського 5.tif
  79. File:Крамниця з с. Гланишів 1.jpg
  80. File:Крамниця з с. Гланишів 2.jpg
  81. File:Крамниця з с. Гланишів 3.jpg
  82. File:Крамниця з с. Соснова 1.jpg
  83. File:Крамниця з с. Соснова 2.jpg
  84. File:Крамниця з с. Ярешки 1.jpg
  85. File:Крамниця з с. Ярешки 2.jpg
  86. File:Крамниця з с. Ярешки 3.jpg
  87. File:Музей козацької слави 1.jpg
  88. File:Музей козацької слави 2.jpg
  89. File:Музей козацької слави 3.jpg
  90. File:Музей козацької слави 4.jpg
  91. File:Музей козацької слави 5.jpg
  92. File:Музей козацької слави 6.jpg
  93. File:Музей козацької слави 7.jpg
  94. File:Музей козацької слави 8.jpg
  95. File:Музей козацької слави 9.jpg
  96. File:Музей козацької слави 10.jpg
  97. File:Музей козацької слави 11.jpg
  98. File:Музей козацької слави 12.jpg
  99. File:Корчма 1.jpg
  100. File:Корчма 2.jpg
  101. File:Корчма 3.jpg
  102. File:Корчма 4.jpg
  103. File:Крамниця-комора с. Дениси 1.jpg
  104. File:Мисливський будинок князя Горчакова 1.jpg
  105. File:Мисливський будинок князя Горчакова 2.jpg
  106. File:Мисливський будинок князя Горчакова 3.jpg
  107. File:Мисливський будинок князя Горчакова 4.jpg
  108. File:Мисливський будинок князя Горчакова 5.jpg
  109. File:Мисливський будинок князя Горчакова 6.jpg
  110. File:Музей Заболотного 1.jpg
  111. File:Музей Заболотного 2.jpg
  112. File:Музей Заболотного 3.jpg
  113. File:Музей Заболотного 4.jpg
  114. File:Музей Заболотного 5.jpg
  115. File:Музей М.М. Бенардоса 1.jpg
  116. File:Музей М.М. Бенардоса 2.jpg
  117. File:Музей М.М. Бенардоса 3.jpg
  118. File:Музей М.М. Бенардоса 4.jpg
  119. File:Музей М.М. Бенардоса 5.jpg
  120. File:Музей М.М. Бенардоса 6.jpg
  121. File:Музей Сковороди 1.jpg
  122. File:Музей Сковороди 2.jpg
  123. File:Музей Сковороди 3.jpg
  124. File:Музей Сковороди 4.jpg
  125. File:Музей Сковороди 5.jpg
  126. File:Музей Шолом-Алейхема 1.jpg
  127. File:Музей Шолом-Алейхема 2.jpg
  128. File:Музей Шолом-Алейхема 3.jpg
  129. File:Музей Шолом-Алейхема 4.jpg
  130. File:Музей Шолом-Алейхема 5.jpg
  131. File:Музей архітектури давньоруського Переяслава 1.jpg
  132. File:Музей архітектури давньоруського Переяслава 2.jpg
  133. File:Музей архітектури давньоруського Переяслава 3.jpg
  134. File:Музей архітектури давньоруського Переяслава 4.jpg
  135. File:Музей архітектури давньоруського Переяслава 5.jpg
  136. File:Музей архітектури давньоруського Переяслава 6.jpg
  137. File:Музей бджільництва 1.jpg
  138. File:Музей бджільництва 2.jpg
  139. File:Музей бджільництва 3.jpg
  140. File:Музей бджільництва 4.jpg
  141. File:Музей бджільництва 5.jpg
  142. File:Музей бджільництва 6.jpg
  143. File:Музей декоративно-ужиткового мистецтва (будинок поміщика) 1.jpg
  144. File:Музей декоративно-ужиткового мистецтва (будинок поміщика) 2.jpg
  145. File:Музей декоративно-ужиткового мистецтва (будинок поміщика) 3.jpg
  146. File:Музей декоративно-ужиткового мистецтва (будинок поміщика) 4.jpg
  147. File:Музей декоративно-ужиткового мистецтва (будинок поміщика) 5.jpg
  148. File:Музей кобзарства 1.jpg
  149. File:Музей кобзарства 2.jpg
  150. File:Музей кобзарства 3.jpg
  151. File:Музей космосу 1.jpg
  152. File:Музей космосу 2.jpg
  153. File:Музей космосу 3.jpg
  154. File:Музей космосу 4.jpg
  155. File:Музей космосу 5.jpg
  156. File:Музей космосу 6.jpg
  157. File:Музей космосу 7.jpg
  158. File:Музей космосу 8.jpg
  159. File:Музей народного одягу Середньої Наддніпрянщини 1.jpg
  160. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 1.jpg
  161. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 2.jpg
  162. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 3.jpg
  163. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 4.jpg
  164. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 5.jpg
  165. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 6.jpg
  166. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 7.jpg
  167. File:Музей народної архітектури та побуту Середньої Наддніпрянщини 8.jpg
  168. File:Музей пам'яті Поліського району 1.jpg
  169. File:Музей пам'яті Поліського району 2.jpg
  170. File:Музей пам'яті Поліського району 3.jpg
  171. File:Музей пам'яті Поліського району 4.jpg
  172. File:Музей пам'яті Поліського району 5.jpg
  173. File:Музей пам'яті Поліського району 6.jpg
  174. File:Музей поштова станція 1.jpg
  175. File:Музей поштова станція 2.jpg
  176. File:Музей поштова станція 3.jpg
  177. File:Музей поштова станція 4.jpg
  178. File:Музей поштова станція 5.jpg
  179. File:Музей трипільської культури 1.jpg
  180. File:Музей трипільської культури 2.jpg
  181. File:Музей трипільської культури 3.jpg
  182. File:Музей трипільської культури 4.tif
  183. File:Музей трипільської культури 5.tif
  184. File:Музей трипільської культури 6.tif
  185. File:Музей трипільської культури 7.tif
  186. File:Музей трипільської культури 8.tif
  187. File:Музей трипільської культури 9.tif
  188. File:Музей трипільської культури 10.tif
  189. File:Музей трипільської культури 11.tif
  190. File:Музей трипільської культури 12.tif
  191. File:Музей українських обрядів (школа с. Студеники) 1.jpg
  192. File:Музей українських обрядів (школа с. Студеники) 2.jpg
  193. File:Музей українських обрядів (школа с. Студеники) 3.jpg
  194. File:Музей українських обрядів (школа с. Студеники) 4.jpg
  195. File:Музей українських обрядів (школа с. Студеники) 5.jpg
  196. File:Музей хліба 1.jpg
  197. File:Музей хліба 2.jpg
