Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-09

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:Swing macht plattfuesse.jpg

The picture is just that of a newspaper's headline and has no threshold of originality. It only consists of text in a simple typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to US or to German law.--User:Engelbaet 05:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-text}}. --Эlcobbola talk 00:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Plakat Zoo Wuppertal.jpg, File:Witzzeichnung.jpg, File:Ludwig Koob, Selbstporträt.jpg

Not "Copyright violation"! The uploader (User:Kaleiko) is the son of the author, Ludwig Koob (1909-1993). He has inherited the right of use and is the copyright holder. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Holger, please provide an OTRS ticket number. ↔ User: Perhelion 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Evidence of permission needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. --Эlcobbola talk 00:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Logoo BAP RAA.jpg

Logotipo de la Biblioteca y archivo de propaganda

Estoy autorizado por el propietario de la Biblioteca y Archivo de Prppaganda Ramon Adell Argiles para utilizar este logotipo

--Antoniodejuana (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Evidence of permission needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. --Эlcobbola talk 00:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Debugging in Visual Studio.png

The info about this image clearly references Microsoft. There are lots of screenshots from Microsoft products on the internet, including this site. This image is a teaching aid and should not warrant a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedavegray (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 01:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Misplaced, untitled request from the top of the page

My file was deleted. And Its public. Is the new coat of arms of colima. Official. The New versión. I dont know was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clq2016 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 01:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The subject file was deleted while I was away on an extended wilderness trip. The issue was the copyright provenance, which didn't fit the standard templates. I received a hard copy of the photograph to upload from a living descendant of the person depicted. The photograph was used at the masthead of a byline in Machine magazine ca. 1910, of which the subject, Ralph E. Flanders, was an editor. Therefore, it was first published before 1923. Additionally, the anonymous staff photographer from the time may be presumed to be dead for 70 years. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Physical property rights (hard copy) are distinct from intellectual property rights. Similarly, being a mere descendant is distinct from being the actual inheritor of IP rights. This is moot if the image is PD, as is the date of author death if the image was lawfully published (the US generally only considers pma for unpublished works). COM:L requires sourcing “information sufficient for others to verify the license status,” so if you can provide more than “Machine magazine” (e.g. specific date, volume number, etc.) it can be restored, otherwise not. Эlcobbola talk 00:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 01:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Louis XV Presentation Sword.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The copyright violation they point to is our website. This photograph was taken by M.S. Rau Antiques, we own the sword, and the sword is out of copyright. By posting the photograph here, we are relinquishing copyright. Rauantiques (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MacGyver the Lizard.jpg Undelete Request

  • The image is my original work, created from a photograph that I took, and I have released it under the appropriated licensing for wiki commons.
I had originally uploaded the image not to commons, but just permitting usage on a single Wikipedia page, which is likely why this was flagged as possible copyright. Since that original upload, however, I have released it under creative commons and then uploaded it to wiki commons. Todeyius (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:1707 EP Cover by IIndMan (2013).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this cover was designed by the artist himself and has no relations to any copyright as it is him in the picture and everything edited by him in 2013 for his EP 1707 Esmcontributors (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:IIndman - La Bella Vita - EP Cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The cover for this artwork was illustrated by Cherie Cordeir and IIndman which is the main artist of this project. It does not violate any copyright license for wikicommons. Esmcontributors (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ростислав Кравець виступ.jpg

Фото сделано на сьезде адвокатов в 2015 году, оно расположено в открытом профиле Ростислава Кравца и добавлено сюда с его разрешения. --Ukraine vl (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This photo taken in the Convention of the lawyers in 2015, it is located in an open profile Rostislav Kravets and added here with his permission . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukraine vl (talk • contribs) 07:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:BFAD logo.png Undelete request

Для страницы о фонде https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80:%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0 мы использовали официальный логотип нашего фонда "Арифметика добра", специально разработанный для нашего фонда сторонним дизайнером. Просим восстановить удаленный файл.


We downloaded our own logo desined for our Charity fund Arifmetika dobra by our desiner for Fund's page https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80:%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0 Our logo BFAD logo.png was deleted. We proove no Copyright violation/ Please undelete it.

