Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-08

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:Stairs of the Musée Magnin.jpg File:Entrance of the Musée Magnin.jpg

Hello, I'm contacting you to ask you to undelete the files written ahead and to not touch the Eustache Le Sueur "Poliphile au bain avec les nymphes" or "Poliphile on bath with the nymphs" in english. I'm the intern of the Musée Magnin, and I was requested to complete the very undeveloped and scary page that existed in english. I appologise if I didn't reply correctly to your copyright protection policy, but I'm french and I don't have a good enough level in english to understand all the little lines.

Those pictures were taken by the RMN agence (Reunion of the french museums) for us to use, so you don't have to worry of a violation. So please, please, give us back the picture so I can enjoy the view of this page, I spent so many hours to build.. Yours faithfully,

Alexia Maume, Intern at the Musée Magnin aka "Musée magnin Dijon"

P.S: if you konw the trick to center the gallery, could you please tell me? Because I have to admit I tried and tried again and the only result I got was a headache.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musée Magnin Dijon (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 July 2016‎ (UTC)

@Musée Magnin Dijon: Since you are not the author of the images, you must either provide a location on the internet where the RMN has themselves published the images under the stated license, or have them contact OTRS (see COM:OTRS) and provide acceptable evidence of the licensing. The first image, for example, is published at http://www.grandpalais.fr/node/15733 with a statement that it is copyrighted by the RMN, and with no acceptable license statement. We cannot accept the word of an (unverified, and so anonymous) third-party... we need a statement from the owner of the images.
In addition, you should either verify via the same OTRS system that you are an official representative of the museum, or request that your account name be changed...otherwise you risk being blocked for using an inappropriate username. A request that you be blocked for promotional editing has already been made, and has not yet been closed.
It would probably help if someone restated this in French. Reventtalk 09:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
See my message on Musée Magnin Dijon's talk page. Yann (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 23:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Drewnewvillage

As far as I remember it was uploaded to wikipedia. Now that I have lost my copies it's impossible to re-upload it. Can't just be moved out of Commons? Drewnewvillage (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Which administrative action do you request to have done and which is the name of the file? Thuresson (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Look at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-07#File:Evolution_of_the_IHMC-Para.C3.B1aque_Seal.jpg.
@Drewnewvillage: You want the file, is that right? Send me an E-Mail via this tool and I can send you a copy of your uploades file. BUT: if you want to give us a permission for a valid licence, you DON'T have to re-upload it. We need a permission by the owner of the rights via E-Mail as you can read at COM:OTRS --Emha (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Encoplando Portada.jpg

Released as GFDL, see https://ast.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ficheru:ENCOPLANDO2004.jpg&oldid=366209 91.9.103.219 10:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Although GFDL is a valid license and accepted on Commons, GFDL is against the spirit of Commons, since it requires reusers to not only attribute the author but also copy the whole license (including the legal code), which is a major inconvenience. It may not be a problem to documents and books, since you just need about 3 pages, but for an image, it is a huge problem. I am actually considering no longer accepting files that are licensed under GFDL only. ★ Poké95 11:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Your approach of disrespect to the community consensus ("I am actually considering no longer accepting files that are licensed under GFDL only.") will prevent moving GFDL-only images from Wikimedia Foundation projects to Commons. 91.9.103.219 11:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 Comment PLEASE speedy restore, so the local copy in Asturian Wikipedia can be deleted. 91.9.103.219 11:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose @91.9.103.219: The page on astwiki has already been deleted, so that's not particularly helpful, and there seems to be no visible reason given. While the file was uploaded by Hectorbraga, the given source was simply for the ancient PD image in the middle, not what was actually uploaded, and HectorBraga.com gives no indication that the image is licensed under the GFDL... it simply has a generic "© 2016 HÉCTOR BRAGA". We cannot trust the name of an unverified wiki account as evidence of proper licensing. Unless it's argued to be 'as a whole' uncopyrightable under Spanish law, we need evidence that it was actually released under the GFDL. Reventtalk 13:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Madhouse profile.jpg

I would like to request undeletion since this is not a copyrighted photo.

I have other high-res pictures that I've tried uploading, but they all claim possible copyright violations, which is not the case.

Lilize29 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lilize29: This picture was first published on Facebook, which is this. Facebook's license is incompatible with our licensing policy. If you are the real copyright holder of the work, please send an email to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 13:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Madhouse live.png

I would like to request undeletion since this is not copyrighted material.

Lilize29 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lilize29: This picture was first published on Facebook, which is this. Facebook's license is incompatible with our licensing policy. If you are the real copyright holder of the work, please send an email to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 13:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Banda di Alcamo.jpg

The photo is 66 years old! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugliesig (talk • contribs) 11:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And in most places, copyright doesn't expire until the person who created the photo has been dead for more than 70 years. So your point is...? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: File sourced to "internet" with no evidence of a free license of any kind. --INeverCry 22:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

This is my photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aec345678 (talk • contribs)

The real file name is necessary to proceed with your request. Thuresson (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Aec345678: Assuming the file you want to restore is File:魏嘉賢.png, that file was deleted because of COM:PRP and it was previously published on another website. If you are the real copyright holder of the image, please send an email to the OTRS, and prove how you became the copyright holder of the image despite being previously published. Thanks, ★ Poké95 03:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:AnnaReinke.png

This image is a part of the same archive that the text is used in the draft. I have submitted permission letter for your review. Please un-delete.Ssinyakov (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssinyakov: Can you state here the OTRS ticket id (ex. 2016xxxxxxxxxxxx) so that OTRS volunteers can find the permission easier? Thanks, ★ Poké95 03:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 22:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:OLVAC-logo png.png

Dear, I'm part of the board from this club. The board is owner of the copyrights from the clublogo, so I don't really understand why it should be deleted. Thanks in advance for your reaction, and thanks as well for checking copyrights so intensively! Yours sincerely, Christophe Gils — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Gils (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:47, 31 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 Ch.th

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The email permission from https://plus.google.com/+KomalJhaOnline/photos as mentioned by the deleting admin in the talk thread has been sent to 'commons-permissions' by the owner of the pictures. They also provide the permissions to use and distribute the pictures from their websites through Commons under the terms of Commons. Please undelete all the images. Ch.th (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Ch.th (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose If the copyright owner use the process outlined at COM:OTRS the request will be processed in due order by unpaid volunteers. Thuresson (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file/s can/will be restored. --INeverCry 22:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:TortoiseGit logo.svg

This file is GPLv2 licensed and is located inside the official TortoiseGit repository (https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/tree/master#license, license is here: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/blob/master/src/gpl.txt)

Origiinal is based on TortoiseSVN logo, which is also GPL licensed (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tortoisesvn_logo_hor468x64.PNG). It is adapted by myself.

--MrTux (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @MrTux: , @Amitie 10g: I've restored it. Please make sure the licensing is clear and correct. --INeverCry 22:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Staples Entrance.jpg

Joseph Fuller himself took this picture. Do I have to have him sign a form to have it undeleted? Eperless (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Staples Longshot.jpg

Joseph Fuller took this shot. Do I have to have him fill out a permission form, if so which one and how do I get it?

Thank you. Eperless (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Orion's Belt Perless.jpg

This photograph was taken by Robert Perless of his own sculpture and he has sent in the appropriate form. Eperless (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file/s can/will be restored. --INeverCry 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

‪File:CPCBAGUIOFORESTGROUP1x10by8.jpg

The photograph is of public figures: President Chiang Kai-Shek, President Elpidio Quirino, and Ambassador Chih-Ping Chen; in a public event: the Baguio Conference; by an unknown photographer in 1949. --Tsochen (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is the photographer and where was this photo first published? Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No response. Stale request. --INeverCry 23:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:2estacioncosta.jpg

Quiero recuperar este archivo porque me dicen que lo han borrado porque no soy quien ha hecho la foto, pero hay muchas imágenes antiguas en Commons que no pueden haber hecho los que las han subido...--Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This was deleted following a formal request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2estacioncosta.jpg. If you have any new information about this particular photo you are welcome to share it. Thuresson (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No response. Stale request. --INeverCry 23:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright OCN/Karim Nassar as of http://www.ocn.ch/ocn/fr/pub/ocn/galerie_photos.cfm

Les droits de cette photographie sont à l'OCN / Karim Nassar, comme inscrit sur le site Internet official : http://www.ocn.ch/ocn/fr/pub/ocn/galerie_photos.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCN Fribourg (talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify which file you would like to have undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No response. Stale request. --INeverCry 23:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:OLVAC-logo png.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Thanks for the fast and accurate review of al used content. I'm in the board of this footbal-club (Olvac), and the copyrights for our logo are preserved to the board. For this reason I asume that the deletion was unnecessary. Please let me know what I can do to restore the logo, or what info you need as a prove. Many thanks, Christophe Christophe Gils (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lukas Kranzelbinder (c) by Severin Koller..jpg

I got all the rights form the photographer to post this picture on the wikipedia site! Please allow me to do so. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukaskra (talk • contribs) 18:28, 01 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lahiguera.jpg

Hello, the author of the picture already sent (last 18th July) a correctly filled out copy of a written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. However, the file Lahiguera.jpg continues deleted and there has not been any change in its status. I know you make a based volunteer work, but please retrieve that e-mail and undelete the file, we have already done our part. Thanks in advanced. --Dani jaem (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done If a file has been sent to the OTRS team it will be processed in due order by hard working volunteers who do this in their spare time without any financial compensation. Thuresson (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Riverland™ Dubai.jpg

This was part of a set of files which were temporarily undeleted for further discussion. See the undeletion archives.

This file should have this permission tag on it. @Ronhjones: , you reviewed the other files in this series, but somehow, this one was omitted. I had made the error in listing it for undeletion originally, but someone brought it back temporarily, and I think it was not tagged. {{PermissionOTRS|id=2016030110011405|user=???}}

Whatever the case, now I would like the file undeleted if someone could confirm that the OTRS release is sufficient. Please see the above linked undeletion request discussion for context. Sorry for the trouble. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted - that's a monster of a ticket... :-( It's there in the list of images to be undeleted. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Elena Somarè.jpg

La foto in questione di Elena Somarè è stata scattata da me ed è di mia proprietà. Come mai è stata tolta? Potreste ripristinarla per cortesia? Grazie mille --Veroniquemd (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from someone at http://www.elenasomare.com/ is required. --INeverCry 05:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Concerto Elena Somarè.jpg

Questa foto è di mia proprietà ed è stata scattata da me. Potreste ripristinarla cortesemente? Grazie mille --Veroniquemd (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from someone at http://www.elenasomare.com/ is required. --INeverCry 05:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Elena Somarè concerto.jpg

Scusate questo è il nome corretto del file, in ogni caso ribadisco che è una foto di mia proprietà da me scattata--Veroniquemd (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from someone at http://www.elenasomare.com/ is required. --INeverCry 05:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Amalthea logo.png

The reason for the request is it is not photoshopped and the Summit(Amalthea) uses this image as part of their campaign to be on the this(Wikipedia) platform. If they can't even use their own logo then the purpose of their mascot is not fulfilled. --Global-wiki-user (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holdr required. --INeverCry 05:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ишутко ВД.png

Hi all,

My file (Ишутко ВД.png) was deleted. Reason is: "Possible copyrighted image. EXIF is missing. It seems the original photograph was snapped."

That file is a photo of my grandfather belongin to our family. It was created 20 or 30 years ago by my uncle and I've made a scan out of it to uplod at Commons. What should I do to undelete photo?

Thanks a lot

--Lombasds (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Uploader is not the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please contact OTRS and explain your situation. --INeverCry 05:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Obsession DefCon M7 Compound Bow.jpg

I am the original image's photographer. There is no violation of copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstambaugh (talk • contribs) 03:21, 01 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 05:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Obsession_Defcon_6_Compound_Bow.jpg

I am the original content creator (Photographer). This flag for deletion is not supported by fact.

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 05:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Левон Акопян.jpg

This is normal photo, its make my friend. He is journalist and he allowed me to use it. --Levon.avkopan (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So why did you claim that this was your own photo when you uploaded it? Thuresson (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 05:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Foto ai upv Ana Iriarte.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam,

I didn´t know the image were of your friend. But I upload this image in the wiki-article of professor Ana Iriarte Goñi [4], together with another images of her publications and they have been eliminated too, why?

I ask restore images to article.

Best regards,

Estíbaliz García — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egargo (talk • contribs) 13:57, 01 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read Commons:First steps and Commons:Licensing before submitting any further images. Thuresson (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 05:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:DeGaulle Manor.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: picture is owned Joeblackkhole (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Owned by Google Street View apparently. Thuresson (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyrighted by Google. --INeverCry 05:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Teemo.JPG

I've read the undelete request I made earlier and don't contest it. Can someone temporarily undelete this so I can save it and re-up this onto enwiki?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: I've temporarily restored it. INeverCry 05:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I do want to say though, upon seeing the image again, it really does hardly look like the copyrighted character. I'm not even sure if this is a fair use claim.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporary undeletion done. Unless we're sure beyond COM:PRP, this has to stay deleted. Another undeletion request could be opened. --INeverCry 05:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


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

I-SAPS files

We got OTRS-permission from the Institute of Social and Policy Sciences on these files (Ticket:2016072210005465):

Please restore. --sasha (krassotkin) 04:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: Please add the tickets. --INeverCry 05:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Bryce.dunn9

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of these images should be classified under fair use.

They're simply screenshots of a video. The screenshot is of 1 frame of video. However this frame has also been cropped. 1 frame of a 20 minute video that runs at 60 frames per second is 1 out of 72000 or 0.001% of the original work and then this too has been cropped to under a quarter of the original frame.

Link to the YouTube channel they came from: https://www.youtube.com/user/yogcivilization Bryce.dunn9 (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 Not done Please read Commons:First steps before submitting further material to Wikimedia Commons. Thuresson (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Mumn.jpg.jpg

File:Mumn.jpg.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeshasha (talk • contribs) 02:36, 03 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Previously published here by International Gymnastics Federation. Thuresson (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Aleksandra Soldatova.jpg.jpg

Aleksandra Soldatova.jpg.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeshasha (talk • contribs) 02:37, 03 August 2016 (UTC)

Used as an official photo by the International Federation of Gymnastics, highly unlikely to belong to the uploader. OTRS needed. Reventtalk 07:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:YanaKudryavtseva2015-09.jpg

File:YanaKudryavtseva2015-09.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeshasha (talk • contribs) 02:38, 03 August 2016 (UTC)

As above... Used as an official photo by the International Federation of Gymnastics, highly unlikely to belong to the uploader. OTRS needed. Reventtalk 07:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Arosa Coat of Arms.svg and File:Arosa Coat of Arms Minimalists.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Natuur12: Improper reasons were used to delete the files. If the CoA is disputed then {{Disputed coat of arms}} could have been used on the pages without deleting the files. Offnfopt(talk) 05:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The reason for deletion was a formal deletion request which is in accordance with Commons:Deletion policy. If you believe that the closing administrator did not follow policy, start by using the administrators talk page first. Thuresson (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You say it was in accordance with Commons:Deletion policy, but what specifically on the deletion policy are you referencing as a reason for deletion? Offnfopt(talk) 05:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that you contact the administrator who closed the discussion to have the matter clarified. Thuresson (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If the reason for deletion is valid in regards to deletion policy I would like to know why can't you just tell me a valid reason instead of passing the wand? The reasoning in posting here is to get another set of eyes to look at the reasoning used to delete my files. If you refuse to comment other than vague "I oppose because it was in accordance with deletion policy". That isn't giving any specifics or valid reason for deletion. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I already presented my argument in the DR and no valid reason for deletion was listed in either DR. Offnfopt(talk) 05:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
A successful request for undeletion should include some new piece of information that was not known when the file was deleted. If there is anything new I'd like to hear it. But this is not a court of appeal. Thuresson (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
How do you expect anyone to willingly give their time and effort to help with commons if their images can be deleted for no reason other than "different version". No one can even state a valid rule that would be the cause for deletion. Offnfopt(talk) 10:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Offnfopt(talk) 11:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --INeverCry 19:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:cycling in the air.jpg

It is photoed by me (Bao Bao Leung 0218 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC))

@Bao Bao Leung 0218: This image, and your other uploads that were deleted, have been published with an 'all rights reserved' copyright claim by "The Family Project", on a Internet page that includes other similar photos of the same people. We need a verification of the licensing submitted via COM:OTRS. Reventtalk 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Anushree_Kannada.jpg

Since the quoted file is my own work, not pulished anywhere in public domain kindly undelete said file.

Thankyou

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@RohithKumarPatali: The image was published on the Internet well over a year before it was uploaded to Commons, according to reverse image search. You need to provide evidence that you are the author of the image via COM:OTRS. Reventtalk 08:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thankyou for your suggestion.

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Poster Me estás matando Susana.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own the rights to this poster. Our company created it. We are giving permission to use it as it is best for a film page to carry it's poster. 71.119.193.104 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:SCA-Logotype-RGB.png

The file was a simple wordmark on a silhouette and did not meet the threshold of originality. It should not have been deleted. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 Support I wonder if it was realized that the silhouette here is just the shape of Afghanistan... you can't copyright that, and the rest is just text in an obvious arrangement. Reventtalk

 Not done: per Revent & P. S. Burton. --INeverCry 20:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Stiftsquelle Panorama Abfüllanlage Dorsten.jpg

12 Stunden nach Hinweis auf drohende Löschung war das Bild weg? Das Foto habe ich persönlich gemacht und es ist von mir freigegeben. Ich verstehe die Löschung nicht. Ich hätte das Bild sehr gerne wieder hergestellt. (Herb Econis (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC))

Hallo @Herb Econis: das können wir gerne machen. Der Sachverhalt ist folgender: auf http://www.stiftsquelle.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/stiftsquelle_panorama_produktion_1920x745_mittel.jpg gibt es genau das Bild online, Du sagst aber, dass Du das Bild selbst gemacht hast. Wir brauchen jetzt einen schriftlichen Nachweis von Dir, dass das stimmt, und dass Du berechtigt bist, das Bild hier unter der freien Lizenz "cc-by-sa-4.0" hochzuladen. Du musst dafür eine E-Mail von einer Adresse schreiben, die das bezeugt (also nicht web.de oder sowas). Ich empfehle Dir dafür unseren Assistenten auf https://wmts.dabpunkt.eu/freigabe3/, der Dir Schritt für Schritt dabei hilft. Viel Erfolg und viele Grüße, --Emha (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: file has been restored. --INeverCry 20:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Best Treasury Managment Award.jpg

This is a genuine photo for the national bank award!! We are responsible for this image. I am still wondering why it has been deleted !