  198. File:Музей хліба 3.jpg
  199. File:Музей хліба 4.jpg
  200. File:Музей хліба 5.jpg
  201. File:Музей хліба 6.jpg
  202. File:Музей хліба 7.jpg
  203. File:Музей хліба 8.jpg
  204. File:Музей хліба 9.jpg
  205. File:Музей хліба 10.jpg
  206. File:Музей хліба 11.jpg
  207. File:Музей історії лісового господарства 1.jpg
  208. File:Музей історії лісового господарства 2.jpg
  209. File:Музей історії лісового господарства 3.jpg
  210. File:Музей історії лісового господарства 4.jpg
  211. File:Музей історії лісового господарства 5.jpg
  212. File:Музей-діорама 1.jpg
  213. File:Музей-діорама 2.jpg
  214. File:Музей-діорама 3.jpg
  215. File:Народний сухопутний транспорт 1.jpg
  216. File:Народний сухопутний транспорт 2.jpg
  217. File:Народний сухопутний транспорт 3.jpg
  218. File:Народний сухопутний транспорт 4.jpg
  219. File:Народний сухопутний транспорт 5.jpg
  220. File:Народний сухопутний транспорт 6.jpg
  221. File:Покровська церква з села Сухий Яр 1.jpg
  222. File:Покровська церква з села Сухий Яр 2.jpg
  223. File:Покровська церква з села Сухий Яр 3.jpg
  224. File:Поліська хата із с. Вабля 1.jpg
  225. File:Поліська хата із с. Вабля 2.jpg
  226. File:Поліська хата із с. Вабля 3.jpg
  227. File:Поліська хата із с. Вабля 4.jpg
  228. File:Поліська хата із с. Вабля 5.jpg
  229. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 1.jpg
  230. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 2.jpg
  231. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 3.jpg
  232. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 4.jpg
  233. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 5.jpg
  234. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 6.jpg
  235. File:Садиба заможного селянина-землевласника 7.jpg
  236. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 1.jpg
  237. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 2.jpg
  238. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 3.jpg
  239. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 4.jpg
  240. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 5.jpg
  241. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 6.jpg
  242. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 7.jpg
  243. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 8.jpg
  244. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 9.jpg
  245. File:Садиба заможного селянина-промисловця 10.jpg
  246. File:Садиба олійника 1.jpg
  247. File:Садиба олійника 2.jpg
  248. File:Садиба столяра 1.jpg
  249. File:Садиба столяра 2.jpg
  250. File:Садиба столяра 3.jpg
  251. File:Садиба столяра 4.jpg
  252. File:Садиба столяра 5.jpg
  253. File:Садиба столяра 6.jpg
  254. File:Будівля сільської управи із с. В'юнище 1.jpg
  255. File:Будівля сільської управи із с. В'юнище 2.jpg
  256. File:Будівля сільської управи із с. В'юнище 3.jpg
  257. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 1.jpg
  258. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 2.jpg
  259. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 3.jpg
  260. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 4.jpg
  261. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 5.jpg
  262. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 6.jpg
  263. File:Комплекс споруд «Садиба гончара» 7.jpg
  264. File:Церква Покрови Пресвятої Богородиці c. Острійки 1.jpg
  265. File:Церква Покрови Пресвятої Богородиці c. Острійки 2.jpg
  266. File:Церква Покрови Пресвятої Богородиці c. Острійки 3.jpg
  267. File:Церква Покрови Пресвятої Богородиці c. Острійки 4.jpg
  268. File:Церква Покрови Пресвятої Богородиці c. Острійки 5.jpg
  269. File:Церква святого Георгія з с. Андруші 1.jpg
  270. File:Церква святого Георгія з с. Андруші 2.jpg
  271. File:Церква св. Параскеви з с. В’юнище 1.jpg
  272. File:Церква св. Параскеви з с. В’юнище 2.jpg
  273. File:Церква св. Параскеви з с. В’юнище 3.jpg
  274. File:Церква св. Параскеви з с. В’юнище 4.jpg
  275. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 1.jpg
  276. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 2.jpg
  277. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 3.jpg
  278. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 4.jpg
  279. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 5.jpg
  280. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 6.jpg
  281. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 7.jpg
  282. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 8.jpg
  283. File:Церква трьохсвятительська парафіяльна (Музей рушника) 9.jpg
  284. File:Церковна сторожка c. Рудяків 1.jpg
  285. File:Церковна сторожка c. Рудяків 2.jpg
  286. File:Церковна сторожка c. Рудяків 3.jpg
  287. File:Церковно - парафіяльна школа з с. Помоклі 1.jpg
  288. File:Церковно - парафіяльна школа з с. Помоклі 2.jpg
  289. File:Церковно - парафіяльна школа з с. Помоклі 3.jpg
  290. File:Церковно - парафіяльна школа з с. Помоклі 1.jpg
  291. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 1.jpg
  292. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 2.jpg
  293. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 3.jpg
  294. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 4.jpg
  295. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 5.jpg
  296. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 6.jpg
  297. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 7.jpg
  298. File:Шинок з с. Рудяків 8.jpg