A dobra (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Anna

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

SOLICITUD DE ACEPTACIÓN DEL ARCHIVO 60_ret.jpg ‎(295 × 289 píxeles; tamaño de archivo: 14 KB; tipo MIME: image/jpeg); SEGÚN CREATIVE COMMONS

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Según las condiciones estipuladas, establecidas en la misma página wikipedia Eres libre: para compartir – para copiar, distribuir y transmitir el trabajo para remezclar – para adaptar el trabajo Bajo las siguientes condiciones: atribución – Debes atribuir el trabajo de la manera especificada por el autor o persona que lo haya licenciado (pero no de manera que sugiera que estas personas te respaldan o respaldan el uso que hagas del trabajo). compartir similar – En caso de alterar, transformar o ampliar este trabajo, deberá distribuir el trabajo resultante sólo bajo la misma licencia o una similar.

13:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litodav (talk • contribs) 13:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no "File:SOLICITUD DE ACEPTACIÓN DEL ARCHIVO 60 ret.jpg" and your only currently deleted image is File:Cilij foto persona cilij 2066galeria-7hoVThM1rFilQ9Hy.jpg which 1) you uploaded with a license statement including "Se prohíbe expresamente su utilización con fines comerciales o para su distribución, comunicación publica, transformación o descompilación" (prohibiting commercial use and derivative works) and 2) has a source that says the same. --Эlcobbola talk 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ciconia7.gif

There was a letter sent to OTRS group, but I forgot to mark that with a tempalate on the file's page

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. --INeverCry 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ciconia8 yr1999.gif

There was a letter sent to OTRS group, but I forgot to mark that with a tempalate on the file's page

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. --INeverCry 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

María Oquendo

Hola, si bien es cierto que la página tiene derechos de autor, a su vez la foto de la presidenta está para descargar; APA President-Elect Maria A. Oquendo, M.D. 

Download High Resolution Image https://psychiatry.org/about-apa/meet-our-organization/board-of-trustees/maria-oquendo

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn to you (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: See COM:NETCOPYVIO: availability of an image on the Internet does not mean it is free. The source you provided clearly states "Content may not be copied, modified, reproduced, published, transmitted, displayed, broadcast, or otherwise distributed without written permission from the American Psychiatric Association.". --Эlcobbola talk 01:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Beatriz Rico Ellas Dan La Nota 07-03-2016.jpg

This file has not copyright. You can contact with the actress in her website www.beatrizrico.es and ask her directly. I know her and she explained this picture was made by a person in a concert, and has no copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubencachu (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kurovskoye city A108 drivein.jpg

Hello guys. I wonder, who is own authorship on that picture if is not me? :) You can see that picture on my web: http://amagae.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/160629_kurovskoye_cty_ru245_fhd.jpg (there is a hotlink protection, so copy address and paste into your address-bar). Also I have a RAW camera file for it. Let's ask that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:1989 who requested deletion about his rights. I wonder what he will say. Actually there's a lot of stuff he already deleted.

I've made one screenshot for you: https://yadi.sk/i/TAyhU1PFueQc3 Is that will be enough? Thanx!

Ivan V.Narmanev /RU245/

--RU245 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by ElisaQualizza

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Now i have all permission and also Lucio collovigh the copyright holder agree for permission , now please Undeletion the files because does not exist the copyright violation ElisaQualizza (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

provide the otrs ticket number please Ezarateesteban 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. If you have already done so, the volunteer who handles the ticket will restore the images--or request restoration--for you. --Эlcobbola talk 23:48, 31 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 Barto920203

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Dicen que las imágenes de estos billetes son propiedad intelectual del Banco de la República, sin embargo, aún se mantienen las imágenes de los demás billetes intactas y solo han eliminado las imágenes que yo he tomado. Por favor restaurar y aclarar la razón de borrar mis imágenes y mantener las demás si se supone que son iguales. [[Usuario:Barto920203|Barto]] (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You do not address the issues raised in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Barto920203. If you have found other images that you believe do not belong on Wikicommons you can initiate a deletion request or report the files to an administrator. Thuresson (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above - w:WP:OSE is not a valid rationale. --Эlcobbola talk 23:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hongci Xiao at Central Park, New York in 2008.jpg

The copy right issue was resolved via email. Please recover the picture for me. Thank you. I appreciate it! Jdxzhu (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If you have an email containing permission, it needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. If you have already done so, the volunteer who handles the ticket will restore the images--or request restoration--for you. Эlcobbola talk 23:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Icecat1-300x300.svg