Thanks, -- 

Bashar --Tahayna (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from tnb.ps is required. --INeverCry 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo of REVE Antivirus.png

We've received permission through OTRS to use this logo under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. See ticket:2016061610009395. Please ping me when this file is restored so I can appropriately mark it as OTRS verified and close out the ticket. BU Rob13 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Restored. --INeverCry 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AnnMacintosh.jpg

Permission received at ticket:2016061710005781; please ping me upon restoration. Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Restored. --INeverCry 00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yves Jacques par Julie Bouchard.jpg

Permission received in ticket:2016061710002032. Please ping upon undeletion. Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Restored. --INeverCry 03:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Ragilnih

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Get back that my files Ragilnih (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose They are not. Thuresson (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: You do not own the copyright to these files. The seperate companies do. If you work for all these companies at once and would like to prove that they want to release these logos under a free license, please read COM:OTRS and send an email to them. --Josve05a (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Naor R. Bitton.jpg

The reason I prefer this file to be online rather than נאור ביטון.jpg is that I have the full rights over File:Naor R. Bitton.jpg and I wish it to be featured on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshdodIt2016 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Both files are the same photo. I don't quite understand how you can have full rights to a photo that הילה ביטון owns the copyright to. Thuresson (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --INeverCry 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Skeeldkoarke.jpg

Source says it is PD

Why was this deleted? CommonSupporter (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This had the following in place of a license: "Template:PD-eigenwark was used in the original description page, but does not appear to exist on commons." All that's needed for this file is the proper Commons license that matches PD-eigenwark. INeverCry 19:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
nds-nl:Mal:PD-eigenwark links to en:Template:PD-self and also contains English text stating a PD release. From what little low German and Dutch I speak, it seems obvious that the text is a translation of PD-self. --rimshottalk 20:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Restored, with {{PD-User}} --rimshottalk 20:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt

The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale discussion - no comment in nearly 3 months. --INeverCry 21:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Undeletion request for postal cards in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Undeletion request for all postal cards listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
And also for the stamps listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
The 4 stamps have separate undeletion requests above (sorry).
They are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}!
Just as with the 4 stamps I request undeletion for, I don't understand what reason could there be to doubt {{PD-RU-exempt}}.
Either they should be undeleted, or: User:Jcb and User:Jameslwoodward have to delete all postal cards with paintings and license {{PD-RU-exempt}}. That would be a whole lot of deletion requests.
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. If this is not undeleted or at least explained in detail, I really don't see any reason for more contributions from my side. It's been a lot of work to write the article about de:Peter Emiljewitsch Bendel and a lot of work to learn and process the creator page, gallery and categories. As soon as the work is nearly finished... the admins come by without any respect and simply delete at will. Is that what "commons" means??? --ScriWi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Could you please comment whether you object this undeletion or not. And if so, why in your opinion {{PD-RU-exempt}} does not apply here? Ankry (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for re-asking. I'm certainly not an expert on copyright, but I read for hours and hours before I invested a lot of work into the article and categorization of Peter Emilevich Bendel's work. As far as I understood it, in the socialism system of the sovjet union, e.g. all the works done for the sovjet post (or to speak more general: "for the state") were considered to be "open to the public". Copyright laws in russia have been only revised beginning in 1991. If there is doubt, maybe it would be good to re-discuss the legal issue in Commons:Village pump/Copyright? At former times, postal cards like this (with paintings on it) were very common in USSR. Many of these are still online, so either postal cards by P. E. Bendel should be restored or the other postal cards have to be deleted, too. That would be a lot to delete, e.g. see Category:People on postal cards of the Soviet Union or the category Category:PD-RU-exempt (postal cards). The same goes for stamps, e.g. Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1976, all stamps. All of these have the same license - {{PD-RU-exempt}} - just as Bendel's works that were deleted (by mistake, in my opinion). --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: Thanks for re-considering and re-asking, but: Is it a good idea to re-ask User:Jcb? He will probably feel challenged to defend the decision and he already denied the reasoning of several people that voted for keep and also denied my reasoning on his talk page. So my hopes are very low that he will change his mind. Sorry, but if one wants to drain the swamp, don't ask the frogs. As stated above, I'm new to the system here, but it's a suggestion that came to my mind. I would be glad, if unprejudiced persons and admins could decide in this matter. Ideally, they should have experience with {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Thanks for bearing with me. --ScriWi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I think your comment is in very poor taste. It is absolutely reasonable to ask a deleting admin whether they considered factors that apply to specific exemptions. The deleting admin should not close an undeletion discussion as "not done", but is actively encouraged to elaborate on their decision. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Russian/Soviet government may be the copyright holder of the layout of the stamps, but there is no indication that they would hold the copyright of the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel. Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. This could be different if the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel would form a de minimis part of the stamp, but this is obviously not the case. Even ScriWi admits that he used the files to depict the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel rather than to depict 'Soviet stamps'. The fact that other infringements are still online is not a reason to restore these infringements. There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
:Ok, sorry for the "poor taste", I apologize. I'm just desparate here. It's fine with me, if you think he is the only person to decide.
Please, you and also User:Jcb, take into consideration that I also asked on User talk:Jameslwoodward, and Jim seems to admit that he was not really aware that stamps and postal cards from russia (before 1993) might have been issued with different copyright rules compared to other countries. --ScriWi (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Maybe you won't... but maybe I should hunt and open a DR for every comparable case?
Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. They can and they did and we are bound to the law what was the law at that time. You are not higher than the law of pre 1993 just because you think you are civilized and others are not civilized. If you think it's not civilized to keep works of painters online, that worked for the USSR then you must go ahead and delete all the files. I really don't find other ways to express my feelings of frustration and of being suppressed and treated unrightful here. Why is only my work destroyed? Why get others away with it? It gives me the impression: There's only one law here and that is yours, the law of the strongest. :-(
Laws really don't make sense, if they are not laws for everyone.
I have found more stamps online, that were created by P. E. Bendel. Look to the category... Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel, there is more work for you to do. --ScriWi (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I too asked JCB to review his decision but he prefers to deal with it here. I think Jcb's reasoning is flawed and that he refuses to understand that all Russian stamps are in the public domain. You should be aware that this is not the first such deletion discussion to take place, so you should make sure to review all the kept Russian deletion requests listed at Category:Philately related deletion requests/kept most of which included some sort of alleged copyright image in the stamp design. A supporting view is that I have looked and cannot find any Russian stamps included in Category:Philately related deletion requests/deleted. The files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel are not the only such deletion that have taken place and considering this topic has been discussed before and, as pointed out by several editors, all Russian stamps are in the public domain. If we continue along this path then all Russian stamps will need to be deleted. Russian stamps are not like French stamps where both the engraver and the designer must be dead 70 years pma for the stamps to fall into the public domain; in Russia all stamps are public domain as government works, no matter their arrangement with the artists. And we do not have any court cases to fall back on as was the case in Germany a few years ago; see Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany and m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps. There is some mention at Template talk:PD-RU-exempt about stamps and postal cards as well at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia. There have been other specific discussions about the copyright of Russian stamps and I must find that for you. These files deleted by these two deletion discussion deletions were all one sided contrary to the closing admin, which together with a few other similar deletions, are, in my opinion, just poor judgement and lack of knowledge of the specific specialised topic. I for one do nominate copyright violation stamps for deletion, as I have done for years, but these are not some of those. Ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be refreshing if we could all leave the editorializing on people's motivations and characters, and stick to the facts as everybody sees them. Jcb's argument seems to be that {{PD-RU-exempt}} implies that the stamps would not have a new copyright as a derivative work. I think we all agree that a Russian stamp featuring PD artwork would be PD. Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia states that ... works still under copyright can be used by the Russian post, without altering the copyright status of the work used... ScriWi and Ww2censor: could you please elaborate on whether you think that a PD work containing a non-PD portrait could be legally cropped to just the portrait? Storkk (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I also ask for undeleting the Russian/Soviet stamp images per decisions made in several other similar cases related to images bearing the licence template {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The comprehensive clarification has been provided here by Ww2censor, a highly experienced Wikimedia/Wikipedia editor and philatelist himself. The previous and current discussions on PD-RU-exempt-licensed images are a consequence of superficial judgement and insufficient knowledge by the closing admins. Sadly, we encounter such a disappointing situation of Russian/Soviet stamp image deletion over and over again. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support arguments of Ww2censor. All soviet/russian stamps are in PD irrespective of what they depict. Nickpo (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Storkk: assuming that cropped PD work may be a non-PD work means that PD is not compatible with CC-BY-SA license. Is that what you intended to suggest? Either the work is PD as whole work and as its parts, or it is just a non-PD work. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure a work is properly in the Public Domain if it cannot be modified freely, including cropping. This is different from de minimis arguments regarding cropping, but I'm not really trying to suggest anything: I'm trying just to get at the actual arguments being made. I am leaning towards the opinion that the "PD-ness" of a stamp in Russia regards only the stamp as a derivative work, and says nothing about the underlying, which is indeed what Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia seems to say. I have difficulty understanding the implications of restoring, e.g. File:USSR EWCS №38 Tammsaare sp.cancellation Tallinn.jpg: can the portrait be cropped and used to illustrate an article on Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare on a Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare fan-club t-shirt? Storkk (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • IMO, you can crop the image and use the cropped image in any way until it is cropped from the stamp/postcard and not from another source. That is how copyright extemption works, IMO. Same for FOP extemption (sculptures also have an author) and Fair Use extemption (the latter Commons incompatible, however). Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, colleagues. if anyone wants to abolish PD for stamps just because you cannot crop an image, then, ALL stamps in the Category:Stamps that were created by people died 70 years ago or earlier later must be deleted. That is just ridiculous. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • 70 years ago or later, and in certain countries, yes. Why exactly is that ridiculous? Storkk (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Yes, of course, I meant “later”. It's ridiculous just because in this case we have to delete the vast majority of stamps for all countries already uploaded on Commons. Only stamps of the 19th century (starting from from the first one of 1840) could be safe to keep. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I think the rhetorical flair you are trying to display is destroying your argument. Clearly, stamps from many countries where the author died before 1946 and there is no separate copyright for stamps would be fine. Also, my opinion would be quite different in this case if COM:STAMPS#Russia didn't explicitly state that the underlying work's copyright is not affected. To me, that makes little sense unless PD-RU-exempt applies only to the stamp as a derivative work. Just like a US Federal government employee can make a photograph of a modern statue - the photographic work may be PD, but we would not be able to accept the photo, as it is a derivative of an unfree work. Storkk (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support undeletion after reading the discussion as the deletion reason does not seem valid to me while {{PD-RU-exempt}} is still considered a valid template. I suggest rather to discuss validity of this template (whether this extemption is Commons compatible or maybe it can be applied only to limitted number of cases) in COM:Village pump/Copyright instead of deleting works of specific authors this way. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • * As I stated before: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a expert on copyright issues. I'm just a poor little author that tried to do his first contributions to Wikipedia and Commons, because he was asked to do so as a favor to another person. At the moment I regret that I started on this at all. But I knew beforehand that copyright issues are tough ones, so I tried to be very careful and I read hours and hours sweating on the subject before I decided to deduce from the main reasoning I read that it's worth to invest days and weeks of work to contribute on this subject. But it seems that I was wrong. If you are not a lawyer, what else can you do besides looking at licenses of the other russian stamps and russian postal cards (seeing they are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}) and reading and trying to understand and relying on summaries of russian copyright laws, that seemed reosonable and seemed to have reached a form of common sense, even here on "Wikimedia Commons". One of the main encouragements (regarding stamps) I relied on was this one: Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#USSR, clearly showing Public domain, so why are we discussing at all (about stamps)? If User:Jcb were right, at least someone should do some big modifications there, because otherwise it would be heavily misleading. When it comes to postal cards, since I'm not a lawyer, I'm a little unsure if the same reference also covers the postal cards and envelops with printed art work on it. Maybe not. As far as I read and understood the russian copyright laws, it may depend on the fact if these are considered to be "folklore" or not. And as far as I could sum it up (without being a lawyer) postal cards and envelopes with artwork printed on them are in fact classified to be "folklore work". As I understand it, the post officials of the sovjet union wanted to show "folkorish" portraits of important persons or heroes. However, they clearly preferred good painters to do it, because they wanted to honor the depicted persons, of course. I think that's just being rational, or who would ask a 10 year old with a pencil to do a portrait of Albert Einstein for a postal card? But even if they were created by professional painters, that doesn't automatically make them "not folklorish". I'm sure the painters themself never doubted that they give all copyrights to their employer, the sovjet post. And by (russian) laws, as far as I can understand it, they all became public domain this way. And to me it also seems perfectly rational, because as an artist, what profit would you expect for a painting which has been published on millions of postal cards??? (Sorry, bear with me, not being a lawyer but thinking about a law, I find it very important that there's a rational explanation next to it.) I think it's in our all interest not to create the impression that only lawyers are allowed to contribute here. --ScriWi (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "as an artist, what profit would you expect"... Sorry, I know, this is certainly different in other countries and/or other ages. But then it's made clear by different laws. However, even in western countries of the presence, often there are working contracts that will give all copyrights to the employer. --ScriWi (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @ScriWi: Nobody is impugning your character or trying to denigrate your work, and I agree that the guidance on COM:STAMPS is unclear. Storkk (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, COM:STAMPS seems to be very clear about USSR stamps (Public domain), it just happens that some users and admins don't get along with it for reasons that are unclear. Jcb for instance is comparing "civilized" and "non civilized" countries as his guideline (who decides this?). You ask about cropping, but as I understand it, if they are PD then cropping is not an issue, so first level of discussion is, if they are PD. As Michael Romanov pointed out, this happens over and over again. I can only thank Ankry for his suggestion: First these Files should be undeleted and then you should discuss the COM:STAMPS guidance or {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's unfair that Bendel's works are offline (for a long time) and many, many similar cases continue to be usable. A few weeks ago, I was asking a question on COM:VPC, I didn't get a response in several days. --ScriWi (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not being a lawyer, Jcb (and other lay people too) just fails to grasp a very simple basic thing. As a graduate of a law school, I will try to explain the law in plain words: In this world there are different countries; every one of them has different laws. USSR laws are different from the USA laws or from UK laws. It is not that they are better or worse, more civilized or less civilized; they are just what they are. When deciding what items should be copyright protected, the USSR lawmakers made several exceptions for certain items and denied them copyright protection in principle. In particular, they stated that official signage are not copyrightable. Yes, just accept the fact: Soviet banknotes and postage stamps are not subject to copyright protection, as are folklore items and news items. No matter what is written or depicted on a USSR postage stamp, as long as it has an official postage stamp status, it is not copyrighted. A postage stamp is not a derivative work, it has its own independent legal status. Now a postage stamp has certain features, which clearly show to us that what we see is a postage stamp. If you strip these evident features away, how do we know that it is a postage stamp? So, if you cut out, say, a Bendel's picture from such a stamp and put it in a Wikipedia article, you may be taken to court for copyright violation and will then have to prove in court that it is just the uncopyrightable USSR postage stamp image, and legal proceedings are rather costly, you know. Therefore, it is recommended to put only postage stamp images in their entirety on WP pages. A de minimis principle has been mentioned here several times. However, this principle deals only with copyrighted material: when a copyrighted item is used in another copyrighted item. Please forgive me repeating it again specifically for non-lawyers: a USSR postage stamp is an uncopyrighted item. Do not criticize or doubt this provision of Soviet/Russian law, just understand and accept it and use freely any images of USSR postage stamps in Wikipedia or elsewhere (at least, until the law changes). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Imagine I am being very dense for a moment, but please assume I am genuinely trying to understand, and would like them to be restored if we can without violating Bendel's copyright. Perhaps I could ask you to explain where the following analogy breaks down: how is this different to a US Federal employee ({{PD-USGov}}) taking a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture? In that case too, the PD nature of the photograph does not affect the copyright of the statue (just like these stamps, per COM:STAMPS#Russia). Storkk (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
      • (Again...) I'm not a lawyer, but as I tried to point out earlier, eployees often (have to) give away all copyrights to their employers. Please see Federation: General Overview Of Russian Copyright Law, it states: Generally, it is the author who holds the exclusive right. However, when a work is created by an author who is employed for the purpose of creating that work, then it is the employer, not the author, who holds copyright in the work, unless otherwise provided by contract between the author and the employer. CC Article CC 1295 provides certain exceptions and limitations to this rule. (I didn't look at the mentioned exceptions though.) So in my opinion, Bendel doesn't hold any copyrights on any work done for the sovjet post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the copyright holder is the Russian Federation which exempted it to public domain (at least the stamps, I still don't know for sure about the art-depicting postal cards and envelopes, unless they are "news" or "folklore" which would exempt it as well). One may find this civilized or not, but it's for sure, that many work contracts are similar when it comes to this point, even in the (so called) modern civilized countries. Personally, I don't like the attempt to distinct "civilized" from "non civilized" at all, because in my opinion it's not respecting law of nations. Even if I grew up in a western european country, I refuse to call another country "non civilized", just because it has different laws or culture or technical development. (In my opinion, often this is propaganda... be careful about that!) --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Please drop the "civilized" vs "uncivilized" language. I know you didn't start it, but I don't think it's helpful. Are you asserting that Bendel was employed by the Soviet Post in order to create these? Is there any evidence for that? I'm sorry if I missed it as you imply by "Again..." Storkk (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Ok, sorry. The "again" was misleading sorry, I meant "again I'm not a lawyer". Yes, I would assert that he was employed to create these. Unfortunately, it's hard to show proof. I did a lot of searching for my article on Bendel, but it's hard to find sources that go into detail about the 1970ies and 1980ies in USSR. Of course it's impossible (for me) to present the work contract he had with the soviet post. So, if you would assume the worst case, then he might have had a clause that reserves him the copyrights. But thinking back to that time and knowing the socialism/communism organization of the state departments at that time, I don't think that's possible. Now you could say, no proof so we have to delete the files... but then this is true for hundreds and thousands more stamps and postal cards. It's a "stereotype" design of postal cards, not an individual design. It was used by the soviet post to show or honor important persons by showing their portraits. Some are from Bendel, but many are created from other painters. Look for example at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978.jpg (and interestingly there's also a cropped version online and not deleted ;-) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978cropped.jpg. Seeing the "stereotype" nature of the postal cards, yes, I would assert that it was a kind of "standard order" or "employment" by the soviet post with different painters or graphic designers and I think it's nearly 100% sure to assert that these were done by "standard contracts" that vested all copyrights with the employer. But if you doubt it, you have to delete all of them, not only Bendel's. --ScriWi (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I would assert, because of the "stereotype design" of these postal cards, it's why so many of them successfully are online for years with {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because that design itself is a kind of proof that the cards have "news" or "folklore" character, which would exempt them to public domain by russian laws (see the link I gave above). --ScriWi (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
            • If he was employed by Soviet post in order to create the artwork (as opposed to creating the artwork that was then contracted to be used by the Soviet post), as an employee if that is relevant in Russian law, then I think this is a totally different argument, and I would lean towards supporting undeletion. I don't know whether this was standard practice, and absent any Bendel-specific documentation I think we need to figure out what usually happened in these cases. Did they commonly license pre-existing artwork? Did they commission artwork (and if so, how does that affect whether it's PD)? I am well over my head here, and am just pointing out things that might convince me one way or the other. I think we need wider input - I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started. Storkk (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Soviet and Russian official signs (including stamps, money, postcards etc.) are not in public domain («общественное достояние»). They are exempt from copyright («не являются объектами авторских прав»). They are not copyrightable. No one can legally can claim copyright over them, just like no one can claim copyright over a circle. In Russian law, the concept of public domain applies only to copyrightable works, and is somewhat limited, because non-pecuniary rights are still protected. Reasoning for making money and postage signs exempt from copyright is simple: first, no one can legally challenge their official use and distribution (for example, by making request to state their name on every copy — an unalienable right under Russian law), second, copying them is already a crime or an administrative delict. Our ability to scan such objects and legally use their electronic copies as illustrations is just a (maybe unintended) side effect. Copyrighted images can be legally incorporated in such non-copyrightable items only if copyright holder agrees to that or there is a law that allows confiscation of rights. We can safely assume that such permission was given in all cases with Soviet and Russian postal signs (or such law existed back in early history of Soviet state) — there is no sound reason to challenge that. However, we cannot assume that permission wasn't limited — maybe copyright holder had renounced their claims for the image when it used as a postal sign, but still has rights for any other use of an image. We cannot even assume that artists who were hired specifically for the creation of the design of a postage sign renounced all of their exclusive rights. Therefore, we can safely use scans of Soviet and Russian postage signs only 'as is'. We cannot make derivative works out of them (except, perhaps, some digital enhancement). Technically, that means «freedom to make changes and improvements» clause of definition of "Free Cultural Works" is violated. But there is a long-standing consensus that «public domain» stamps are allowed on Commons. They have very high cultural value, and it's perfectly legal to use them 'as is'. There are literally tens of thousands files that should be deleted if we deny the possibility of hosting «exempt from copyright» items on Commons. The issue is not limited to Soviet and Russian stamps: all stamps from post-Soviet states, Albania, Romania and Finland (pre-1990) are also 'non-copyrightable' and have the same issues. That must be a site-wide decision — if such files are no longer allowed, there are a lot of policies that should be amended and there must be a transitional period to allow to move the files to another host (as it's perfectly legal to distribute them without modification). --Grebenkov (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Grebenkov, for the help and clarification. I tried to find texts on the internet explaining that, but it's not so easy to find. I guess, my big mistake was to create a "Creator page" for Peter Emilevich Bendel and to use it to fill in the creator line of his works. Usually, the {{PD-RU-exempt}} items only show e.g. "soviet post" or "USSR post" in the creator line. My filling in of a person's creator page seems to have caused this avalanche, I'm feel very sorry about it. If this is the problem, I would be very glad if the works of Bendel would be undeleted and his name removed from the creator line, just to avoid confusion. As I wrote earlier, my father in law asked me to honor him, that's why I came to this idea to show his name in the creator line. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The flawed understanding of Russian stamp and postal stationery copyright has been going on for quite some time as can be seen by a number of nominations that I reference above but most of them were kept and those that were deleted should be restored. This issue keeps raising it head because deleting admins don't get the Russian situation which is quite different to our understanding of stamp copyright in most other countries, as I've also pointed out. Here is another one Kept nomination and a second Kept nomination whose details should clarify the issue for those who don't get it.
There are two discussion on the {{PD-RU-exempt}} template talk page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Clarify that PD-RU-exempt works can incorporate existing material that is copyright restricted when separated.3F and also further up the page under the heading stamps that make it quite clear some copyright material may appear on stamps but they are still PD. Another section further down the page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Postcards clarifies the difference between the postal cards (and postal stationery) produced by the postal authorities that have pre-printed indicia and other design elements and are PD, as opposed to postcard, which are not always PD. There was also a court case in Ukraine, a legal successor state of the RSFSR and USSR, whose laws are virtually identical to Russia when it comes to stamps. This case specifically confirms (last paragraph) what the philatelists, and some others, have been saying about Russian stamps all along, no matter the content, they are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, postal signs are not public domain (PD). They are not 'freely licensed'. They are 'exempt from copyright'. That's three different things. Basically, with public domain works everyone can do everything: copy, modify, derive from them etc. With freely licensed works you only can do things that are allowed by license, but no less than use, study, copy as a whole and in part, derive and redistribute derivatives. With exempt from copyright works like postage signs, it's not obvious that we can do all those things freely, in particular, copying in part, deriving and redistributing derivatives. Take this stamp as an example (painting in question is {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but let's assume it's still protected). If we crop the image to include just the lemons, the resulting image won't be a postage sign any longer (it will not contain the required elements). Will it still be 'exempt from copyright'? Even more difficult case: some artist takes the stamp and draws full-size oil painting based on it (which, for all intents and purposes, will be plagiarising the original work of art) and proceeds to sell it. Will he be able to get away with it just because he used 'exempt from copyright' postage sign and not the original painting to make his copy? It's highly unlikely that we can answer 'yes' to these question. There is an opinion from professional lawyers that we can use the image of the postage stamp, but not the image on the postage stamp. That applies to all postage signs, by the way, even if the image was created specifically to be used on them. Thus, we have only limited rights in relation to postage signs. This all boils down to three alternatives: 1) continue to host images of Soviet, Russian and other countries 'exempt from copyright' postage signs, but warn of the limitations with relation to derivative works; 2) amend the policies and delete all images (except where {{PD-old}} applies), possibly, moving them to local wikis (as was the case with NoFoP images from Russia); 3) pretend to ignore the problem, occasionaly dealing with drive-by deletions on case by case basis. IMHO, third way is the worst. --Grebenkov (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Even though we use a template the includes the term PD, as Grebenkov says Russian stamps are "exempt from copyright." Essentially the extraction of a copyright image from a Russian stamp could be considered somewhat analogous to the de minimis concept in so far as extracting a copyright images from a larger image is a copyright violation, so extracting an image from a Russian stamp is assumed to be considered a copyright violation, but in both case the original images are not copyright violations. Grebenkov also mentions the opinion of professional lawyers which seems pretty clear to me even using Google translate. Correct me if I'm wrong here but considering that all stamps are designed by an artist, be they identified or not, and we are questioning the copyright law of the country, then, if it is decided that the artist's death is the determining factor, which in some countries like France, it is, then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps, assuming 70 years pma. This would involve 33 years of stamps from the US alone, even though all government work stamps were PD until 1978 and 20 years of UK and its former colony and territory stamps amongst others, such as UK and Ireland which have 50 year terms specifically for government works, and additionally many other stamps whose artists died within the last 70 years or are still alive. That's not even mentioning stamps from most countries listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Then try to find all the artists and their death dates. This is not a decision to be taken lightly or even in this forum as its implications are vast. I have no idea how many stamps might be affected but in the the German case alone it is in the region of 9-10,000 stamps and that has been going on so far for 4 years and is not near its end. We really don't need to give ourselves another big headache if we can avoid it. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your statement “then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps.” Exactly! This is what I was talking about several days ago (please change "earlier" for "later" there), although I was reproached for using "ridiculous" to describe this complicated situation. Please also take note that {{PD-old-50}} is applicable to stamps of Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Malawi, Manchukuo, Namibia, North Korea, Panama, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates, among others. ALL post-1945 stamps would total an enormous amount of images to be deleted. And this would apply not only to the stamps themselves, but also to images of postal stationery, covers, postal cards, etc., that bear those stamps. Just a massive deletion event! --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started.
— User:Storkk 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Please do! (If it's the only way or the best way to move on with this discussion (?) ) --ScriWi (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the section above: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt, where Butko and ~riley request undeletion of the stamps (sorry for my duplicate undeletion request, earlier they were separated for stamps and postal cards). --ScriWi (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the re-upload of the stamp https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CCCP_4k_Dzon_Maklin_1979.png by Steelwool
apparently caused by the deletion of File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg
which proves that this deletion and discussion procedure makes users getting desparate. --ScriWi (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to respond to this and add that I re-uploaded that image of a Soviet postage stamp ensuring that I apportioned the correct copyright status using {PD-RU-exempt} as per the guidelines found on Wikipedia for BOTH Soviet-era and post-Soviet postage stamps. It was subsequently removed (again) by User:jcb on what I consider to be entirely officious and petulant grounds. Sadly, I think I've now had enough of Wikipedia. --Steelwool (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was interesting and detailed and comprehensive, but it seems to be ignored by people deciding about this.
So what are the next steps? Who is in charge?
The deletion of the files is quickly and easily done. The undeletion seems much more difficult, if not impossible. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For stamps, please note the section above Commons:Undeletion_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt

Must be restored. File was deleted ignoring {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#USSR and arguments on DR
— User:Butko 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging closing admin of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel - Jcb.
— User:~riley Revision as of 00:29, 9 May 2016

I think it's time to undelete. Can we now have those files back, please? --ScriWi (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am currently extremely busy, and will continue to be for a few days. Since it requires actual thought, I have not started the discussion on COM:VPC yet. You are welcome to do so. Apologies I could not do it when I said I would. Storkk (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Understandable, of course (sorry). But thanks for your feedback. The beginner I am, I don't really know how thinks at COM:VPC are handled, but I may start it and just point to the discussion here. Otherwise, I'm a little worried the whole discussion has to be repeated. --ScriWi (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale discussion - no comment in nearly 3 months. --INeverCry 21:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LAIA SANZ 2016.JPG

{{Generalitat de Catalunya}} Saludos esta foto es de la categoría CREATIVE COMMONS!!! --Campeones 2008 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Christian, as you will see at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-gencat, I nominated the template for deletion because I thought the license was not free enough, but Carl and others convinced me I was wrong, so I withdrew it. Therefore, I would support the restoration of this file, but only if we could verify that it came from gencat and not from somewhere else.
The source address given in the file description is for the image, not for the page on which it appears. The reason we require the address of the page and not the image is just this problem -- to be able to verify the status of an image.
Google does not find the image at gencat, but only at http://www.mundodeportivo.com/gala-del-deporte/20160201/301828985406/galamd-iniesta-laia-sanz-ronaldinho-gran-gala-mundo-deportivo.html#3 which has an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, I don't think we can restore this without further information. If gencat obtained the image from Mundo Deportivo, then gencat has no right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough -- you miss my point. It depends on the origin of the image. If gencat got the image from Mundo Deportivo, then gencat can't freely license it unless, very unlikely, gencat bought a license from Mundo Deportivo that included the right to freely license the image to others. If, on the other hand, Mundo Deportivo got the image from gencat, then we are OK. Unfortunately, it is well beyond a significant doubt, maybe even more likely that gencat got it from MD, rather than the other way around. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hard to say, indeed, the difference between the publications is probably some hours. if we admit here that the internet address contain publication dates, we have for gencat :http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/docs/2016/02/02/00/59/169c75e8-bf04-4159-a82c-77c6e2fbfa90.JPG... and for mundodeportivo http://www.mundodeportivo.com/gala-del-deporte/20160201/301828985406/galamd-iniesta-laia-sanz-ronaldinho-gran-gala-mundo-deportivo.html#3. Then I will say mundodeportivo predates. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --INeverCry 21:34, 4 August 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

Following up on the discussions in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-07#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_in_Category:Files_from_Taiwan_Executive_Yuan_Website, the questionable "copyright notice" has been removed and the Open Information Announcement is the only statement regarding copyright. --Wcam (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I'm working on these.... it's a ton of files, and there's no 'convenient' way to do it... once I have them all back, I will link the "Open Information Announcement" in the permission field of the information templates. Reventtalk 20:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(sigh) File:張善政參訪2016臺灣國際蘭展_02.jpg cannot be undeleted due to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141704 Reventtalk 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done 751 files restored, one file broken as noted. Time for a beer. Reventtalk 02:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work! --Wcam (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Looks like Revent has taken care of this request. --INeverCry 21:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Vins domaine Weinbach.jpg

ticket:2016062110006646 verifies permission. BU Rob13 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Restored. --INeverCry 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Banu_bakr_Oslo.jpg

File source says it is under GFDL

Why was this deleted? CommonSupporter (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The given deletion reason is "This is very unlikely to be own work of the uploader, as claimed. It is Getty Images ID #120269539 by ODD ANDERSEN/AFP". INeverCry 19:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Exif data say "Getty Images". Thuresson (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Zak Standridge - Traveller - Mr Blue - Cover 2ND EDITION.pdf

Permission verified through ticket:2016062410019369. Thanks. BU Rob13 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Restored. --INeverCry 19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Three diet-related files

All verified by ticket:2016062310021965. Thanks. BU Rob13 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: Restored. --INeverCry 19:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Origins and primary regions of diversity of selected major agricultural crops worldwide.pdf

Permission via ticket:2016062310021965. Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted, templated. Thanks. --Reventtalk 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Escds.jpg

Estimados, hace un par de horas subí una edición en Barcelona Sporting Club agregando los emblemas, escudos o logos oficiales de la institución. Después me encontré que borraron mi imagen, quisiera saber por qué razón borraron mi imagen si es totalmente legal la imagen que subí por favor no sean ridículos.

 Not done: File hasn't been deleted. Comments should be made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escds.jpg. --INeverCry 22:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

its normal biological phenomena of ejaculating.

its normal biological phenomena of ejaculating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkusmt (talk • contribs) 22:04, 05 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Per COM:PENIS. The user's only deleted upload was deleted by Christian Ferrer per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Educational Men Masturbation Ejaculation.webm. INeverCry 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Deleted per a formal DR, and the request here raises no new issues. --Reventtalk 23:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


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

This is a picture taken in public.... and was scanned by me from an original picture. As such I own the digital copyrite

File:1972-6thAnnualNatChamp-Jerry-Chuck-MissAmer1969.jpg This is a picture taken in public and freely distributed.... and was scanned by me from an original picture. As such I own the digital copyrite - please explain the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Richardson (talk • contribs) 22:31, 05 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The original image from here was taken by someone, who owns the substantive copyright. You scanning it, however public it is, is in breach of that copyright. Hence it cannot be hosted here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --INeverCry 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Floating Piers 8431.jpg

ticket:2016062710009785 provides permission from the photographer, but not from the artist of the installation. This likely needs a more complete discussion than an undeletion request can provide, especially given the images in Category:The Floating Piers. BU Rob13 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support For reference, File:Christo Floating Piers 6497.jpg is an almost identical photograph. IMO, I think that permission from the artist is clearly not needed for any images that do not show the overall shape of the installation, and that images that do show the overall shape need a community discussion... it's copyrightability is debatable. I recommend undelete this, and potentially start a threat about the installation as a whole at the VPC Reventtalk 23:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: , @Revent: Restored. --INeverCry 23:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:SUMERU_PARVAT_BOOK.pdf

Permission has been received at ticket:2016062810024828. I haven't been able to review the document itself. The reviewing administrator should review this to determine if it's in scope and worth undeleting, as I suspect it may not be. BU Rob13 (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The original uploader was blocked for spamming. This is nothing more than a promotional out of scope file. The individual files in this pdf may already be uploaded, and the text can be written on a userpage. This pdf however is out of scope, and the validity of a release by a blocked user is sceptical at best. Declining. --Josve05a (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pickens Tower.jpg

Several of my original photo files have been deleted.

File:Pickens Tower.jpg File:MD Anderson Cancer Center - Main.jpg File:T. Boone Pickens Academic Tower.jpg File:MD Anderson Cancer Center - Main Building.jpg File:Dan L Duncan Building.jpg


I took these all on my personal android phone and they are my property. Please undelete.


The middlemore and RAH files were not mine and can stay deleted.

--Getshorty23 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)TS

The deletion reason was "no permission", meaning you apparently did not choose a free copyright license when you uploaded them. What license did you want to put on them (see Commons:Licensing)? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
They had licenses. See Google's cache. The deletion reason for missing license would be "no license", not "no permission". "No permission" usually means someone (User:Pokéfan95 in this case) thinks additional verification of the license is required for some reason (such as previous publications found elsewhere). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I tagged their files as "no permission" per COM:PRP since this user has been uploading copyright violations, and I am not comfortable that this user will upload a work of their own. I recommend Getshorty23 to send an email to the OTRS to prove that these files are theirs and explain why they uploaded files that are copyright violations which leads me to tag all their files as "no permission" per COM:PRP. --★ Poké95 10:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. ~riley (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Greek_school_by_ziggyfin.png

This original image was uploaded and the licence was clearly posted. It has been wrongly deleted. The artist submitted the licence and it was posted with the image when the image was viewed. This was fine for about a week before it was deleted by the same person who deleted another, original, creative commons licensed piece of work I specifically commissioned for this document. I ask that this be undone. thank you.Dwt2 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This work is labeled as "Original art by Reggie Graham (Ziggyfin)". The uploader's name is David Thomas as stated on his userpage. OTRS permission from the artist, Reggie Graham (Ziggyfin), is needed. INeverCry 22:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not done per INC. ~riley (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:History_of_Thought.png

This file was uploaded by myself and after a few days it was flagged with a warning because the licensing was not complete. (although there was nowhere to add licensing on the uploader). I received an email asking that the original author grant licence to the file. He did, and the next day the licence information box appeared beneath the warning box. I assumed that the warning box would go away on the next review because the licensing was complete. However, INeverCry deleted the image without seeing the licence information. I have asked to have it returned because I commissioned it specifically for this text and I believe that all the licensing is in order. Now, when I try to re-up-load it, the action is refused. I ask that this undelete be undone. If you need another licence request, perhaps the old one was deleted when the image was deleted?, please let me know. I would like to see this textbook be successful and a benefit to the community, however, when images that are licensed are deleted it dims the wonder of creative commons. Dwt2 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This work is labeled as "Original art by Reggie Graham (Ziggyfin)". The uploader's name is David Thomas as stated on his userpage. OTRS permission from the artist, Reggie Graham (Ziggyfin), is needed. INeverCry 22:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. ~riley (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Biris_and_Roumbos_Institute_1980.jpg

This is an image from a personal archive scanned by me. Udelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argyb (talk • contribs) 16:43, 01 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any copyright information for that photograph? Who took it and when? Only the copyright owner (usually the photographer) can publish the image under a free license, it does not matter who owns the physical photograph. --rimshottalk 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not done per Rimshot. ~riley (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:121 Lady in Shimmering Light 25.8x19.7inch 2002(高解析)small.jpg

The artist (through his daughter, representing the studio) gave clear written permission that the painting could be used and that was e-mailed to wikipedia previously, along with the permissions for the other works on the page. There's no reason why this should be considered "separate" or different from the others.

Roycegrubic (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC) August 4, 2016

✓ Done: There was a legitamite reason for deletion, OTRS permisison was only sent 13 hours ago. ~riley (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:46 Untitled 53.54X33inch 1987.jpg

The artist (through his daughter, representing the studio) gave clear written permission that the painting could be used and that was e-mailed to wikipedia previously, along with the permissions for the other works on the page. There's no reason why this should be considered "separate" or different from the others.

Roycegrubic (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC) August 4, 2016

✓ Done: There was a legitamite reason for deletion, OTRS permisison was only sent 13 hours ago. ~riley (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Whc-columbus-aerial.jpg

See here for a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license on the original website. BU Rob13 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: BU Rob13: Restored. ~riley (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Rahuldey91

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am not sure why my uploads were deleted. These are my own copyright photographs which I have uploaded on my personal facebook account too. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10209329798704073.1073741830.1296305198&type=1&l=53764cfc42

I understand there was a deletion debate going on which I later came to know about and couldn't participate. Please restore these files or let me know a good reason for their deletion.