--sasha (krassotkin) 05:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring the files... @Jcb : Again, please stop deleting files that have the {{OTRS pending}} template before the 30 days, jesus... --Thibaut120094 (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lars_von_trier.jpg

this is my work, you can contact me any time to verify (google my name it is a real one). The image is a promo photo released by me and the person depicted (lars von trier) for free usage by anyone.

I am new on wikipedia writing and quite frankly dont know how this whole process works. If uploading the image and declaring it is mine is not enough, what do i need to do in order to prove it and successfully upload it? I've had pretty much every photo i uploaded deleted. All photos i have uploaded are promo photos from mr Von Trier's work. Despite declaring his free use release when uploading them, the photos are constantly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Because accounts are basically anonymous and thousands of images copies from the internet are uploaded each day, we require a separate process (COM:OTRS) for images previously published on the internet. This process aims to ensure the copyright owner is in fact licensing the work, and avoids any confusion over what rights are being given up. It's also possible to make the images available on a source site associated with the copyright owner with a clear license there, but otherwise, when we see images copied from the internet without an apparent license on the source page, we tend to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, you were just lying about the copyright status of many of your illegal uploads, as the admins :@Hedwig in Washington: and :@INeverCry: could easily prove. You used totally different names as authors as the international press did and I gave evidence to that, also "your" works were never published under a free license. Please also read COM:Licensing first, like already mentioned several times on your Discussion Page. I'm really impressed your account hasn't been sanctioned, yet. Greetings from Germany.--Mario-WL (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeOn July 25, 2016, you uploaded the photo File:Dunst-cannes-trier.jpg claiming this is your own photo. This is in fact a photo by Associated Press photographer Joel Ryan (apimages.com. This is not a "promo photo", it is an editorial photo by somebody who is trying to make a living taking photos for money.