@Jcb: it looks from the name, context, and Yandex search results that it was a copy of this file: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnuzilla.git/tree/artwork/Icecat1-300x300.svg (found through https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/) --AVRS (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The file was uploaded here on October 13, 2011. The oldest entry in the revision log is from September 11, 2014. Thuresson (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As for “the only "IceCat" from author asrafil” the nominator could find (uploaded to Commons and to openclipart.org on the same day, 7 Sep 2010), there are https://openclipart.org/detail/81889/icacatbox and https://openclipart.org/detail/81877/free-magazine-3d which include the IceCat logo, both published there by asrafil on 23 Aug 2010. openclipart.org says all clipart there is public domain. --AVRS (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support The IceCat logo was designed and copyrighted by "the Hitflip team". Their images are licensed under GNU GPL, GNU Free Documentation License and the Free Art License. "asrafil" can not relicense the logo as public domain. Source here. Thuresson (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. --Эlcobbola talk 23:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ростислав Кравець виступ.jpg

{{OTRS pending}} This photo taken from open profile on facebook, and add here with Rostyslav Kravets permision.--Ukraine vl (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: You've indicated that OTRS is pending. The volunteer who handles the ticket will restore the image--or request its restoration--for you. --Эlcobbola talk 16:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MacGyver the Lizard.jpg Undelete Request

"official website." clearly states "PROFILE IMAGE RELEASED FOR USE ON WIKIMEDIA COMMONS" at the bottom. Todeyius (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Submissions should be licensd under a free license instead, see Commons:Licensing. Thuresson (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above: COM:L explicitly says "The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: Use by Wikimedia only" You can either add an explicit license (here are examples) to the page or follow the instructions from your previous request. Please do not continue to post requests without reading the sources you have been provided and addressing the issue. --Эlcobbola talk 16:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sa Pagluha ng Anghel Poster.jpg

The poster picture in "Sa Pagluha ng Anghel" should not be deleted because it was made by our director not copying in the internet --Norlanbrequillo101 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Norlan

You uploaded this image claiming that you have created it yourself. Please ask the director to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above: COM:OTRS needed. --Эlcobbola talk 16:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ira Green.jpg

I'm the manager of Ira Green and this is my own image, taken from the last photo service of Ira Green. Can you please load it again? --Ziopaulmc (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pa amb sobrassada i mel.jpg

Own work Creative Commons BY-NC-ND

Photo made by me at Ferreries (Menorca): A simple traditional recipe made with bread, "sobrassada" (a meat based product from Balear Islands) and honey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slastic (talk • contribs) 14:10, 01 September 2016 (UTC) --Slastic (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND is unacceptable as a license, see Commons:Licensing. Thuresson (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Slastic uploaded this on 30 June 2009 with the {{PD-self}} template. Despite what he now says above (BY-NC-ND), the previous PD "license" is not revocable. This image is high resolution, has camera EXIF, is of the technical quality one would expect from a "self" image, and I do not see that it was published elsewhere before upload to the commons. This should not have been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 16:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and marked with {{Own}}. --INeverCry 23:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Studentenclub Karzer der Hochschule Nordhausen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The one, who requested the deletion (in German), later noticed the mistake was on his side and revoked the request(s) in German, confer Special:Diff/205242985/205249203: “Die Löschanträge möchte ich zurückziehen”, which translates to “I want to revoke the deletion requests”. @Taivo: This could be speedy undeleted in my opinion. Speravir (Talk) 22:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done älteste Version wiederhergestellt --Didym (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Procedural close - image has been restored. --INeverCry 23:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LZA.jpg

Hi there, I just want to know why you would like to delete the file? From my point of view this is one of the best picture from this building! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriks Mi (talk • contribs) 10:15, 02 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to undelete at the moment, and this is not a general discussion board. @Eriks Mi: You can read the reason in the pink message box on the file page, and also in the deletion discussion. The reason is that architecture in Latvia is copyrighted for the lifetime of the architect plus 70 years, and even photographs taken of such buildings would require permission from the architect or his heirs. Vladimir Shnitnikov who designed this particular building died in 1996, so his works in Latvia are still copyrighted until 2066. Other countries, however, may have a legal tool called "freedom of panorama" that allows for the taking of photographs of buildings and artwork displayed in public, but Latvia doesn't. Please feel free to comment at the deletion discussion that was started by user A. Savin. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:1911 Planul Urbanistic General al Capitalei.PNG and File:Planul Urbanistic al orașului București din 1911.PNG

The map is from year 1911 and the author is represented by the Romanian Army's Geographical Service.