Regards, Rahul 112.110.120.172 04:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@112.110.120.172: The reason for the deletion of the files is as stated at the closure of the DR, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in India. Please read the policies linked by the closing admin, COM:PCP and COM:EVID. When files were deleted by consensus of the community (a formal DR) an undeletion request needs to provide new evidence to be considered. You can submit evidence that you own the copyrights to the deleted files per COM:OTRS, but Facebook is well known to be a place where people constantly post images that are copyright violations. If you can establish that you have the legal right to license the files, OTRS will request undeletion. Reventtalk 08:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No valid rationale for undeletion given. --Reventtalk 08:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Request to undelete. The picture was published by me, the editor of the magazine Norra Skogsmagasinet. Owner and photographer of the picture as well as the coverpicture of the magazine. The copyright is free! --Coe~svwiki (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Coe~svwiki: Works that have been previously published, unless explicitly freely licensed by that publication, require OTRS confirmation. It's too easy to create a wiki account and impersonate a copyright owner. Please send verification per COM:OTRS. Reventtalk 08:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: As stated. --Reventtalk 08:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ST Chiffres.jpg

Il s'agit d'une presentation chiffrée de l'entreprise sans vocation publicitaire. Merci de redonner l'utilisation Cdt Regis Régis Collon (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per closing argument of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Régis Collon. ~riley (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

User Zak Abdi

User Name: Zak Abdi I haven't used this user for about two years and it close by me not knowing it. --Zak Abdi (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zak Abdi: What file is this about, specifically? You have three deleted uploads, but those were all deleted well over two years ago. Reventtalk 20:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Dead request. ~riley (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Инна Зубковская и Святослав Кузнецов.jpg

Please undelete this file. I, the copyright holder of this work, publish it under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. --Usernamester (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You listed this as being from a private archive with an unknown author. How are you the copyright holder? INeverCry 19:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Burden of proof for copyright not suffiecent. ~riley (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Николай Зубковский и Джей Кей (Jamiroquai).jpg

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby аsky you to undelete this restore this image under the following license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported --Usernamester (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You listed this as being from a private archive with an unknown author. How are you the copyright holder? INeverCry 19:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Burden of proof for copyright not suffiecent. ~riley (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Николай Зубковский и Юлия Махалина.jpg

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby аsky you to undelete this restore this image under the following license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported --Usernamester (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You listed this as being from a private archive with an unknown author. How are you the copyright holder? INeverCry 19:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Burden of proof for copyright not suffiecent. ~riley (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Николай Зубковский на сцене Мариинского театра.jpg

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby аsky you to undelete this restore this image under the following license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported --Usernamester (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You listed this as being from a private archive with an unknown author. How are you the copyright holder? INeverCry 19:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Burden of proof for copyright not suffiecent. ~riley (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:AME terms and definitions chart .pdf.

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby аsk you to undelete this.

the work is my own


CanadianAME (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS verification required. ~riley (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Матющенко Владимир Иванович 3.jpg

Добрый день. Прошу восстановить данный файл в Викискладе. Причиной для удаления указано возможное нарушения авторских прав. Однако, все представленные изображения Матющенко Владимира Ивановича принадлежат членам его семьи по праву наследования. А я являюсь его внучкой. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhena Raegan (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS required to prove user has inherited copyright ownership. ~riley (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:PosterHissNew2S.jpg

The poster already exists in Persian Wikipedia. See its page. When the poster has remained undeleted in Persian WP, it means that it's not been recognized as a copyright violation. Plus, Iran is not a member of the Berne convention, so the pictures published by Iranian companies are considered part of public domain in the U.S. --HamedH94 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose From Commons:Licensing: "When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." Thuresson (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson, but you didn't heed the first argument. if the poster had a copyright problem in iran, persian wp would've deleted it. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say there is a copyright problem. There is a licensing problem. Thuresson (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Thuresson. Judging from the templates, it looks like there is no free licence for this image at the Persian Wikipedia but instead it is being used with a fair use claim. Commons, however, does not accept fair use content. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No license. Commons does not accept material under fair use. --Reventtalk 22:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:JOSEPH WILDE.jpg

JOSEPH WILDE.jpg

This is defintely not a copyright violation, the photograph was used on the BBC website (linked in the description of my upload) but is not copy righted and can be found from multiple sources on the internet.

--Fggdgfg (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You obviously do not understand the very concept of copyright; eg. that the photographer has sole control of who use the photograph and for what purpose. Thuresson (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 06:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Overwatch circle logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The logo is a simple geometric shape, making it ineligible for copyright. Sunmist3 (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 20:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Original file is stored in a wiki with where "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." I didnt select license field in wikicommons form because I was no sure about CC equivalent. 47.60.37.150 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The example file File:Example.jpg hasn't been deleted. You were supposed to fill in the name of the file you would like undeleted there. Since you didn't, and you didn't sign in, there is no way for anyone to know what you're talking about. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please log in to your account and request undeletion of the deleted file by giving its exact name. --INeverCry 20:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bwcucc-logo.jpg

ticket:2016050910007091 provides permission; thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 20:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:giiva.jpg

This picture has been taken and provided by myself. Please tell me how did you deny that? I wonder how we can help to promote wikipedia by these strange ( Shadegan (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And I wonder why a photo that you supposedly created yourself had such low resolution and no metadata (both common characteristics in photos grabbed from the web). I also wonder how it can be that a photo that you claimed to have created on the same day that you uploaded it has been available in higher resolution at http://givedoz.ir/image/cache/data/mardane/9872-1000x1000.jpg since December 2014. We're not here to promote Wikipedia. We're here to maintain a reliable repository of legitimately free, educational media files. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 20:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:21 telugu movie release poster 03.png

21 telugu movie release poster 03.png is my own work iam the designer of that poster please do not delete. --JAISHANKAR DIRECTOR (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are the original designer, please send a permission by email as outlined in COM:OTRS. Otherwise we cannot restore this image of a previously published poster. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 20:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Alexei Kasatonov.jpg

Hi

Can you please explain why my picture has been deleted? My pictures are also featured on this page http://www.pietarinkadunoilers.com/#!2282015-tallinna-tondiraba-all-stars/c28

Thanks, Anu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujanina (talk • contribs) 19:44, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

For photos published on the Internet, we require a separate email, coming verifiably from the photographer / copyright owner, per the COM:OTRS process. The photos on the link you gave are by various different photographers, and there is no indication of a free license at that source. People upload photographs off the Internet all the time without being the copyright owner, so if we find existing copies then they are often deleted quickly. In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anujanina, you apparently uploaded photographs by a number of different photographers, meaning you don't own the copyright, and can't license them, thus they were deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/photographer required. --INeverCry 20:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lehtinen Teemu.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Permission under ticket 2016051810006467. For licenseing under CC-BY-SA-4.0 Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Clarkcj12: Please add the ticket and make sure the license is accurate. --INeverCry 05:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:R1a1a distribution.png

The file was nominated for deletion at 19 june 2016 by a new user, with the rationale "This is an adapation of a copyrighted work of this study (Underhill 2009)[6]. So it violates Commons:Fair use". I have two problems here:

  • Fair use applies to a direct copy, not to an adaptation, as far as I can see;
  • User:Userius is a blocked sock-account; R1a1a is a highly contentious topic, due to nationalistic feelings on the origins of several people; I suspect that this was an attempt at censorship, and not a concern with copyrights;

For these two reasons, I'd like the file to be undeleted, and the removals to be undone. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Files are deleted by administrators. Who nominated the file is irrelevant. Thuresson (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Facts cannot be copyrighted, but maps showing facts do have copyrights. User:Hxseek says that this file is his or her "own work", "adapted from Underhill et al (2009)". If "adapted from" means that Hxseek simply copied an Underhill map, either directly, or by having the Underhill map up on one screen and creating a new version of it on another screen, then it is a derivative work and cannot be restored without a license from Underhill. On the other hand, if HXseek looked only at numerical data in Underhill and created a new map from scratch, then it is original work and can be restored. The only way we can restore it is if Hxseek gives us more information as to exactly how he or she created this work. Without that, our Precautionary Priciple requires its continued deletion.
I note for the record that although accusations of censorship come along every couple of months, I have never seen one that was valid. This deletion was done by INeverCry, who is our most experienced active Administrator. Given INC's record, I reject that accusation entirely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - the remark on censorship was not against INeverCry, of course, but against the nominator, who's blocked for sockpuppetry. Regarding the 'adaptation', I also figured that drawing a map based on a dataset will essentially give the same map. But I dount it that this dataset was given, so the only way to draw such a map then is by sort of copying it. It's a pity; do we really need to be so strict ?The map would be the same anyway, and it's very usefull. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we carefully follow copyright rules. Copying a map is essentially the same thing as copying an article and selling it as your own work -- both are forbidden by copyright law everywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: There appears to be no consensus to overrule the initial DR. --Reventtalk 10:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Alexander Hart.jpg

License ticket has now been received here. It seems to be in good order, as it is sent from Anton Skljarov, with a correct OTRS wording, compatible license (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (unported)), dated and with contact info. Thanks for help with the undeletion.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For info: the now closed deletion request.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Paracel63: that ticket is not in any permissions queue, and I cannot see it. Storkk (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: It has been received to info-sv (info-sv@wikimedia.org), as it is written in Swedish. Due to moderate-to-low traffic, this queue takes care of both permissions and other requests written in Swedish. Do you want me to move the ticket to another (which one?) queue?--Paracel63 (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Please move it to permissions-commons (ideally, this would happen for all permissions tickets), thanks. Storkk (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: ✓ Done--Paracel63 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Any update on this? INeverCry 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I'm still extremely busy, but ticket is open for any agent to take; a preliminary examination of the ticket is at Special:Diff/201505083. Storkk (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No OTRS consensus to undelete, apparently, for several weeks. Please ask here when you agree, and discuss elsewhere. --Reventtalk 10:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Tatuaje De León en Espalda

hello friends am aware that a user wants to break my wikipedia content or cordially inform you that you have more reason I just do what the system gives them by law

This Very good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxti.two (talk • contribs) 00:15, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is about File:Tatuaje-de-leon-en-espalda.jpg the file was deleted after a deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: UDR is nonsense. Permission from the creator of the tattoo, and the photographer, is needed. --Reventtalk 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Capture5Planning No. 2-Value Which gives the artwork elements of attractiveness.jpg File:Planning No. 1- Aesthetic analysis of art.jpg

File:Capture5Planning No. 2-Value Which gives the artwork elements of attractiveness.jpg File:Planning No. 1- Aesthetic analysis of art.jpg Dr.Mohsen Attya 7/8/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artist Mohsen Attya (talk • contribs) 19:38, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Files not deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Artist Mohsen Attya. --Reventtalk 11:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sebastià Orri i Hugas.jpg

Also File:Adela Genís i Campos.jpg, File:Sebastià Orri Hugas 220pxl.jpg, File:Mariano Orri i Corredor.jpg, File:Casa Orri.jpg, File:Aiguat.jpg, File:Jardí de Casa Orri.jpg

Reason: Creative Commons License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), by Ajuntament de Girona. All points respected. Source: http://sgdap.girona.cat/fotoweb/Grid.fwx#Preview53

--Zwiterio (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Non-commercial and non-derivatives licenses are not acceptable, see Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not acceptable for Commons. --INeverCry 20:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Saxobank-logo-3.png

It is the company logo available from Saxo Bank's website. No copyright violation: http://www.saxobank.com/mediacentre/images?int_cmpid=gl:mediacentre:default_show%20image%20library_1

Just because the bank provides a download for the logo it does not mean that they published it under a free licence like Creative Commons as you indicated in your upload. However, there is a disclaimer at the bank's page "The images are copyright Saxo Bank A/S and may be used freely." If "freely" includes commercial use and the making of derivatives we could apply {{PD-author}}. But I'm having a feeling that this means just "free of charge". De728631 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: text logo. --INeverCry 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:KonstCzern.jpg

22:12, 7 August 2016 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page File:KonstCzern.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log)

User:INeverCry - would you dare to specify? It was tagged GFDL, wasn't it? 91.9.100.52 02:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This was deleted per a speedy delete tag placed by one of my fellow admins. The tagging states: "Marking as possible copyvio because unlikely own work, higher resolutions available, e.g. http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2011-02/273114/2858975_640px.jpg?1297073207". INeverCry 02:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Notice that the contents at 20 Minutos are licensed under the CC-BY-SA, and Konstantin Chernenko died in 1985 (but the same painting/drawing -that is not a photo- is found at the English Wikipedia as Fair use). Further research is needed before considering a third party website as primary source. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use at en:File:Konstantin Chernenko.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


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

photo deletion

Regarding Richard Leech, Tenor

My photo was deleted. I am Richard Leech and this is a photo for which I own all rights, including publishing.

Richard Leech Operadict (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Operadict: This appears to be a standard studio photograph. The photographer owns the rights to such images, under US law, unless a legal contract states otherwise. Please submit a verification of permission from the photographer via COM:OTRS. Reventtalk 11:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ACWA Power Logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi all, on behalf of ACWA who I represent, I would like to request the undeletion for the ACWA Power logo. Although the original logo was removed due to a copyright violation, there is a trademark application (in Arabic) showing that the logo is the official company trademark. Unfortunately, however, and despite repeated attempts, I am unable to upload this onto Wikipedia as the 'bad upload' filter is triggered. Please let me know how to proceed - I would be happy to send the trademark application by others means (e.g. email). Many thanks in advance and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. DJAHart (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@DJAHart: Permission needs to be sent via email per COM:OTRS for licensing under a free license. Trademarks are a non-copyright restriction that we are not, due to the nature of Commons, obligated to respect (we merely note that such restrictions exist) Reventtalk 11:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Amphorentürme,_Terrakotta-Skulptur_von_Franz_Stähler_in_der_Toskana.jpg

--MarUwe10 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC) File:Amphorentürme,_Terrakotta-Skulptur_von_Franz_Stähler_in_der_Toskana.jpg

MARIA AMOS, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I, Maria Amos, the creator of the exclusive copyright of the File:Amphorentürme, Terrakotta-Skulptur von Franz Stähler in der Toskana.jpg, agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Maria Amos Photographer of the File:Amphorentürme, Terrakotta-Skulptur von Franz Stähler in der Toskana.jpg August, 1st, 2016 --MarUwe10 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Asvyatsky

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All files in question had OTRS tags. OTRS emails were sent several days prior to the files being deleted. Asvyatsky (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I missed the {{OTRS Pending}} tags since I'm used to it being placed in the summary rather than toward the bottom of the page. I've restored them and removed the no permission tags. --INeverCry 21:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Exquisite engagement ring design.jpg

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimeda. Please undelete this picture. Thank you!--Petragems (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yellow Gold Classic Engagement Ring.jpg

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimeda. Please undelete this picture. Thank you!--Petragems (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Unique Rose Gold Engagement Ring Halo.jpg

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimeda. Please undelete this picture. Thank you!

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Umbilical-sciencell.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The creator of the image has sent a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a statement and have agreed to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License . Thirsty2k (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

--Petragems (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the files can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Unique classic diamond engagement ring.jpg

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimeda. Please undelete this picture. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petragems (talk • contribs) 17:36, 08 August 2016 (UTC)--Petragems (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Three stone platinum ring.JPG

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimeda. Please undelete this picture. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petragems (talk • contribs) 17:37, 08 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Unique Rose Gold Engagement Ring.jpg.jpg

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimedia. Please undelete this picture. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petragems (talk • contribs) 17:38, 08 August 2016 (UTC) --Petragems (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC) --Petragems (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)--Petragems (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Round Brilliant Cut Diamond.jpg

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimedia. Please undelete this picture. Thank you! --Petragems (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petragems (talk • contribs) 17:38, 08 August 2016 (UTC)--Petragems (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Unique Engagement Rings.JPG

This file is owned by Petra Gems and I as the owner and photographer of the picture allow Wikimedia to use the file and the information was also mailed to Wikimedia. Please undelete this picture. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petragems (talk • contribs) 17:39, 08 August 2016 (UTC)--Petragems (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC) --Petragems (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is proceessed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kadour-naimi film jesce sole italia 2006 babbo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Valid OTRS permission from Kadour Naimi (#2016080810001771). Please note these documents are under licences <GFDL / CC-BY-SA 4.0)>. Gratus (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Gratus: Please add the OTRS tickets. --INeverCry 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Skysilk-Logo 300px.png

This logo is being used with written consent from the copyright owner SkySilk, Inc. This logo and all other SkySilk logos should be allowed to be used as there are no Wikipedia pages for SkySilk, Inc. and SkySilk would like to change that. Please advise.

 Not done: OTRS permission from SkySilk is required. --INeverCry 21:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:2015 Newsletter Arc Map med lo res.jpg

Permission in ticket:2016071910012589. Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn request. --Josve05a (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cycling in the air.jpg

The photo is taken by me, so there is no copyright concern. Bao Bao Leung 0218 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly making the same request isn't going to change the answer that you already got. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required - please, no further requests here. --INeverCry 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mini squat.jpg

The photo is taken by me, so there is no copyright concern. Bao Bao Leung 0218 (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required - please, no further requests here. --INeverCry 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I Request undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokuwarrior (talk • contribs) 9 August 2016‎ (UTC)

It would help tremendously if you signed your posts and told us which image you want undeleted. You also need to explain why you think that the deletion was an error. --rimshottalk 20:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
At a closer look, the user was blocked a few minutes after posting this for repeated upload of copyright violations. --rimshottalk 20:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done. User has been blocked after uploading clear copyright violations. There will be no undeletion. --rimshottalk 20:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Moved from top of page

Please undelete the image on Bruno Bulgarelli's page, as it was taken from one of his albums with his consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haziel94 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 08 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bruno Bulgarelli.jpg is an album cover. Please ask the photographer to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

OMV Downstream Portfolio 2015 EN.png

Please undo the deletion of OMV Downstream Portfolio 2015 EN.png, as a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International licence was granted with mail from myself, dated August 1, 2016. Please see Ticket#2016080110014715. Br, Bettina Schweighofer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettina Schweighofer (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Non-commercial and non-derivatives licenses are not acceptable, see Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags. Thuresson (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson, NC/ND licenses are unacceptable at Commons. --INeverCry 21:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

OMV Upstream Portfolio 2015 EN.png

Please undo the deletion of OMV Upstream Portfolio 2015 EN.png, as a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license was granted with mail from myself, dated August 1, 2016. Please see [Ticket#2016080110014699]. Br, Bettina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettina Schweighofer (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Non-commercial and non-derivatives licenses are not acceptable, see Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags. Thuresson (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson, NC/ND licenses are unacceptable at Commons. --INeverCry 21:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Caves in Bulgaria

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: a useful redirect ("in" preposition used for most countries in Category:Caves by country). Djadjko (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:五甲崩山臨時道路.png and Other 5 Files

The following file's permission holder send the OTRS permission (see Ticket#2016072110000079):

For checking the files are available on internet or not, please recover these files. Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Taiwania Justo: Pleased add the tickets and license. --INeverCry 05:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Centenary-Catalogue-Cover-web-299x369-243x300.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, please undelete the above files. I have sent email confirmations to OTRS to prove that I am the appointed representative of both Robin-Lee Hall and The Royal Society of Portrait Painters, and that I have permission to upload these images to wiki commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

Ticket no.s: [Ticket#2016081010007546] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Hall-R-L-Joy-28x24-E [...]) [Ticket#2016081010007626] Confirmation of receipt (Re: The Royal Society of [...]) Ticket#2016081010007635] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Centenary-Catalogue- [...])

Many thanks Lauren (toxicarrow) lauren@therp.co.uk Toxicarrow (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: @Toxicarrow: OTRS will request undeletion when the tickets are processed. You can ask about their status at COM:ON. --Reventtalk 10:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Brando Giorgi images

Hi, can anyone please delete my last two uploads:

They're licensed under the terms of the cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, which isn't compatible with the Commons. My bad. Thanks in advance. Caudex Rax (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: They've been deleted. Please file a deletion request in future if you want files deleted; this is actually the place you go when you want files restored. --INeverCry 23:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Impulsive moment.jpg

The File above was taken by my self at Epsom downs on a apple i phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisticks (talk • contribs) 21:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: searched Google Images - www.betthomas.com was linking to commons. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

2016062010011641

ticket:2016062010011641 contains permission. Thank you! BU Rob13 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: restored. --INeverCry 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:2015 Newsletter Arc Map med lo res.jpg

ticket:2016071910012589 contains permission (with issues now addressed). Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: restored. --INeverCry 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Emblem Of FC Germanea.png

Appaently, when uploading the image, I incorrectly used commons license 4.0, which is not appropriate here. After my discussion with Christian Ferrer, who originally deleted the image, I would like to request that Emblem Of FC Germanea.png be un-deleted based on low threshold of originality. The image contains only simple vector graphics and text, and Christian Ferrer has kindly agreed not to oppose the un-deletion. --Footballer99 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @INeverCry: and @Revent: . You closed this discussion before I had a chance to respond. If my image is above COM:TOO, then why is File:Nikken Logo.jpg allowed on Commons? It also is depicting a person combined with text. The two are very similar. Does not seem fair.