The same day you uploaded File:Lars-von-trier-shooting.jpg claiming that this is also you own photo. According to EXIF data the name of the phographer is Rolf Konow a respected still photographer in Danish movies. Thuresson (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PRP and snowball close. Augstn, if you are the real copyright holder of this work, please send an email to the OTRS, and also explain there why you uploaded works by other people without their permission and even claimed that they are your own work which is actually not. --★ Poké95 10:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)

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

Special:DeletedContributions/Eranglr1

All files by Erangler1. They have been tagged as missing permisson and have been deleted but imho they are fine. See discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masur#tagging_files . Amada44  talk to me 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I read your discussion and can follow your arguments. So I restored the files. --Emha (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Good arguments in the discussion. DR better than "Missing permission". --Emha (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:EZLO Quick Start Guide Manual - eZLO Smart Home.pdf

This file was a guide or manual for eZLO Users copyrighted however, cited and stated a reliable and only source directly from the website:

Consider to Retrieve File File:EZLO Quick Start Guide Manual - eZLO Smart Home.pdf on URL https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EZLO_Quick_Start_Guide_Manual_-_eZLO_Smart_Home.pdf with a source to https://support.ezlo.com/support/solutions/articles/6000138503-ezlo-quick-guide (vanity URL) (eZLO Smart Home's Fresh Desk Support) and to which redirected to https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzDyHF5-vz4MRzRfYURyWWJEVDA/view.

Kindly consider to view the source: https://ezlo.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/6000138503-ezlo-quick-guide

 Not done. From www.ezlo.com, "eZLO and all text, illustrations, files, images, software, scripts, graphics, photos, sounds, music, videos, information, content, materials, products, services, URLs, technology, documentation, interactive features and all intellectual property rights to the same are owned by us, our licensors, or both. Additionally, all trademarks, and trade names that may appear on our website or website content are owned by eZLO Smart Home or their respective owners." Thuresson (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Belgian FOP cases/deleted

Belgium now has Freedom of Panorama according to Commons, so I'd like to request that these past cases are reviewed.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it. All help welcome. INeverCry 19:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored all but 12 out of 78 DRS. The ones that remain deleted are text/net copyvios/or not in public. --INeverCry 22:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ALEX NILSON.jpg

This file was deleted under COM:PRP even though it was clearly a work of the uploader and released under the GNU GPL and Creative Commons licenses. The order of events was as follows:

  1. The image was uploaded as an "own" work and undisturbed for years.
  2. More recently, an anonymous user and a brand-new user screwed around with the image-summary template. They tried changing the username of the uploader to somebody's real name, which broke that link. They [presumably accidentally] broke the {{En}} template's syntax, causing the description to no longer appear in the image summary. And lastly, they added a spam link to [presumably] the disc jockey's Facebook page, except they added it to the copyright permission parameter of the image-summary template (again, new users don't usually understand the finer points of template syntax).
  3. Weeks later when I saw the errant edits, I applied for rollback privileges to make this kind of cleanup easier. I used the above spam and test edits as an example for how I would use the permission, if granted.
  4. Very shortly after I posted my request, Ellin Beltz nominated the file for deletion. Perhaps she'd seen my rollback request, I'm not sure. Regardless, she didn't bother to investigate the page history, instead citing "no permission at Facebook" and "strange description" as reasons. Note that the GNU and CC licenses remained on the image page all along.
  5. I cleaned the vandalism and explained as much on the FfD.
  6. Nobody else bothered to !vote.
  7. INeverCry closed the discussion and deleted the image citing COM:PRP, which is silly because by that logic we'd be deleting every file that saw a spam link accidentally inserted in the permission parameter of the summary template. INeverCry didn't bother to address my concerns, either.

Please reconsider the status of this file, particularly in regard to how the uploader labeled it. Thanks. – voidxor 22:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored this without the problematic revisions that led to confusion. I've reverted the delinker to replace all usages. --INeverCry 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vincenzo Langella - draghetto86 - Pitti 88.jpg

I have all permissions to share the pic, please close the deletion request --Bx67212 (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing, file has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:This Could Be Heartbreak.jpg

Hi, I would like this file undeleted, as it is in full circulation throughout the internet, and on iTunes. Anyone can use this picture to identify 'This Could Be Heartbreak' by The Amity Affliction without breaking copyright laws. All of their other album covers are on Wikimedia, and the band obviously didn't upload them, it was a user like me. Thanks --Josh2221 (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. The fact that you found something on the Internet is generally an indication that you may not upload it here. Not the other way around, as you seem to think.
Quoting directly from the notice on your user talk page: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here." You should read the messages on your user talk page. They're not there as decoration.
Any album covers you found on English Wikipedia articles were likely hosted locally on that project as non-free content under a fair use rationale for a specific context, but Commons, being a general purpose media repository, by definition has no context, so fair use does not apply here. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing, fair use album covers are out of scope. Thuresson (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-07&oldid=644653187"