The source from which the images were extracted: Sfințescu, Cincinat I.; Studiu asupra Planului General de Sistematizare al Capitalei; Tipografia Jockey-Club; București; România, 1919

I believe that the license may be revised per {{PD-RO-exempt}}. The image's information must be uptaded too, and if the photo will be recovered I will make it.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What line in {{PD-RO-exempt}} do you believe covers maps? Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Look in the lower left corner of the map, where it says "EDIȚIA OFICIALĂ" (means "official edition"). I think in this case (but I am not sure) that the map is assimilated with an published official document. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, since the author is a "legal entity" as the Romanian Army's Geographical Service, the license could be revised per {{PD-Romania}} - "It is another kind of work, the author is a legal entity („persoană juridică” - not a person) and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication" (and the publication had occurred in 1902). --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The legal entity approach with {{PD-Romania}} may have some merit; however, I am unable to find support in Romanian Copyright Law. Chapter V covers "Duration of Copyright Protection" and says nothing about 50 years for legal entities. Also, searching the document for "50" (i.e., to find references to 50 years after publication) yields no support either. Could it be this is the repealed article 29 in Chapter V? Otherwise, could you please find the chapter, article and section for the copyright duration of works by legal entities? I may just be missing it, but, if not, the template appears incorrect. Эlcobbola talk 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like that part is from Article 7 of the Decree No. 321 of 1956. That was probably eliminated in 1996 with the new law, but since the new law appears to not be retroactive, corporate works from before 1946 may be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, look at Decree 321/1956, Art. 7, last sentence (explanation here on page 125, the fourth paragraph). --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. The template must be completed: "....and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (only if it was before March 14, 1946)"

 Not done: no definitive findings above. Perhaps this would be better discussed at COM:VP/C. --INeverCry 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nagaland map.png Own work

File:Nagaland map.png should be undeleted. I can confirm that I made the map using government of india website by using inkscape tool. i have not voilated any cc laws. i have released the map in common domain. --Wikigringo (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Does {{EdictGov-India}} extend to maps on a website? From the text in the template I'd think that only official edicts published in certain gazettes and the like are exempt from copyright in India. Any other governmental work is still copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are multiple versions here. One map was uploaded in 2006 by Shizhao. In 2008, Wikigringo uploaded an entirely different map over the 2006 version, but reverted himself 6 minutes later. The 2006 "original" was then there until it was deleted 5 September 2015. For which version are you requesting restoration? Also, what is the "government of india website" you used? Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think Wikigringo's version was then uploaded to File:Nagalandmap.png, which is still there. Out of curiosity though, what was the basis of deleting a file for "no source" after it was uploaded for nine years? Was it a valid tag to add? Shizhao is a longtime admin here, if I'm not mistaken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikigringo said above "I can confirm that I made the map," which suggests we are talking about his short-lived version, not the Shizhao version. However, regarding the Shizhao version, @Ellin Beltz: tagged it as no source, which seems technically appropriate as there was no reference to the underlying map's source. (The file is not old enough to fall under COM:GRANDFATHER.) That said, I'm inclined to  Support the Shizhao version, as the underlying map appears to be File:India-locator-map-blank.svg. Эlcobbola talk 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
File:Nagalandmap.png has source and is in use, the original layer of File:Nagaland map.png has no source and is not old enough to grandfather. I have no objections to restoring the file as long as a source can be agreed upon. Also, we have several other maps of the area, see Category:Maps of Nagaland. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think what happened here is that Wikigringo got the deletion notice for File:Nagaland map.png, saw it had been deleted, and mistakenly believed the notice referred to File:Nagalandmap.png. That would explain the bizarre rationale ("I can confirm that I made the map") about a file made by Shizhao. @Shizhao: could you confirm the source of the file? Is it File:India-locator-map-blank.svg or something else? Эlcobbola talk 19:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Correct; Wikigringo's version is still around, so the initial undeletion reason above was just a misunderstanding. I'm just wondering about Shizhao's version. If that said "own work", then it does not need a source -- that is the sourcing claim. If we are wondering about the source of data, that is an inappropriate use of a speedy delete tag, which is for copyright reasons only. I can't see the original though, so it may be obvious the underlying map was copied from somewhere else. That user is a long-time admin on Commons and I think meta, and usually knows what he's doing. Granted, it was uploaded a long time ago, and mistakes were easier to make then. Was the page text changed at all during the short-lived Wikigringo version? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: stale and confused request. No further input from requestor and no response from Shizhao who is likely busy with the many other things he does cross-wiki. --INeverCry 22:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Peoples170