The shapes used in File:Nikken Logo.jpg are more simple, rounded, and geometrical than those used in File:Emblem Of FC Germanea.png which are more stylized and artistic. INeverCry 21:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per INC and Revent. --Natuur12 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:E DArgenio.JPG

OTRS authorization requested by author and consequently granted with Ticket:2016043010004171. --Ruthven (msg) 09:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done per request. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Logo EU Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) Somalia - Operation Atalanta.svg

Its a military COA. so its PD.

theres no induvidual Rights on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar.offel (talk • contribs)

"© European Union Naval Force Somalia – Operation Atalanta", eunavfor.eu. Thuresson (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Only few works by military forces are exempt of copyright. E. g. the United States military is a part of the US federal government and works prepared by US military personnel in the course of duty are therefore in the public domain. There is, however, no such exemption for the European Union in general or for multinational forces in particular. The Operation Atalanta logo is original enough to be copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


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

thumb|Logo Interflora España

Pido la restauración del archivo siendo propietario del Logo: thumb|Logo Interflora España Interfloraes (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the wellknown Mercury man logo of Interflora, used since the 1950s. Thuresson (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done A permission for the release of the central logo under a free licence would have to come from the Fleurop-Interflora headquarters in Zurich or from the original artist. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to send an email of consent. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yousef Gnaoui by Patrick Mordi.jpg

ticket:2016052410009658 contains verified permission. Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: restored. --INeverCry 03:47, 12 August 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/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Q_samakura

Hello,

Files I have posted were deleted and I don't know why. Thoose files were useful on https://wiki.nuitdebout.fr/ and a part of a collective purpose totally right with the theme of the "ressources (https://wiki.nuitdebout.fr/wiki/Ressources)" of this page where a lot of other .pdf and pictures are. All thoose files were not deleted, so there is no reason for the ones I have posted have been deleted.

Please undelete it, thank you.

Q. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q samakura (talk • contribs) 14:01, 07 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is clearly stated in the deletion request. What is your stand on the reason for deletion? Thuresson (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale request. No response to Thuresson's question. --INeverCry 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Monkeysmack.jpg

File was deleted at 12:10, 4 July 2016, by user Storkk with the edit summary of (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: likely copyright violation).

This was done without notifying me, requesting copyright information or even discussing it (that I can see from Storkk's contribs) with anyone. I am the creator of that artwork, and I posted it because I use it, and because I would like to have allowed others to (as inconsequential a piece of artwork as it is).

I can prove it was an original creation, because I have the original .xcf and .jpg files on my computer right now from where it was created in GIMP. MjolnirPants (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping @Storkk: . But I'm curious of how a 43 x 43 pixel image is useful to a Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a small image of a monkey facepalming (or covering his eyes with his hand, depending on how you look at it). It could be used as clipart, as an icon, or in templates (the specific use I put it to). The original is actually larger, though not much. I'm on a different computer now, but I believe it's about 300x300. MjolnirPants (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep undeleted. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. You put it on your presentation page with the text "This user is not a monkey". Thuresson (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you meant 'keep deleted'. If does come back, however, it would make more sense to upload the larger file and use a thumbnail. Reventtalk 10:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Keep deleted. Thuresson (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like." doesn't apply? Or should I even ask? Because, as is usually the case, I'm sure someone will come up with a reason to just stonewall me. That does seem to be the unstated goal of every editor I've ever interacted with on commons. MjolnirPants (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Storkk has not edited since you opened this undeletion request, and it's not clear to me why he thought this was a copyright violation, unless he was under the impression that it was scaled down from a copyrighted image. Personally, I can't tell if it's a photo or a drawing, at that size. Reventtalk 08:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: It's not clear to me, either. In fact, I can't even imagine a reason why one would think it a copyvio. I certainly can't think of any reason why he wouldn't have notified me, or questioned me in some way before simply assuming it was. I'm perfectly willing to replace it with the larger file when this is done. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was in use on a project, it's in scope. If there is no copyright problem, then  Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @MjolnirPants: restored. replace this when you get a chance. --INeverCry 05:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Fiona Bennett and Portrait Fiona Bennett to undelete.jpg

Hallo,

die Dateien 'Logo Fiona Bennett' sowie Portrait Fiona Bennett sollen wiederhergestellt werden. Diese Datei gehören mir, ich bin Fiona Bennett und will dass mein Logo sowie mein Portrait auf der Wikipedia Seite zu sehen sind.

Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Hilfe

Mit besten Grüßen

Hi, the files Logo Fiona Bennett as well as Portrait Fiona Bennett belong to me and I would like to publish them on my wiki page. Can you please restore these files? Thank you & regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennettBerlin (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

BennettBerlin --BennettBerlin (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@BennettBerlin: All three of your deleted uploads (both photos, and the logo) have been previously published on the internet without free licenses. In such cases we need evidence submitted via COM:OTRS that you have the right to release the images. Thanks. Reventtalk 08:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Dazu ist es auch wichtig zu wissen, dass nach deutschem Urheberrecht nur der Fotograf bzw. Designer derartige Lizenzen erteilen kann. Allein der Besitz von Kopien der Fotos oder Logos berechtigt z. B. nicht zur Erteilung einer Creative-Commons-Lizenz oder sonstiger Freigaben, wie wir sie auf Commons benötigen. Dies kann nur der Urheber veranlassen. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. --INeverCry 05:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


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

JORGE LUIS BORDER 01.JPG to undelete.

Dear Ladies/Sirs:

I strongly request UNDELETION of the photo I've posted in the article "Jorge Luis Border" because I OWN THE COPYRIGHT of that photo, which as a matter of fact is the result of a morphing I've made from two original photos, both belonging to the public domain. As a professional author aware of copyryght and authorship laws, I suggest you to first ask before shooting. It will be also a good practice to defend the copyright owners and authors' rights. Pablo Perel User: Filmbeat --Filmbeat (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Where did you get the original photos from and what makes them public domain? --rimshottalk 07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The file was uploaded, and deleted, as File:JORGE LUIS BORDER.jpg. The file mentioned above, File:JORGE LUIS BORDER 01.jpg, is a new copy that was uploaded after this undeletion request was opened, that I just deleted as being recreated out of process.
The file has been on the internet at http://www.popthomology.com/2014/09/my-favorite-26-seattle-high-school.html since 2014, and was published there with a copyright notice. We require that evidence of permission to license the image be submitted per COM:OTRS when a work been previously published on the internet without a free license, to protect the rights of copyright owners. Reventtalk 08:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 05:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Unsigned post by User:MBerendt

I have permission from the IDEA Society to use this image. It was released to public media in 2012 and is published in the Vienna Reviev, various other papers, and on Flikr.

Please do not delete, if any additional information, or indication is needed I will provide it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBerendt (talk • contribs) 08:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, which image do you want to have undeleted? For already published images, the copyright holder (I suppose IDEA society?) would need to send permission to COM:OTRS. Please keep in mind that permission for Wikipedia only is not enough, the image needs to be released under a free license. For images first published on Flickr, a free license on Flickr is usually enough. --rimshottalk 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required, as well as an acceptable free license. See COM:L for license guidelines. --INeverCry 05:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Translation versus Interpretation.jpg

Hi, you cannot just block our information, posts or texts without explaining how you got into this conclusion, explain to me, please, the reason for doing that. As you mentioned, it was copyright violation, show me how to fix that and prove where is the source you found the exact context that made you considered as violation. What was the problem and what made you consider it as violation...we cannot just erase something we took time to do just because you said so. I appreciate your feedback.

--ACarolPapa (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyrighted stock photo from shutterstock.com. Thuresson (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO as shown by Thuresson. --INeverCry 05:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Pakistan

Per FBMD... grabbed from Facebook. ZeeshanAhmad3494 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC) ==

Sir it's my personal file , while i had uploaded in personal Facebook account.

What's the exact title of the file you're referring to? INeverCry 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like all three of this user's uploads are part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Pakistan:
They aren't deleted yet, so this is probably more appropriate on the DR page than here. I can certainly believe the photos came from the same user's account. A couple may be a little fuzzy on scope, but they do show the locale, and areas where we probably don't get a lot of photos. I'd probably assume good faith. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please direct comments to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Pakistan. --INeverCry 06:23, 12 August 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

ticket:2016061510021266 contains permission. Thanks! BU Rob13 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: restored. --INeverCry 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Marcelio Paraiba Inter de Lages.jpg

Sem motivo

 Not done: Galleries don't have .jpg in the name. :). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Meyvaert @Daina-avatar.jpg

(File:Peter Meyvaert @Daina-avatar.jpg)

dear moderator, The photograph as specified is my own property. I own all rights to it. Therefore I think the reason for deletion is incorrect. I allow the use of it on wikipedia. I hereby request to reinstall the photo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter meyvaert (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose The file's metadata indicates the copyright holder is Daina De Saedeleer. INeverCry 20:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Closing, since uploader's claim of copyright appear to be incorrect. Thuresson (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Flag of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.svg 361szm (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.svg. What's your reason for wanting that decision reversed and this file restored? INeverCry 02:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by globally locked sockmaster. --INeverCry 19:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Toni Baldwin 2015 Promotional Photo.jpg

This image is available for use in Toni Baldwin's press kit, available upon request and available on social media websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberholli95 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see OTRS on how to send permission to Commons. In the meantime, don't reupload. Thank you! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence of acceptable free license at source. OTRS permission from the attributed author, Jalil Amon, is required. --INeverCry 19:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Peter Prevc - Planica 2016.jpg

I request undeletion of this photo: File:Peter Prevc - Planica 2016.jpg Another user asked for deletion because the thought that it violated rights. However, it is my photo and I allow it to be published on wikipedia. Please undelete it. --Topjur01 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Image metatdata indicates copyright holder is "Marko PIGAC/MP PRODUKCIJA". OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Stevie_Wonder_At_Marrakesh_DipConf.jpg

Reason for the request: I personally attended the Marrakesh Treaty conference as an accredited NGO representative. It was a public place and space. Speaking at a public international conference does not create a private event. I personally took the photo in question, with my own camera. I own the copyright. Nobody else owns the copyright. I voluntarily chose to license the photo under an open license to use in this article. I have not used the photo for commercial purposes.

Famous people don't automatically own the copyright in their image. A public event like a international treaty diplomatic conference is not a copyright surrender zone.

JRandomF (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Jim Fruchterman 8/13/2016

 Not done: The file was uploaded here on 9 August 2013. It was uploaded to Flickr in June of 2013: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wipo/9159769516/in/album-72157634099832789/ (© WIPO 2013. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod.). The license needs to be changed on Flickr or we need OTRS permission from Emmanuel Berrod. If he's taking credit for your image, you'll need to take that up with him. --INeverCry 19:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Raul Diaz en CNN en Español.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I need to undelete this pictures because thats pictures are mine. Except Raul Diaz Estudio, the others pictures are mine. The administrator Should put this images back because that are mine PLEASE. Repete, except "raul diaz estudio". Isatvca (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:DW. This is a screenshot of a CNN broadcast. CNN owns the copyright. --INeverCry 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Livan Hernandez y Raul Diaz.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please put back this pictures, because this photo ist mine. This picture was tooked for our organization. Thanks por putting back as soon as possible. Thanks. Isatvca (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:DW This is a screenshot from a TV interview. OTRS permission would be needed from the broadcasting company. --INeverCry 19:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Frobl-Icon-HD.jpg undeletion request

File:Frobl-Icon-HD.jpg Should be undeleted because the author of the image was cited correctly and fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Favone (talk • contribs) 06:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The attribution to the author was not the problem, but there is no evidence that the image has been released under a Creative Commons licence. I think it looks original enough to be copyrighted so it would be non-free by default. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the attributed author, Aaron Bishop, is required. --INeverCry 19:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo FC Basel.svg

I request for undeletion based on the DR concerning the PNG version. --Leyo 20:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per Commons:Deletion requests/File:FC Basel logo since the 10 win.png. --INeverCry 20:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jerry Siegel 1939.jpg

@INeverCry: @Ellin Beltz: I can now provide a source for this: Super Boys by Brad Ricca. This was a commissioned work for National Allied Publications, and its copyright was not renewed. BaronBifford (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(The uploader actually went ahead and recreated this out of process a second time before a decision was made, but it's been deleted yet again.)
 Oppose I don't see how a vague reference to a 2013 publication helps establish when, where and under which circumstances the photo was first published. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per LX. --INeverCry 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:1930_-_Monumentul_lui_Take_Ionescu.PNG

I mentioned in the deletion request that the sculptor was Ernest Henri Dubois, dead 1930 and that the photo falls under {{PD-RO-photo}}. It's unclear to me what is the reason for the deletion.--Strainu (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not take into account your comments in that DR, because that was not managable. In the list of over 300 files, several contributors left their comments, but you decided to leave your comments in a separate version of the list. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:1916_-_Situatia_Armatei_de_Nord_la_1_noiembrie_1916.png

Author was mentioned ro:Alexandru_Ioanițiu, dead 1941. No reason for deleting it. The same applies to the following:

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 22:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Caricatura Dinastia Brătianu.jpg

Author was mentioned to be ro:Nicolae Petrescu-Găină, dead 1931.--Strainu (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Manningham United Logo.png to undelte

i would like to request for the Manningham United Logo.png logo to be undeleted. I put it in the page Manningham United Blues FC and i have permission to use it as i have connections with the club, as i have been playing their for eight years and my family is very good friends with everyone their including people such as the committee members and the president. I talk to them on a regular basis.

--GenuineEdits (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from a Manningham United representitive is required. --INeverCry 01:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Samoylenko-n-yu-7459-square.jpg

I've confirmed ticket:2016070410019994. Please restore File:Samoylenko-n-yu-7459-square.jpg. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: restored. --INeverCry 05:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Epi group1.jpg

The file is definitely okay. The upload is authorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-angel (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Thuresson (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Remi De Smet.jpg

Beste, waarom werd deze foto verwijderd? Ik begrijp niet waarom.

Reeuwstro (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two versions of this file. The first one you uploaded is pretty high-resolution with the kid in a vest; the second version shows the same kid singing, is small, and looks like a COM:NETCOPYVIO. INeverCry 05:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: stale request, no resp after more than a week. --INeverCry 23:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Жуковский Г.Ю..JPG

Прошу восстановить файл фотографию Жуковский Г.Ю..JPG для статьи https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Жуковский,_Григорий_Юльевич которая была удалена участником 00:19, 28 ноября 2013 Fastily (обсуждение | вклад) удалил страницу File:Жуковский Г.Ю..JPG (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Жуковский Г.Ю..JPG) (global usage; delinker log), в том случае если фото не верно оформлено, прошу опытных участников оформить фото на вики-складе так что бы фотография появилась в статье про Жуковский,_Григорий_Юльевич --Сергей Потапенко (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Serge Potapenko: I've uploaded the file to Russian wiki: ru:Файл:Жуковский, Григорий Юльевич.jpg and I've placed it in the article. --INeverCry 01:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bitetto-Pacichelli.jpg

The drawing is from 1703, so this file is not a copyright violation. --SkyFrank (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Deleted at a formal DR. Please provide clear evidence that the specific file is ok. Per the deletion request, "Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status." Reventtalk 10:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Published 1702 per Getty. Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Anthony John Langley.jpg

Image is released under CC 4.0 See http://www.manrolandsheetfed.com/en-GB/news/715/manroland-sheetfed-shareholder-recoups-investmentImage is released under CC 4.0 See http://www.manrolandsheetfed.com/en-GB/news/715/manroland-sheetfed-shareholder-recoups-investment Also advanced permission granted from the Photographer "Charlotte Langley". --Nickm94 (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nickm84: The photographer needs to send a release to COM:OTRS. Wider crops of the same image were published by Forbes before the article reproduced on that page was published, and we need to know the photographer consented to the specific license and not use 'use on wikipedia' or something similar. Reventtalk 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Новый коллаж Адлер.jpg

Own work--Vladimiradler (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you took all the photos that make up the collage? --rimshottalk 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
These are various professional photos of Sochi, Russia.
Photo one cropped from here, published November 2013
Photo two cropped from here with the text "(C) Sochi 2014" removed, published in November 2014
Photo three cropped from here, published in June 2016
Photo four cropped from here, published June 2014
The coat of arms is public domain (File:Coat of Arms of Adler (Krasnodar krai).png)
I didn't bother with the three smaller photos.
Thuresson (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above, images that make up the collage are COM:NETCOPYVIOs. --INeverCry 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg Yadira orozco presenter of Sonicamente by João Barbosa

File:Yadira Pascault Orozco presenter of the Mexican Rock and Roll proogram Sonicamente.jpg to undelete.jpg

I shot this work of young Yadira Pascault Orozco myself while living in Mexico City 2000-2010 - I shot it on a Nikon FE with Kodachrome film....and I own the copyright ! (J.barbosa (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC))

That would be great to have... as well as your other photos. However, given the number of uploaded images where people steal photographs off the net, we have a policy when we find works previously published -- we require an additional step, documented at COM:OTRS, to verify the permission via email from the copyright holder. User accounts are essentially anonymous, so we want to be careful that 1) the user really is the photographer, and 2) the photographer understands the scope of the licenses (both, especially #1, have been problems in the past). Once confirmed via OTRS, the files will be undeleted. In your case, you may prefer to simply verify that your user account is indeed the photographer, and therefore allow any licenses specified by that user in the future, rather than listing out all individual images (though that may still help for known images). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Satoshi Shima 2015-12-14.jpg

この画像ファイルは、被写体である嶋聡氏本人の同意のもと私自身が作成したものであり、その著作権はもともと私自身が有していたものです。同ファイルについて著作権の違反はありません。さかきばらたいら (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Since I've written in Japanese, write the text of the same meaning again in English.This image file, there is also agreement Mr. Shima Satoshi herself as a subject, I took a picture. Its copyright is what was originally owned by myself. There is no violation of the copyright for the image file.さかきばらたいら (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@さかきばらたいら: A wider crop of the same image was published at http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/619 before it was uploaded here, with a copyright claim. Permission needs to be sent per COM:OTRS. Reventtalk 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Uwe Schmidt (Politiker, 1954).png

Die Rechte des Bildes liegen, wie damals angebgeben, beim Landkreis Kassel. Dieser ist ausdrücklich mit der Nutzung einverstanden. Als Mitarbeiter des Landrates Unwe Schmidt und Angestellter des Landkreises kassel bin ich berechtigt das Bild für wikipedia zu nutzen !!

The owner of the picture, as mentioned before, is the Kassel district who agrees to the use it for wikipedia. As an employee of the district administrator UNWE Schmidt and employee of the district Kassel I am entitled to use the image for wikipedia !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manssi (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

--Manssi (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

On August 9 you claimed that you have created this work and that you own the copyright. Use for Wikipedia only is not enough. Thuresson (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia-only is not an acceptable license for Commons. Please see COM:L for acceptable licenses. OTRS permission from copyright holder granting an acceptable free license is required. --INeverCry 20:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Kel Hernández.jpg

El contenido utilizado es de mi autoría File:Kel Hernández.jpg


--LauraMendez0192 (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Laura M.

 Not done: This was first published at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153175476277589&set=pb.809642588.-2207520000.1471313012.&type=3&theater. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kayla_day.png

This file was deleted as a possible copyright violation. I request this be reversed since the original source [[7]] was attributed, which has the following license: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed).

Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support Indeed appears to be cropped from a screenshot of the video, but it should be CC-BY-2.0, not what was used. Reventtalk 07:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Can I re-upload it then with the correct license? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit: The YouTube Creative Commons page says its license is CC-BY-3.0, so I re-uploaded it with that license. If there is still an issue, let me know. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've adjusted the license and done a licnese review. --INeverCry 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Henk Poorte.jpg.

Permission of the photographer is received through this OTRS ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=9272771. Elly (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have opened the ticket and unfortunately this is nowhere near a valid permission. (Will leave a note in the ticket). Jcb (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jcb. --INeverCry 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:JHW in NORWAY.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission for this photo was emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 8/12/16 by Jessie Jones, owner of the photo. Njnorland (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Njnorland: OTRS will ask for it to be undeleted if the permission statement is sufficient (but there is a backlog). In the future, you can use {{OTRS pending}} on the file page after you sent an email, to delay possible deletion longer. Reventtalk 07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Revent. --INeverCry 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Original materials of VOA

In July 2014 we had a global discussion about admissibility of the use on Commons of files of Voice of America (VOA; voanews.com).

We followed our logical inference and decided that we can not use these files.

Moreover there was a strange collision "terms and conditions" of all regional sites in all languages contained statements about the Public Domain license, but English site had not.

After that we made changes to the template and deleted hundreds of files with link to that discussion (for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RD-180.jpg).

Almost half a year I led a continuous conversation with the regional and global offices of VOA, their owner Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG; bbg.gov), and even divisions of United States Department of State.

You can see some of the public details here: User talk:Krassotkin#VoA.

And now we have:

  1. Clear and satisfactory statement from BBG (owner of VOA) on it official site BBG Direct: Terms Of Use >> Copyright Statement: "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain".
  2. The direct links to BBG Direct from Terms of Use/Privacy Policy >> PERMISSIONS of English version of VOA and have not any license restrictions there.
  3. Clear and satisfactory statement about PD license on all regional sites in all languages including after sites redesigned and our abundant communication with them. For example see Russian VOA statement about PD-license: "Все тексты, а также аудио- и видеоматериалы, публикуемые на сайте и произведенные сотрудниками компании «Голос Америки» являются общественным достоянием" (the same than before "All original ...").
  4. Ticket:2016030510006413 in which the Acting Director, Public Relations of VOA Scot Riddlesberger wrote: "Material produced solely by VOA is governed under the following statutes: https://www.gpo.gov/help/public_domain_copyright_notice.htm".

So we have an unambiguous confirmation of the Public Domain license for the all original materials of global and local editions of VOA (1-3) and confirmation of our good faith efforts to investigate the situation (4).

Therefore we must:

  • Restore all original files of VOA (only original, not AP, Reuters etc).
  • Change note in VOA template: Template:PD-USGov-VOA.

My list for restore:

You can add other deleted for this reason files in the discussion.

Please ping interested in this topic.

Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC) My list for restore:

in relation with this discussion. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my list:

Full list of files

and also files listed in:

--Wcam (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Finally we have a clear statement of the VOA's global policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cautious  Support. "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain." in the "Copyright Statement" section of http://www.bbgdirect.com/en-US/Infopages/TermsOfUse is very clear; however the same document also has variety of bizarre non-copyright requirements for the people accessing BBG Direct website where the content is kept:
  • not allowed to be accessed by people in the US (Applicant confirms that it is located outside the United States.)
  • the attribution requirement ( "Applicant shall credit “VOA” or “Voice of America;” “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;” “RFA” or “Radio Free Asia;” “MBN” or “Middle East Broadcasting Networks;” and “OCB” or “Office of Cuba Broadcasting,” as appropriate for any Content used.)
  • need for written permission before distribution of any content of the website in the US (Applicant understands and agrees that Applicant may not intentionally broadcast, distribute, or transmit the Content into the United States, its possessions, or its territories unless Applicant is given prior express permission in writing from BBG to do so. )
As a result it sounds like I already have breached the terms of the end user agreement by reading the Terms Of Use while being located inside the US. Also above quotes of "public domain" content of the Terms Of Use are being distributed on the website in the US. I wonder if Ticket:2016030510006413 constitute written permission before distribution. However those seems like conditions for people accessing the content on BBG website. Once it is off BBG website I guess it is PD. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: as you know now who to contact, could you clarify with them this US restriction matter? --Dereckson (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dereckson: I'm sorry. I also believe that these points do not apply to our case. Communication with these organizations requires a lot of time. They can not answer for a few months even after several reminders. My English is so poor that requires a lot of effort for such correspondence. Thus I would like to limit myself the reached goal. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I never thought the 2013 law changed the copyright status in any way. The restrictions above are legal -- lawmakers were concerned about VOA (which is essentially a U.S. propaganda media outlet) should never be targeted at the U.S. public themselves lest it ever be politicized, but rather just as a foreign policy activity. Therefore, the w:Smith–Mundt Act forbid the VOA from broadcasting to U.S. citizens, which in turn I'm sure led to the above restrictions. In 2013, that law was relaxed to allow some distribution to U.S.-based media outlets, but I don't think that law change ever affected the copyright status itself -- the law allowed the VOA to recoup the costs of such distribution via a fee, which may be why they removed the clear copyright statement they used to have, but I don't think there was anything which would change the status in respect to 17 USC 105 (the part of copyright law which makes US Government works PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The PD-USGov-VOA template as of today still shows material after 2013 is for NC only, shouldn't it be changed again to reflect the above discussion? Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed such wording in {{PD-USGov-VOA/en}}. Please feel free to revert or revise if appropriate. --Wcam (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Comment This has remained open over an extended period, presumably because editors have not felt comfortable closing it while affected files might remain undeleted. Before this goes away, however, I think we should thank Krassotkin for pursuing this over such a long time. Reventtalk 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dereckson: @Jameslwoodward: @INeverCry: @NickK: @Ymblanter: @Artoria2e5: @Wcam: @Rédacteur Tibet: @Oaktree b: @INeverCry: @Stefan2: @Natuur12: @Steinsplitter: @Clindberg:

It looks like the vast majority of files mentioned in the link above have been undeleted, though not quite all. So an admin may still be working through this (Natuur12?), or maybe there were duplicates left deleted, or something like that. When I checked 2-3 days ago it was maybe half undeleted, so it's still progressing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Still not done undeleting. If any admin wants to help yes please. Currently I have a high priority job to do at another wiki so it may take 1-2 weeks before I can continue. Natuur12 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I'm working on it. INeverCry 22:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks File:Bawa Phuntsok Wangyal Book Launch.jpg is one to undelete. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've restored it. INeverCry 20:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: It looks like every file listed in this request has been restored now, except a few derivative works. Thanks to Natuur12, Krassotkin, Steinsplitter, and everyone else who helped with this. If any other files are found that need restoring, I can restore them, or Natuur12. --INeverCry 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Volpi - Resolutiones.png

The book is from 1670. No copyright violation. --SkyFrank (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Deleted at a formal DR. Please provide clear evidence that the specific file is ok. Per the deletion request, "Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status." Reventtalk 10:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Published in 1670 per the image's publishing date. --INeverCry 22:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:PingTianXiaDeXiaocao2015-StandingDraw.png

This is my picture and my file.
And there has my signature in the lower right corner.
It just used for my userpage.
平天下的小曹2015 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Commons:Deletion requests/File:PingTianXiaDeXiaocao2015-StandingDraw.png is still open, and the image hasn't been deleted. Please discuss it there. --Reventtalk 04:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:1902 Armata Romaniei Marelui ei capitan - Coperta.png and File:1902- Armata Romaniei Marelui ei capitan - Sigla Armata Romana.png

The book was published in 1902. The photographer was Al. Antoniu (dead in 1925), and the author of the text was lieutenant Eliad (year of death unmentioned). When the book was published, Lt. Eliad had a minumum age of 21 years (he graduated from high school earliest at the age of 18 years, and the military school two years later. He could be exceptionally promoted lieutenant after at least 1 year). 114 years have passed since the creation of the text (total minimum 135 years), so it died anyway. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the request for recovery. The reasoning does not justify the undeletion request. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Request withdrawn, per above. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:1775 - Batalia de la Quebec - dispunerea forţelor.PNG

Source: Stone, Edwin Martin; The invasion of Canada in 1775: including the journal of Captain Simeon Thayer describing the perils and sufferings of the Army under Colonel Benedict Arnold in its march through the wilderness to Quebec; “Rhode Island Historical Society”, vol. VI, Knowles, Anthony & Co. Printers, Providence, 1867, p. XVIII-XIX

The author Edwin Martin Stone died in 1883. {{PD-old-70}} is the right license. The image's information must be uptaded too, and if the photo will be recovered I will make it. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Source provided. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Lure Sculpture at Gallery

I created this work myself, both the art and the photograph. There is no conflit of copyright, as I own the both. Thank you. (IthakaDarinPappas (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC))
This is aboslutely my own work, both the photograph and the sculpture. Shot in my backyard of my studio in Brazil. There is no copyright conflicts whatsoever. Much appreciation (IthakaDarinPappas (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC))
This is a photograph of one of my sculptures entitled Lure 4, in the backyard of my studio. There is no possibility of copyright infringement as I created both the picture and the pictured artwork. Thanks. (IthakaDarinPappas (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC))

 Not done: Please send a permission email confirming the above to OTRS. --INeverCry 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Satoshi Shima 2015-12-14.jpg

This image file, there is also agreement Mr. Shima Satoshi herself as a subject, I took a picture. Its copyright is what was originally owned by myself. There is no violation of the copyright for the image file. A wider crop of the same image was published at http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/619 before it was uploaded here,but On its site is described as "榊原平のWEB SITE", in other words, it is my Taira Sakakiba own web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by さかきばらたいら (talk • contribs) 03:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@さかきばらたいら: You've requested undeletion for a number of images that were posted there. What we need is verification that the person behind the wiki account (you) is actually the person behind the website, and not just someone who created a wiki account with the same name (which happens depressingly often). Probably the easiest way to do that is for you to make a post on your blog stating that your wiki account has permission to license images from there o Commons, and then request undeletion for the images as a group with a link to the post. Reventtalk 04:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Revent. --INeverCry 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Inside the Great Enlightenment Auditorium.jpg

I asked the editor who published this book and she granted me access AND gave me the files to put these pictures onto wikimedia so I can update the wikipedia page that the picture was intended for.--Yuan mdx (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This statement is not adequate evidence of permission. The photograph is watermarked with an author name and email address. An email from that address will need to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Falastin newspaper 18 June 1936 issue featuring a caricature.png

I have permission in ticket #2014081410020312 from copyright holders to share their content. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Makeandtoss does not appear to be an OTRS member. This ticket is from a gmail domain from party(ies) that variously state either a relative was the photographer (this is a photograph of a newspaper with a cartoon and text) and that a relative was a "chief" of the newspaper. This is not acceptable evidence of permission: 1) permission would need to come from both the cartoonist and author of the text--not the photographer--or, if works for hire, from an authorized agent of the publishing company; 2) there is no evidence that the relative was a "chief"; 3) there is no evidence that a "chief" of a newspaper is authorized to license IP on behalf of the publishing company. This is an utterly useless ticket. Эlcobbola talk 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
There are no publishing companies, it was a family owned business. The cartoonist is of course the editor, and the editor, owner and president are all members of the same family, and are all obviously deceased. --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
"Family owned business" = publishing company. The business (company) is a separate legal entity that would generally own the intellectual properties of the employees/officers. We would need to see a scanned document showing either 1) the business transferred the IP to the person submitting the ticket or 2) the person submitting the ticket inherited the IP or is otherwise authorized to license on behalf of the estate. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: I'm unsure that businesses in the Ottoman Empire, or British Palestine, would have used a formal business structure. With a bit of searching I did locate a reference to the ownership of the newspaper, however. See here. This of course does not say anything about the drawing. Reventtalk 16:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The en.wiki article references a foundation date, founders, and people holding the position of "president", all of which imply an incorporation of some sort. Even if there was no corporate entity, I said "the person submitting the ticket inherited the IP or is otherwise authorized to license on behalf of the estate" precisely to cover the circumstance of familial rather than corporate ownership. Again, this OTRS provides no illumination or evidence about the rights here whatsoever, which is the issue. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: I wasn't disagreeing with you, specifically... that book says nothing about the ownership of the paper or it's IP after WWI, or who created a drawing in 1936. It simply indicates that the paper was indeed founded and owned by members of the al-Isa family in 1911, without mentioning a corporation. Reventtalk 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Insufficient OTRS permission per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 19:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Portraits of Alberto Croce

Following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alberto Croce - Cariatide - Feglino.jpg, the photographer Paolo Cuzzoni sent to OTRS an authorization to publish the pictures under CC BY-SA (ticket:2016031410009582).

Undeletion request for the following files:

--Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 19:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:AnaIriarte(foto).jpg

Why are you deleting my images ? where is your proof to delete them ?

E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egargo (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

File:SKM logo.png

Hello! The logo of our NGO was created by local Kalush painter in 1997. What copyright violation can be here? File:SKM logo painted.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skm.kalush (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr or Ms Kalush painter own the copyright to his or her paintings. Thuresson (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
(and will until at least 2068) Based on this statement, the other version is also a copyright violation, unless you can show that the painter transferred the copyright or consented to the release of the work under a free license. You should upload it to ukwiki under a fair use claim. Reventtalk 11:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 06:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:1955 - Constantin (Bebe) Bratianu - fisa matricola penala.PNG

{{PD-RO-exempt}} is the right license, because
Română: "fisa matricola penala"
means "criminal record registry book". So, it is an official document of the Romanian State. The image's information must be uptaded too, and if the photo will be recovered I will make it. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"Official document" is not a term present in {{PD-RO-exempt}}. The template says "official texts of a[n ...] administrative or judicial nature" (emphasis added), which does not appear to address the existence of a photograph in this file. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice: The uploaded image is not accessible to me, and I'm to be sure, but I think it is imported from here. This site belongs to Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes and the Memory of the Romanian Exile (romanian acronym: IICCR, link located here - search term in the page "Brătianu, Constantin (Bebe) C. (1887 – 1956)"), who made publicly available all information acquired.

The formulation "The photographs of ..., deeds, documents of any kind,....shall not benefit from the legal protection accorded to copyright." is present in {{PD-RO-exempt}}, and the text of "criminal record registry book" is a text of "a[n ...] administrative or judicial nature". --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose per above. {{PD-RO-exempt}} addresses text, not photography. In the sentence "The photographs of ..., deeds, documents of any kind,....shall not benefit from the legal protection accorded to copyright," the subject is photographs of the documents, not the documents themselves. Put simply, it appears to address derivative works (e.g., ignoring possible 2D/3D issues, if one takes a new photograph--photo A--of an existing photograph--photo B--the new photo A will not enjoy copyright regardless of the status of photo B. The template is silent on the treatment of photo B, which is the one of interest here; indeed, nowhere does the template say "official photographs" are not subject to copyright or something reasonably equivalent. Эlcobbola talk 19:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, more arguments I can not bring because I'm only "a rookie" ... :).--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for your patience.

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 06:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Michael Franzini.jpg

I took this photo and I release it for all uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmxracerx (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If this photo is taken by you, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS and submit an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 06:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Etruscan bronze from Isis tomb.jpg

This is clearly allowed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license as shown at http://www.britishmuseum.org/join_in/using_digital_images/using_digital_images.aspx?asset_id=34552001&objectId=466779&partId=1

which I already indicated.Rjdeadly (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done "NC" means "non-commercial" which is an unacceptable provision for the Commons. Please see COM:L and Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags. Эlcobbola talk 15:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

17:51, 18 August 2016 Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Alexander Gamelin Yura Min Ice Dance Team (KR) 2016 Portrait.gif (Missing license as of 9 August 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.) (global usage; delinker log)

This is an undeletion request for 2 files: File:Alexander Gamelin Yura Min Ice Dance Team (KR) 2016 Portrait.gif File:Yura Min & ice dance partner, Alexander Gamelin.jpg.

These files were deleted from the commons and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Gamelin and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yura_Min. An email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on August 17, 2016 by the photographer and copyright holder granting free licence for use of this image. Following is the text from that email granting free license.

I hereby affirm that I Melanie Hoyt, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright for photographs taken on July 30, 2016 in Lake Placid, New York of subjects Yura Minand Alexander Gamelin, both photographed individually and together as shown here in the attached images and as found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Gamelin and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yura_Min. These images have already been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons using the following file names:

File:Alexander Gamelin Yura Min Ice Dance Team (KR) 2016 Portrait.gif. File:Yura Min & ice dance partner, Alexander Gamelin.jpg.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

I further herein appoint Donna Stirber-Gamelin to serve as my appointed representative with authority from me to upload any and all photographs of the above named subjects taken on July 30, 2016 in Lake Placid, New York that have not yet been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as of August 16, 2016.

Melanie Hoyt

<personal information removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceTwinsMom (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural close: Per above "An email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on August 17, 2016 by the photographer and copyright holder" The volunteer who handles the ticket will automatically restore the files, or request their restoration, if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:John · V · Roos U.S. Ambassador to greet speech 20100821.JPG

This image file is, what I have taken the Japan US Ambassador John Roos. Its copyright is what was originally owned by myself. There is no violation of the copyright for the image file.さかきばらたいら (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 17:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Radhika Batra Shah.jpg

Hi EugeneZelenko and INeverCry,

Could you please check on this file and tell us the reason of deletion for this as it belongs to the person about whom this article has been written Radhika Batra Shah.

--Suvidhagp (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A formal request for deletion was made here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Suvidhagp. Thuresson (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This image file is a picture for which there is no violation of the copyright. Could you undelete this file and keep it with the article page. Suvidhagp (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify why you believe there is no violation of copyright. Thuresson (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That the image "belongs to the person about whom this article has been written" implies it does not belong to you. You must own the copyright, or be an authorized agent of the copyright holder, to license the image. This image appears numerous places on the Internet (e.g., here), including with credit to "Radhikas Fine Teas and Whatnots", which suggests you may also be conflating being the mere subject of the photograph with being its copyright holder. Evidence of permission needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 17:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by BANRD

Please restore the following pages:

List of files deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/DR Hoax flags 2

Reason: These were not hoax flags. You can see here, on a special news coverage of the sworn in of many politicians yesterday in the Dominican Republic, photos with some of these flags, like this from Santo Domingo Norte, this from Hato Mayor del Rey, and this (right) from Higüey. 148.0.123.206 07:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment For the record, the uploader was indefinitely blocked in January for "Uploading Hoax Flags after warnings. & Reuploading files after Deletion Nomination & Deletions." Take that as you will. Reventtalk 07:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Except for the flag of the Dominican republic there are hardly any clear photos of any other flags. If these are genuine symbols there should be some other resource to verify it. Thuresson (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I have never seen such flags in the Dominican Republic. At the Spanish Wikipedia, several inhabitants of the Dominican Republic have had to remove these nonsense flags from hundreds of articles from time to time for the past years. Jcb (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No legitimate reason to restore the hoax/problematic uploads of this disruptive user. --INeverCry 17:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Steve Herndon.jpg

Hello, I have tried to upload images in which I have the right use. The second one I uploaded is also used here https://www.safetynetrecovery.com/our-staff/ You can see it at the bottom. If you will read the last sentence of the bio it references how Steve Herndon works at Safety Net Recovery. Please leave the image on the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveherndon (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to verify that you are the copyright owner of this photo. Thuresson (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 17:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Weary Herakles from Antikythera Wreck.tif

Deleted basing on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Weary Herakles from Antikythera Wreck.tif

Deletion nomination reason is bogus as this sculpture is ancient (as it was pointed in the image description), so potential copyright holder died more than 1000 years ago and it is irrelevant who he was. Uploader declared in OTRS to be the author of the photo.