The files were all together deleted from とある白い猫 because Ellin Beltz considered them as being advertising (see discussion here) which may be true for one or two pictures but clearly not for all 12 pictures. I kindly request an individual discussion and selection of every single picture and not a general liquidation. Please consider as well all those different pictures from airlines around the world that we have, so I do not understand why those from should be more or less advertising.--MBurch (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate, the entire deletion nomination read "No confidence that user created these advertising images for the airline, nor the images of the lounges and airplanes. Wildly varying sizes, colors, styles, overprinting on at least one image, etc. Also duplicate images." The key words are "user created" which are obviously not the case. To see the lack of uniformity in the set requires seeing the set together so that the differences between the images can be seen. The problem here is not the "advertising" which so bothers you but that the uploader did not create the advertising images they culled from somewhere else and uploaded as their own images. I oppose undeletion of these images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand, the deletion was done due to a suspected (but not proven) copyright violation. If this is true, was the creator User:Peoples170 informed about those doubts? The photos might have lacked uniformity, but most of them were fair enough for being used as illustrations. I also request undeletion of the images and discussing the deletion of each of them individually.--Mc-404 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
So you doubt that the pictures are from the uploader? Well then let me tell you that the account is verified in German wikipedia: de:Benutzer:Peoples170.--MBurch (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Merely working for Peoples ≠ an agent of the airline authorized to license IP on its behalf. The latter is what I said, and what we require evidence of. Release of IP is generally the realm of corporate officers, not general employees. Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if you ask first or explain him the whole procedure from Commons, rather then just delete it all together in one single shot. I left a message on his German Wikipedia page about this discussion here and maybe we can just wait now until he reacts.--MBurch (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for this deletion. If there is any question about just one or all pictures.. don't delet it, ask the uploader, give him some time. So I think this pictures should be restored.FFA P-16 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, as I now have seen, the original uploader was indeed asked for submitting licensing information, but did not react within 7 days. Most probably because he's not familiar with Wikipedia, but that's another story. No more objections in this case from my side. I hope the pictures will re-appear together with the legal stuff required.--Mc-404 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:OV09.jpg That is a pic where I'm the author, is the third time I upload it an you people delete it.

Why you continue doing that, I own this pic, I took it, so, it's legal. ANd you took the other pics too, so, how I'm I supposed to upload the Artist Pic?

Pasto1703 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)ME

The Exif data reads "Author ClauGLara, Copyright holder Adualic.com" so INeverCry deleted it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I'm unsure as to why the logo on the Royal Wootton Bassett Town Wikipedia page has been deleted. As an officer for Royal Wootton Bassett Town FC I hereby confirm that we allow permission for this logo to be used.

Kind regards, Stuart Smedley Royal Wootton Bassett Town Football Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBTFCScoop (talk • contribs) 11:26, 03 September 2016 (UTC)

The club do not allow commercial use of the logo, see web site. Please ask a representative of the club to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RWBTFC - Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the Press Officer and update the website (https://rwbtfc.co.uk) for Royal Wootton Bassett Town Football Club, to whom this image belongs. I have therefore been granted the rights to use this image, and thus this should not be removed from the club's Wikipedia page.

Please could this be restored.

Kind regards, Stuart Smedley (if needs be, please email me at stuart.smedley@wbtfc.co.uk) WBTFCScoop (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The club do not allow commercial use of the logo, see web site. Please ask a representative of the club to go through the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Artist_with_his_flute.jpg

I, as the artist representative, can certify there's no copyright on that image. Please undelete it. Thanks. Binouche22 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There is always a copyright, unless explicitly disclaimed. The original owner would be the photographer, though if there is a written contract that would override. In general though, for previously-existing images on the Internet we need copyright owners to follow the COM:OTRS process, as user accounts are basically anonymous and we need better confirmation on the license (and that they really are the copyright owner, and they understand the full rights they are giving up). If followed through, that process will get the image undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

OMV Portfolio...

We received OTRS permissions for File:OMV Upstream Portfolio 2015 EN.png (ticket:2016080110014699) and File:OMV Downstream Portfolio 2015 EN.png (ticket:2016080110014715). Please restore its. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: Please add the tickets. --INeverCry 21:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Royal Society of Portrait Painters files

We have received OTRS-permissions for File:Hall-R-L-Joy-28x24-Egg-tempera.jpg (ticket:2016081010007546), File:The Royal Society of Portrait Painters.png (ticket:2016081010007626), File:Centenary-Catalogue-Cover-web-299x369-243x300.jpg (ticket:2016081010007635). Please restore these files. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: Go ahead and add the tickets. --INeverCry 06:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Реклама Общества механических заводов братьев Бромлей.jpg