@Wikicology and INeverCry: do you object the undeletion or wish to comment the above? Ankry (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 17:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ISURU Linux.png

Hi,

The file File:ISURU Linux.png is used in below links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISURU_Linux and https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B6%89%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BB%E0%B7%94_%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%B1%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%8A


both Wikipedia Pagers were created under the supervision and with the permission of of The ICT Branch, Ministry Of Education, Sri Lanka.

I am working as a Consultant / Resource Person attached to The ICT Branch, Ministry Of Education, Sri Lanka.

So please restore back the ISURU Linux.png. If you log in to Facebook Groups links in the Wikipedia Pagers you can see the discussions about the Wikipedia Pagers.


Thank You,

--Pdweerakoon (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 07:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Voice files

ticket:2016070710008099 contains permission that addresses the concern at the deletion request. ~ Rob13Talk 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Insufficient Permission Wait the ticket says CC SA 4.0 which is a non existent license they need to explicitly sate the the permission is under CC BY SA 4.0. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rudi Polder, getiteld Marseille, olieverf op doek, 1954, impressionisme (73 x 50 cm).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been granted in ticket:2016062510007352 Mbch331 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Insufficient permission The ticket states that the photos may be used on wikipedia but mentions no free license. MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lithuania vs Spain in Gijon (2007-08-16).jpg

File was a transfer from https://bat-smg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abruozdielis:Lithuania_vs_Spain_in_Gijon_(2007-08-16).jpg where it had been marked as free and deleted after transfer. Would User:INeverCry dare to explain why he deleted almost immediately after transfer? 21:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The file was tagged by Leyo with this rationale: {{copyvio|1=See [[:en:Special:Undelete/File:Lithuania_vs_Spain_in_Gijon_(2007-08-16).jpg]]}}. INeverCry 21:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
When going to en:Special:Undelete/File:Lithuania _vs_Spain_in_Gijon_(2007-08-16).jpg I get page titled "Permission error" containing the text "You do not have permission to view this page's deleted history, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers.". So what is there to see? CommonSupporter (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Leyo: can best answer the exact reason he tagged this as a copyvio. He's a long-time admin on en.wiki and here at Commons. When a long-time en.wiki admin tags something as a copyvio in this way, I trust their judgment. Leyo wouldn't tag a file as a copyvio without a solid reason. INeverCry 21:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
As you can see in the public log, the reason given for the deletion was Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission. The picture seems to have been copied from this (now archived) webpage. --Leyo 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
That is for a deletion from 2013 in the English Wikipedia, not linked from the Commons page File:Lithuania vs Spain in Gijon (2007-08-16).jpg. There is a claim in bat-smg.wikipedia vs a claim in en.wikipedia. en.wikipedia wins because of what? CommonSupporter (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The original publication date as seen in the archive provided by Leyo (2007-08-16) is earlier than the first upload at the Lithuanian Wikipedia (2007-08-29). So we can exclude a backwards copy and it looks like this was a copyright infringement from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    2007-08-16 is the date when the event "Lithuania vs Spain in Gijon" happened. The page is shown as archived 2009-10-09. Where can one find the upload in the Lithuanian Wikipedia (lt.wikipedia) to verify your claim about the date "2007-08-29"? No file record found at lt:File:Lithuania_vs_Spain_in_Gijon_(2007-08-16).jpg. CommonSupporter (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: copyvio uploaded by locked sockmaster. --INeverCry 21:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hitori Murayama 2013-11-14.JPG

This image file is a picture that I have taken on their own. Its copyright is what was originally owned by myself. There is no violation of the copyright for the image file.さかきばらたいら (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thibaut120094 - if you comply with one of listed choices please file a new request. --INeverCry 21:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:有島生馬作の≪大震記念≫.jpg

This image file is a picture that I have taken on their own. Its copyright is what was originally owned by myself. There is no violation of the copyright for the image file.さかきばらたいら (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thibaut120094 - if you comply with one of listed choices please file a new request. --INeverCry 21:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Stevie Young with ACDC Tacoma WA Feb 2 2016.jpg

I believe the image File:Stevie Young with ACDC Tacoma WA Feb 2 2016.jpg was deleted erroneously. The image in question was in no way in violation of any copyright rules, as it was entirely created by myself (cropped from this image) taken at the said AC/DC concert. Please undelete if possible. Thanks. --TheACDCDoctor (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: as the deleting admin, could you have a look at this? Looks legit to me. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done - and I placed a link to the original picture to avoid future questions - Jcb (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Hot Wheels logo flat.png

i want this image is back! Thanks! Ragilnih (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be OK under US COM:TOO. @Clindberg: This is the full version of the logo seen on the box here: File:Hot Wheels Second Wind 1976.jpg. Does this look ok? INeverCry 05:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I would worry about the flames on the left of the background (if that is part of the file). If it's just the letters, I think it'd be OK. On the other hand, there's a decent chance for PD-US-no_notice on that. Would be best to find a definitive advertisement or something without notice though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The flames were my main concern too. This is the full logo, as can be seen here. INeverCry 20:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: copyright status in doubt per above. --INeverCry 22:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo SC Mannsdorf (2).png

Not a copyvio, because neither the football (very common shape and PD-shape), nor the stripes or the text are above ToO. --Leyo 23:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and tagged as a text logo. --INeverCry 23:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Public Domain photos by National Park Service, clearly marked as such, but delete by Jcb just because it lacked an template

I did not know that NPS Photo (as in National Park Service) and the author being Yellowstone National Park, is not presently part of the United States Fedral Government and so in Public Domain. At least is what one could think with the actions of Jcb. I did not added the correct license template as this files should be reviewed by someone else. This files being clearly in Public Domain, i thought that they would be fixed and passed the license review as good. But then we have Jcb that instead of keeping this files alone or pass the review instead decides to go trigger happy and delete this files delete this files.

Called to attention in his talkpage he refuses to do anything and even deletes (twice) my replies.

So would someone with less hot head and more sense undelete this files? Tm (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Tm moves large numbers of files from Flickr to Commons, but apparently likes to do half of the job, leaving the files with a no longer accepted PD tag, so that the FlickrReview bot tags them as 'no license since'. In June I kindly notified him about this problem, but apparently he does not want to learn from his mistakes. Instead he prefers to make random personal attacks. He seems to think that Category:Media without a license is some kind of review category. But no, this is a category for files tagged to be deleted if the error has not been fixed within 7 days. Processing those cats after 7 days is regular maintenance, not bullying. Jcb (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Info File:Cleaning fossils (25472839792).jpg was submitted without either a license template, nor the words "public domain" in plain text. Please use the Upload Wizard to upload photos from Flickr. Thuresson (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support. Restore all and apply {{PD-USGov-NPS}}. @Tm: For future reference, please be aware that the Public Domain Mk. 1 tag at Flickr is not actually a licence but just an indicator that the image may be in the public domain for some reason. However, at Commons we need to know the exact reason why such media files are in the public domain. In this case, it is in fact because the NPS is a part of the US federal government. But you need to indicate this during your uploads or the files will be processed as regular copyright infringements as JCB did. I've linked the proper template above, but you could as well have written a brief text note for each file stating why these images are PD. De728631 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored, tagged, and license reviewed. --INeverCry 20:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Misha profil.jpg

I am the author of the photo and I am an administrator of youtube channel and instagram account related to this person (Mishovy silenosti). --Olosh (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: please send an email with your permission as outlined at OTRS. --INeverCry 20:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Metadon profil.jpg

I am the author of the photo and I am an administrator of youtube channel and instagram account related to this person (Metadon). --Olosh (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: please send an email with your permission as outlined at OTRS. --INeverCry 20:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

--Yashvardhan bhati (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)yashvardhan bhati

Please clarify which file you wish to be undeleted. You have not submitted any files yourself. Thuresson (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No image and no rationale. --Эlcobbola talk 17:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Targa palazzo Marzi.jpg

OTRS permission received ticket:2016073110003441 with license CC BY-SA 4.0. --Ruthven (msg) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are we accepting a ticket from "Massimo Marzi" when an independent (third party) site credits "Leonardo Petolicchio" ("foto Petolicchio")? This needs to be reconciled before restoring. Эlcobbola talk 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. Please request undeletion again if/when there is sufficient OTRS permission. --INeverCry 18:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Elena Nikandrovna Klokacheva.jpg

The photograph of Elena Nikandrovna Klokacheva has been published in 1907, more than 100 years ago. --Mjimenezale (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Miguel Jimenez, Madrid (Spain), August 21, 2016

The original publication credits the photographer but due to the resolution of the scan I can't quite decipher the Cyrillic name: E. Мрозовской? Anyhow, this image is PD-1923 and if it was made by Elena Mrozovskaya it's also PD-Russia (author died before 1 January 1942). De728631 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, it's the same credit as File:Komissarzhevskaya Nora.jpg, looks like. So, that would make it {{PD-Russia}}.  Support. Do note, though, that even works over 100 years old can easily still be under copyright, unfortunately. Copyright in many cases (like Russia's) lasts 70 years after an author's death; if a photographer lived more than 30 years after taking a photo, which is common, that copyright lasts more than 100 years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be the run-of-the-mill calculation for copyright terms that are granted by "life of the author plus x". But fortunately we don't have to worry about it in this case. I think we can go with {{PD-art|PD/1923|deathyear=1941}} De728631 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Or better {{PD-art-two|PD-Russia|PD/1923|deathyear=1941}} to include all legal points. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and license added. Needs categories. --INeverCry 18:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Bettina-Flitner-28012015.jpg to undelete

Die Fotografie wurde von mir gemacht / ich bin der Urheber! Hans Peter Schaefer, www.reserv-art.de (Hps-poll (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC))

 Oppose Leider genügt in solchen Fällen eine einfache Bestätigung hier auf dem schwarzen Brett nicht, sondern wir benötigen dafür immer eine Freigabe per Email. Die Anleitung dazu findet man unter Commons:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 18:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Turkey rally in Istanbul.1086x724.jpg

Hello, I would like to ask why this photo was deleten? It has as far as I know no copyright violations and many websites use this photo for their publishment. BM Tornado (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose. As I explained on your talk page (which you either didn't bother to read or are pretending not to have read), lying about the licensing of copyrighted works does indeed constitute copyright infringement and is a criminal offense. The web sites that use the photo have either paid to do so or are breaking the law just like you did (but that doesn't make it okay for you to do it). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 18:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Resistance Chinese Films 2011.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben-Shanghai-Ren (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 00:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TLEtDw.png

Administrator "INeverCry" advised that I should submit an undeletion request rather than providing proof of no copyright violation. It seems clear that this person does not want the image on the Commons, but I've done as suggested. 8/21/2016 Gwxr6 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • To be honest the broader crop is not of higher resolution, it is just bigger. The subject image is of the same quality, the larger crop shows an unmodified version that doesn't appear online. It is every photographer's prerogative to crop as we wish and no one needs to have anyone else decide how that should be done. If you don't want it, that's fine. I offered to show you the proof, and I'm tired of arguing over nothing, as you do not wish to understand even what it was I offered. Let it go. I plan to. Gwxr6 (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Aside from issues with copyright I do not see any potential educational use. There are many photos of naked men and usually of better quality. Thuresson (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --INeverCry 04:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:O-Town_Movie_Poster_1.jpg

The film poster was designed by me. The article for the film has been approved and is published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Town_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedjamez (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not donePlease send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tero Keski-Valkama.jpg

I already sent the email with the written permission to OTRS. I am the author of the image. Keskival (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS email is processe4d and confirmed, the file can be restored. --INeverCry 04:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Nikki Bella Looks At Brie Bella.JPG

This picture was one I took at a Raw in Miami from 2014. It is my picture and should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frightwolf (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: My mistake on the deletion. Apologies. This shouldn't even have been tagged for deletion. --INeverCry 04:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rafael_Campo_Miranda.jpg

The usage of this photo was granted authorization by the son of Rafael Campo Miranda, Rafael Campo Vives. I can ask him to send an email from his account if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elioncho (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 04:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Rafael_Campo_Vives.jpg

I'm authorized to use this photo by Rafael Campo Vives. The bot says another copy of the photo was found on the internet and it's true. It was found in Rafael's personal website. I could ask him to send an email to Wikimedia Commons if you need an email authorizing the use of the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elioncho (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --INeverCry 04:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Musee du Louvre - panoramio - arthursmello (5).jpg and File:The Louvre, Paris (14668181029).jpg

Hello,

I'm asking help about File:Musee du Louvre - panoramio - arthursmello (5).jpg and File:The Louvre, Paris (14668181029).jpg after the most recent DR of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid. I think that the main subject of the pictures are the Louvre building, then the pyramid is De Minimis. Anyway, if this is not possible to restore the files as they are, it would be interesting to restore a cropped version of them. I can't upload the pictures myself, I don't have the original files and can't access to deleted files, as I am not admin.

Thank you very much for your help! Jeriby (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The pyramid isn't DM in either of these. It takes up roughly half of each. Any crop would give us half the Louvre building awkwardly cropped. INeverCry 18:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with INC. The shots are clearly framed with the pyramid in mind (i.e., inclusion is not incidental), the pyramid is a substantial portion of each image, and the images were categorized in relation to the pyramid (see Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines). Further, the first image appears to have been taken through a window and contains a not insignificant reflection of the flash and the second contains color manipulation; both cases could limit usefulness even if the pyramid were cropped. Эlcobbola talk 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per consensus. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I hereby affirm that I, Seth Nimbosa, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ikigai-FR.svg.

​I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under​ the PUBLIC DOMAIN, or when it is not possible, under​ the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International​, this media is simply unlicensable ​because it is composed of merely words and shapes not under any trademark or copyright.

I have sent the mandatory email requested, I was late to read this, please undelete.

Thanks! - Nimbosa (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above: "I have sent the mandatory email requested" The OTRS volunteer who processes the ticket will automatically restore the image, or request its restoration. This request is premature/not actionable until the email is processed. --Эlcobbola talk 14:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo FCM Traiskirchen (2).png

Not a copyvio, because neither the football (very common shape and PD-shape), nor the text are above ToO. --Steindy (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh I understand. The artistic value of this logo is particularly high. It is worthy of protection as the logo of FC Bayern München definitely. I'm really wondering! --Steindy (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Tja, in DE (Bayern München) und AT (FCM) gibt es nun mal zwei verschiedene Urheberrechtsgesetze, und die Auslegung bei euch ist erfahrungsgemäß sehr viel strenger. Wenn es nach mir persönlich ginge, wäre auch das Logo des FCM Traiskirchen unerheblich, aber aus Gründen der Vorsicht muss ich für ein österreichisches Logo erstmal von solchen Ideen abraten. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Ich weiß nicht, woher Sie Ihre Informationen beziehen. Ich behaupte, dass vielmehr das Gegenteil der Fall ist (Beispiel Panoramafreiheit, Beispiel Innenaufnahmen in Kirchen etc.), will aber darüber nicht weiter diskutieren.
Offenbar wird bei euch ein Unterschied gemacht, wer den Antrag stellt → Antrag Leyo → nicht einmal vier Minuten später von INeverCry positiv erledigt, wobei die Schöpfungshöhe des Logos vom SC Mannsdorf wesentlich größer ist. Aber in bin halt kein Benutzer mit dem berühmten (A) dahinter, sondern nur ein dummer Benutzer mit mehr als 12.000 uploads, der nichts anderes im Sinn hat, als die de-WP und commons zu schädigen.
Da ich keine Lust habe, hier um Selbstverständlichkeiten zu betteln, ziehe ich hiermit meinen Antrag zurück! Ich hoffe, dass damit Ihr/euer Seelenfrieden wieder hergestellt ist. Haltet nur weiter treue Benutzer zum Narren! Mit demütigen Grüßen Steindy (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: s.o. "ziehe ich hiermit meinen Antrag zurück!" Und Tschüss. --Эlcobbola talk 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Professor David Richardson UEA.jpg

I can confirm I am the holder of the rights to use this image and it should continue to be used on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallytuneduk (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Fall Out Boy at Earlham Hall.jpg

I can confirm this is my photograph and I am happy for it to be used on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallytuneduk (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You wrote that this photo is from May 21, 2016 but it was published on Twitter in 2015. Please explain. Thuresson (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:ICAE LOGO.png

El logo de ICAE es mi propiedad y es una sub licencia de GIVOA Consulting marca registrada de mi propiedad tambien. --Gustavoper (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:HarryLevine.jpg

I am currently interning at the Jewish Heritage Center at New England Historic Genealogical Society, the organization who owns the rights to this photo. I am writing an article about the subject in the photo as an assignment for the organization, and was given explicit permission to use their repository as a resource, as well as the collection of images to use to accompany my article.

Yetwin (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please have a representitive of the Center email permission to OTRS. --INeverCry 21:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Radko Dimitriev 2.jpg

Dimitriev is shown in Bulgarian uniform on this picture. Therefore it must be 100+ years old, because he left the Bulgarian army for good in 1914. No copyvio. --Prüm (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually this file was not deleted as a copyright infringement but because no original source had been provided. Are there any admins of the Bulgarian Wikipedia around that could check the first upload page over there for information? De728631 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although deleted for lack of source, the copyright issue exists nonetheless. Bulgaria is pma +70, yet the requester appears to be conflating date of creation ("100+ years old") with date of author death - only the latter is relevant. No author was indicated, so no determination can be made about when he/she died. A photographer operating in 1914 could easily have lived past 1946. Restoration requires COM:EVID. Эlcobbola talk 19:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Elcobbola - author death date needed. --INeverCry 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Logos from the Netherlands (which I believe are probably too simple to be copyrightable)

I have found five logos, which are deleted back in 2014, even though it only consists of shapes and text. I think that these logos should be restored because I believe that they are not copyright violations and I see that are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and text. XPanettaa (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The RTL 7 logo might be okay. Thhe Lidl logo as well since it is German, not Dutch. The rest of them are blatant copyright violations. Just stay away from the logo's and leave those to more experienced editors. Natuur12 (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support File:RTL 7 Logo.svg;  Oppose File:HUMAN Logo.svg; the others could either way. You need to present more evidence (e.g., examples of case law, legal opinions, explanation more substantive than "I think" and "I believe," etc.) Shapes and text--especially in combination--can easily become copyrightable with the addition of original expression/input such as arrangement, colorization, stylization, orientation, etc. Эlcobbola talk 19:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: 1 restored, the rest not restored per Elcobbola. I would suggest addressing these individually. --INeverCry 22:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Deborah Ahenkorah.jpg, File:Ethel Cofie.jpg

I am requesting an undeletion of a picture I took and posted on commons.

This picture was taken with my own camera at an event I happen to attend so I do not understand why you want to delete.

--Owula kpakpo (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Files credited to "www.hubaccra.com"- if you own this website, please give a clear release by emailing per the instructions at COM:OTRS. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:WikiIndaba logo.jpg

I contest this decision because I created this image you want to delete. I made this logo and I do not get the reason why you want to delete it. --Owula kpakpo (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This file is credited to "Justice Okai-Allotey". If that is you, please send permission by following the instructions here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 22:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Katie May Published by Stephen May 2015.jpg

To Whom It May Concern,

This is my sister and, though the photo has definitely been published elsewhere, it was not obtained via the internet.


Thanks

Stephen May — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemay (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Addu-seal-colored.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am a volunteer under the Promotion's Office of the university and we are implementing university branding. This image does not violate the Copyright rules because this is the correct seal of the university and the seal that should be used by the public especially students, faculty, media, etc., not the one currently uploaded at the page. Tonks of iCommP (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Tonks of iCommP Tonks of iCommP (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please have a University representative send a permission email to OTRS. --INeverCry 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:EmilioMoviePoster.jpg

I am an employee of Landmark Films, which created the poster in question. This poster is non-copyrighted and intended to be used by the public as widely as possible in promoting the film "Emilio." Please allow us to use it on the Emilio Wikipedia page, which I set up. Additionally, the "Plot" description was deleted for copyright reasons since it was on our IMDb page. IMDb does not have copyright thereto. It was uploaded to IMDb by us, and it is not copy protected. Again, we created this plot description to be used and re-used by the general public for the purpose of promoting the film. It and the Poster are (intended to be in) the public domain.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at connie@landfilms.com, or call at 310-737-8252. Thanks.

--Connie15 (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission email to OTRS so we have confirmation of the PD status. --INeverCry 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Saddies Attack Box cover art.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I personally contacted the owner of the work, and got permission to upload it. Sykess (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Permissions like this must follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. We need permission for not just Wikipedia to use it, but for everyone else too. If that type of permission is given, then the OTRS volunteers will ask for the file to be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 18:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

please undelete file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefangaz (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. --INeverCry 18:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Eggleton Senate Pic.jpg

This file does not violate any copyright what so ever. It is a government photo. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, such media can be used freely for non-commercial purposes. Unless Wikipedia is suddenly starting to charge admission, there is no reason for the image to be deleted. Relevant excerpt from the the Library and Archives of Canada's website is below.

"Unless otherwise specified, you may reproduce materials in whole or in part, in any format, if the work is not being revised or translated, for non-commercial purposes or for cost-recovery purposes without charge or further permission, provided you do the following:

Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author (where available); and Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of the version available on the web [insert URL where the original document is available]."

Anyone wishing to read more can do so here: http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/Pages/terms-and-conditions.aspx

The photo in question has no official author, the url was provided, and it was clearly accurate. It is possible that I uploaded the file incorrectly, however it undoubtedly falls within copyright boundaries and accurately represents someone who is the subject of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgweneAV (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not Wikipedia. Non-commercial use only is unacceptable, see Commons:Licensing. Thuresson (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable at Commons. --INeverCry 18:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Eloise Kruger.jpg

I am requesting that this not be deleted because I cited the source from where I got it on the internet, as well as the institution that owns it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em osborn (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:NETCOPYVIO - OTRS permission from The Kruger Collection is required. --INeverCry 19:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ioana Ciolacu Portrait.jpg

Hi there,

So these files were deleted because of a violation probability. While I understand that one should be very careful with file permission, I assure you that this particular picture is my own and that I choose to upload it on wiki commons. Also, the following pictures File:Ioana Ciolacu backstage at Stella McCartney show in Paris.jpg File:Ioana Ciolacu and Stella McCartney backstage in Paris.jpg File:Ioana Ciolacu & Stella McCartney during DfT Awards 2013.jpg were given to me during 2013 by the owner (a company) to use it to promote my brand and were widely spread through internet, I think maybe we should discuss if I am allowed to put them here before deleting it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocomoto (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning physical copies of photographs or artwork does not make you the copyright holder even if you were given permission to use them for promotion. Media hosted at Commons need to be free for anyone else to use for any purpose. This can only be achieved through a permission from the original copyright holder. In most cases this is the photographer. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. --INeverCry 19:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Refueling at sea RAS.jpg

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am SSgt Vielguth the responsible mediaadmin in Northwood Headquartes which is responsible for the whole European Naval Force Operation Atalanta Mission. Every Picture we use is directly send to us by the deployed units photographers in the gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean. The Northwood Headquarter is responsible for posting distributed content online and keeping Webpages like Wikipedia updated. The Copyright for these pictures belongs to EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta.

With this message I request to undelete the mentioned file because no copyright has been violated.


Kindest regards

Sascha Vielguth Staff Sergeant Media Administrator at EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eunavformedia (talk • contribs) 08:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Since EUNAVFOR do not allow commercial use this photo can not be hosted at Wikicommons. If in fact EUNAVFOR allow commercial use, please use the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s granting an acceptable free license (see COM:L) required. --INeverCry 19:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bollywood Diva Mamta Kulkarni.jpg

that my own work and have legal right for its use there is no copy right violation here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameerd033 (talk • contribs)

@Sameerd033: Please, prove that you are the author or have the autorisation by following COM:OTRS instructions. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chaj-logo.png

Hello,

The Chaj logo is the property of the Stichting CHAJ kvk: 65994396 in the Netherlands. I am a member of the board and have the legal rights for this logo. This logo can be used under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or GNU General Public License (GPL). If a statement is needed I will glad to provide one/ or post a statement on the site https://chajdenhaag.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/welkom-in-chaj/

Many thanks, Roy Cohen Member of the board of Stichting CHAJ kvk: 65994396 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy.wonder.cohen (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:J.C. Skilla - Lista Negra (MixTape) 2015 Capa Parte Da Frente.jpg

this image is my original work and i upload this on flickr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Azevedo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you the designer of the cover artwork or did you just photograph or scan the album cover? If you are the designer, please send an email with a permission as outlined in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:UNetbootin 625 Windows.png

It is not a copyright violation. I made this screenshot myself. UNetbootin is open-source software, on the official website, it states
UNetbootin is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 2 or above. Site materials, documentation, screenshots, and logos are licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0.
Regards. Champion (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Undeleted, but Geza Kovacs is the author, not you. Thuresson (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File: Yura Min & ice dance partner, Alexander Gamelin.jpg This image was deleted on 08/09/16. Photographer permission submitted 08/19/16. [Ticket#: 2016081710012474].

Un-delete Request [Ticket#: 2016081710012474].

The file was deleted from the Commons on 08/09/16. Photographer released copyright on 08/17/16 reference ticket [Ticket#: 2016081710012474]. Please un-delete.

Email submitted by photographer

I hereby affirm that I Melanie Hoyt, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright for photographs taken on July 30, 2016 in Lake Placid, New York of subjects Yura Minand Alexander Gamelin, both photographed individually and together as shown here in the attached images and as found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Gamelin and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yura_Min. These images have already been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons using the following file names:

File:Alexander Gamelin Yura Min Ice Dance Team (KR) 2016 Portrait.gif. File:Yura Min & ice dance partner, Alexander Gamelin.jpg.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

I further herein appoint Donna Stirber-Gamelin to serve as my appointed representative with authority from me to upload any and all photographs of the above named subjects taken on July 30, 2016 in Lake Placid, New York that have not yet been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as of August 16, 2016.

Melanie Hoyt tracings@gmail.com (517) 862-2273 [Ticket#: 2016081710012474]. IceTwins Mom IceTwinsMom (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: firstly, this request is premature; the OTRS ticket has not been processed. The volunteer who processes the ticket will automatically restore the image, or request restoration. Secondly, the deleted images stated “photo subjects hired photographer for portrait and paid photographer for unlimited and unrestricted use.” The email you’ve sent does not contain evidence of conveyance of intellectual property rights from the photograph to the subjects (or to the person submitting the email). This will likely cause the ticket to be rejected in its current form. --Эlcobbola talk 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Studio album by Triddana.jpg

File:Studio album by Triddana.jpg

All images and other media files, regarding the band Triddana, which are uploaded by me belong to the band Triddana which I am part of. The copyright license belongs to Triddana and their Members the images are used for free content.

Therefore there is no copyright violation taking place, please undelete this image and let me know if you need any further information.

Best regards --M.I.A. (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Triddana Band Members.jpg

File:Triddana Band Members.jpg

All images and other media files, regarding the band Triddana, which are uploaded by me belong to the band Triddana which I am part of. The copyright license belongs to Triddana and their Members the images are used for free content.

Therefore there is no copyright violation taking place, please undelete this image and let me know if you need any further information.

Best regards --M.I.A. (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Joe Shuster 1939.jpg

This photograph of Joe Shuster was published in 1939 without a copyright notice. It was common for publicity "headshots" of celebrities to not be registered for copyright. Here is some justifying text from the File:Hedy_Lamarr_Publicity_Photo_for_The_Heavenly_Body_1944.jpg page:

As stated by film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.): "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary." Nancy Wolff, includes a similar explanation: "There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." (The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.) Film industry author Gerald Mast, in Film Study and the Copyright Law (1989) p. 87, writes: "According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible." Kristin Thompson, committee chairperson of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference with cinema scholars and editors, that they "expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements ... [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrossGiddens (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: inadequate source/license info. --INeverCry 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Jerry Siegel 1939.jpg

This photograph of Jerry Siegel was published in 1939 without a copyright notice. It was common for publicity "headshots" of celebrities to not be registered for copyright. Here is some justifying text from the File:Hedy_Lamarr_Publicity_Photo_for_The_Heavenly_Body_1944.jpg page:

As stated by film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.): "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary." Nancy Wolff, includes a similar explanation: "There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." (The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.) Film industry author Gerald Mast, in Film Study and the Copyright Law (1989) p. 87, writes: "According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible." Kristin Thompson, committee chairperson of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference with cinema scholars and editors, that they "expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements ... [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrossGiddens (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted for not having a source listed. That may still be OK in a PD-US-no_notice case, if all needed evidence is present in the uploaded file. Was the back and entire front uploaded? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: inadequate source/license info. --INeverCry 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:UASB-digester

Dear administer, 

   I created one item " UASB-digester" some days ago, but unfortunately, the content is deleted. A UASB-digester is definitely not same to "UASB digestion". I am a researcher in anerobic digestion, and I introduce the UASB-digester system because it is a new configuration that can be applied for anaerobic reactor to resolve problems caused by low temperature.

   I am writing to restore the content. Thank you very much.


Kind regards

Lei 

                          --Leizhangb7 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, for uploaded images and other media. It looks like you are talking about en:UASB-digester, an article on the English Wikipedia, which was just deleted. You need to request undeletion on that project -- see en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: You'll have to request undeletion at Wikipedia as Carl says. --INeverCry 18:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dampremy-Monument aux morts-1914-1918.jpg

Reason : Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium --H2O(talk) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: COM:FOP#Belgium. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dampremy - monument aux morts 1914-1918 - 2014 - 01.jpg

Reason : Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium --H2O(talk) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: COM:FOP#Belgium. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dampremy - monument aux morts 1914-1918 - 2014 - 02.jpg

Reason : Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium --H2O(talk) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: COM:FOP#Belgium. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dampremy - monument aux morts 1914-1918 - avril 2015 - 4.jpg

Reason: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium --H2O(talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: COM:FOP#Belgium. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dampremy - monument aux morts 1914-1918 - avril 2015 - 5.jpg

Reason: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium --H2O(talk) 14:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: COM:FOP#Belgium. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Venezia, 1956) - BEIC 6342541.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Venezia, 1956) - BEIC 6342541.jpg for some context. The photo is visible at gutenberg.beic.it/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=6342541. I've since got a copy of the OTRS ticket (ticket:2016060710013291) from my BEIC colleagues and I think part of it might have been neglected by the deleting administrator due to the ticket being in Italian. I think the image can be kept, for the following reasons.

  1. The BEIC lawyer stated that «BEIC foundation owns all [attribution] copyrights» («Fondazione Beic è proprietaria di tutti i diritti di attribuzione»). The ticket body specifies that «BEIC foundation is the only rightsholder» [italics mine] («BEIC è il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright)»). This implies that third party rights, where existing, have been acquired by BEIC.
  2. This statement is consistent with the story of the photos as we know it: the artists commissioned the photos for inclusion in future publications authored by Paolo Monti, so they provided the necessary authorisations and transfer of rights. Paolo Monti was a professional photographer with a broad experience in taking photos of pieces of art, so it makes sense that he took care of acquiring the artists' rights.
  3. The statement is also consistent (or non-inconsistent) with the judgement by the supreme court of Italy, which stated that photos of a piece of art may not be an infringement of the copyright of the artist, when deemed sufficiently creative, because the purpose of the diritto d'autore is to protect creativity and hence in such cases the author of the photo can have complete copyright on the photo itself. (Corte di Cassazione, Sezione 1 civile; Sentenza 12 marzo 2004, n. 5089.) We might speculate about international effects in case the author of the sculpture claimed ownership of some copyright on this photo, but the Court didn't impose such a restriction.
  4. The statement is also consistent with common sense: the term "derivatve work" may mislead us (2(3) of the Berne convention is about «Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations»), but such a photo of a 3D object doesn't in any way enable the reuser to reproduce, as in rebuild, the original object. A cc-by-sa license on the photo doesn't hence affect the copyright of the original object. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The “rationale” above ignores comments at the DR and either speaks to the photograph (which is not at the issue here; we are concerned with the subject) or implies that Italy does not recognize a core concept of derivative works, at least in regard to photographs. That would actually be the opposite of common sense, and seeming directly contradict the existence of {{NoFoP-Italy}}. If true, however, that would be a significant departure from the practices and understandings in place at the Commons, and thus best be addressed as a wide discussion at a village pump rather than a UD request. Further, the issue of international recognition of such a bizarre stance (e.g., files must be free in the origin county and the US) has not been addressed. Эlcobbola talk 16:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At the DR, I essentially argued that we should 'trust' that the OTRS agents were correct, but having since become an agent and thus having been able to look at the actual ticket, there was no clear assertion made of rights to anything but 'the photos themselves' by BEIC's lawyer. Ownership of the rights to the photos does not affect those in the underlying work, and whatever permission the artist granted to the photographer was almost certainly only sufficient for publication of the photos, and not sufficient to allow them to be released under a free license. Reventtalk 09:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Elcobbola and Revent above, insufficient OTRS permission that doesn't take into account the copyrigt of the author of the underlying subject/work. --INeverCry 19:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Giorgio_Bianciardi.jpg

Chiedo il ripristino del file poiché non viola alcun copyright (ho anche l'approvazione del "proprietario").

English Version: I'm asking the recovery of the file because this file hasn't any copyright ( I have the permission). --LorenzoBia (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)LorenzoBia

It is obvious that a photo from 2015 is protected by copyright law. A permission from the subject himself is not enough. Thuresson (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from author/copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Seal of the SDKPiL.png

Seal of the SDKPiL.png

The user who deleted the file, User:INeverCry, asked for an "actual source/author/date". An image of the original emblem (simply titled "Pieczęć SDKPiL"; in English: "Seal of the SDKPiL") can be found in the book "Postacie z przełomu wieków: z kręgu działaczy SDKPiL" (1983) by N. Michta and J. Sobczak, p. 137.

The derivative work in question (reconstruction of a seal) is adapted from an emblem older than 100 years (the original seal). The group which used it (the SDKPiL) has been defunct for nearly 100 years (the original author is unknown, not cited in the book, and likewise long dead). The original emblem was likely never officially copyrighted, and with the passage of time has entered public domain. Errant1905 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. @Errant1905: Please add source/author/date info to the file and make sure licensing is correct. --INeverCry 19:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for File:فكرة للطباعة و النشر.jpg

i donk know why this file has been deleted , i am working in this company and the logo is created by the company designer and they gave me the permission to use it in our page on Wikimedia and Wikipedia فكرة للطباعة والنشر --Moud hosny (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from a company representitive is required. --INeverCry 19:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Karte Afarin 1342.jpg

This file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Afarin 1342.jpg. The closing administrator wrote "no evidence that any of the terms of {{PD-Iran}} would apply" but I want to challenge this claim. The file depicts a special kind of postcard which teachers give to their young students (pupils) in Iran for encouragement and appreciation. The uploader, who is a trusted and respected user of Persian Wikipedia, says that this card was awarded to him 53 years ago in 1342 (Solar Hijri).

The postcard was owned and published by a school so belonged to a legal person. The last condition of the Iranian copyright law stipulates that all works belonging to legal persons will fall into public doamin 30 years after publication date.

The postcard looks very old. It shows a girl without scarf (hijab) that indicates the postcard was published before the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. I cannot remember the file exactly now but I think the publication year was also visible in the card itself (of course in Persian script).

User:Ebrahim, who is an admin in fawiki and here on Commons, also believed that the card is old enough.

Consequently, I think this file has fallen out of protection long ago and can be uploaded on Commons safely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

From the description above, it would seem that {{PD-Iran}} would apply. Photographic works still are just 30 years from publication, it seems.  Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The image is not a photograph, it is a halftone print of what appears to have originally been a painting.  Support undeletion, on the basis of AGF that it was received well over 30 years ago, and that I think it's quite unlikely that is was a 'new' work at the time it was allegedly received. Reventtalk 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK. The term is also 30 years from publication if it's a corporate work, which it sounds like this would be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --INeverCry 21:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Кое-что за даром.jpg

per ticket:2016082810008191 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Максим Підліснюк: Please add the OTRS ticket. --INeverCry 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:States use Astrology world map.png

This has nothing to do with national laws or religious culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKS471883 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Countries believe in astrology.PNG. Please clarify why this file should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The undeletion request should be for the original file, not the copy you uploaded after the DR was closed as delete. Or the other copy you uploaded while the DR was open. --Reventtalk 03:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Pineapple Thief Magnolia Cover Art.jpg

Perhaps I entered the copyright info in wrong. While the image is owned by Kscope, it is the cover art for the album on the page it was shared on. The image is freely available anywhere the album is for sale as well as virtually any review of the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderclap82 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright violation. Wikicommons do not have any album reviews, nor does this web site sell albums. Thuresson (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: See COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RF Planning & Link Budgeting 8.png

I dont think i have violated any copyright policies of wikimedia commons associated to the png file.

If there is any violation, i request a proper elaboration of which part i have violated and what part of the file is violating such policies.

Libreaim (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The image itself was tagged with the license Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA, which do not allow commercial use. See Commons:Licensing. Thuresson (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Commons. --INeverCry 21:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bocksbeutel PS frontal hell 2015.jpg to undelete

The right to publish the file on a Wikipedia site was given by mail from the copyright owner (Haus des Frankenweins) with the demand to name the photographer, which I did (Rolf Nachbar). I saved the mail, it was sent 2016-06-09, 13:31, to me.

Ich besitze das Recht zur Veröffentlichung der o. g. Datei auf einer Wikipedia Seite gem. Mail vom 09.06.2016 des Rechteinhabers an mich. Auflage war, den Namen des Fotografen ebenfalls zu veröffentlichen.

Dr. Martin Sachse-Weinert martinsachseweinert Martinsachseweinert (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A permission to only publish images at Wikipedia is not enough. Submitted materials should be freely licensed. Please ask the copyright owner to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-08&oldid=565303124"