I bought this piece of paper (publication with photograph) for my collection at the auction! And I made the picture of it. All this is my own work!!! And it was used as illustration on page Общество механических заводов братьев Бромлей ! --DKP64 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Support Owning a physical copy of an original document does not make you the copyright holder of the artwork, even if you take a photo of it. However, in this case I would say that the original drawing is already out of copyright. {{PD-Russia}} should apply. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Which criteria from {{PD-Russia}} are you using? The latest date on the document is 1896. If this were, for example, created by a 30-year-old (i.e., born 1866), it's not impossible that they lived until age 81 (i.e., died 1947), which would cause this to fail {{PD-Russia}} (which is out of date anyway; the 1942 hasn't been updated for 70 year pma). Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per {{PD-RusEmpire}}. This is the Bromley Brothers metal factory which became the Red Proleterian metal works in 1922. This looks to have been printed before 1917, and I doubt advertisements would've been printed between the October Revolution and 1922 with the Civil War in between. Bromley Bros wouldn't have been reprinted once the company was under Soviet state control. --INeverCry 07:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Countries believe in astrology.PNG

This has nothing to do with national laws or religious culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKS471883 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Countries believe in astrology.PNG. Please clarify why this file should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid rationale to undelete. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Aap_vaccine.jpg

File is not in copyright. Its source is:-

https://avamindia.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/aap-baby-killers/ — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.253.203.52 (talk) 09:03, 05 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Available from Getty Images. Photo by Arun Sharma/Hindustan Times (source). Thuresson (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:לא רחוב ולא נעליים - פוסטר.jpg

כל הזכויות לפוסטר שייכות לי, דוד פישר במאי ומפיק הסרט.

אני מאשר בזאת לעשות שימוש חופשי בפוסטר של הסרט ל wikimedia commons.

דוד פישר fisherfeatures@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherfeatures (talk • contribs) 11:40, 05 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate: "All rights poster belong to me, David Fischer, director and film producer. I hereby make free use of the movie poster for wikimedia commons. David Fisher fisherfeatures@gmail.com"
 Oppose Images should be licensed under a free license, not submitted for free use by Wikimedia Commons. Please use the procedure outlined at Commons:OTRS if you are serious about this. Thuresson (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission required per above. Note, also, that the poster credits "fisher features" and contains the related website. Email permission will need to come from the @fisherfeatures domain, not a gmail account. --Эlcobbola talk 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dhaka College Logo.png

this file was not a copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImMehedi (talk • contribs) 18:14, 05 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per INC (and "this file was not a copyright violation" doesn't give us much to work with.). --Эlcobbola talk 22:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Montage of Palmácia.png

Hello, I confess I did not understand the reason for the exclusion from the Wikipedia Commons file. I want to emphasize that these images are in my whole life and I decided to do an assembly to stamp the image Palmácia page, as well as with Guaramiranga page and other pages of Brazilian cities. Again I ask that the exclusion is revised and the image to be included again in wikipédia immediately. Authorize Wikipedia to use these images in my full responsibility.

Sincerely, Pedro Queiroz Ribeiro

--Pedro Queiróz Ribeiro (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it contains photographs that have been taken from the internet such as this one even though there is no free licence for using these single images, and there is no evidence that you took all these photographs yourself. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sou administrador da referida página,se quiser posso retirá-las do ar. --187.110.225.243 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Anruy_Kirche.jpg

Diese Löschdebatte ist geschlossen. Bitte mache keine Bearbeitungen an diesem Archiv. Du kannst die Löschrichtlinien lesen oder eine Frage im Forum stellen. Wenn die die Datei umgebenden Umstände sich nennenswert geändert haben, kannst du die Datei erneut zur Löschung vorschlagen oder um ihre Wiederherstellung bitten.

File:Anruy_Kirche.jpg[Bearbeiten] No FOP in France. Architect Pierre Chirol died in 1953, so this building will be freely pictured only in 2024. Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Leider habe ich erst jetzt bemerkt, dass ein Bild von mir gelöscht worden ist. Die Löschung erfolgte zu Unrecht. Selbst hier in Wikipedia sind die gesetzlichen Bedingungen völlig richtig und eindeutig beschrieben.Ein stadtbildprägendes Gebäude im öffentlichen Raum darf jederzeit fotografiert werden und das recht an der Fotografie hat der Fotograf. Siehe auch hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit. Es erschließt sich mir nicht, wie man solchen Leuten, die hier wild alles, was nicht von ihnen kommt, löschen wollen, Zugang geben kann. Solches Verhalten versaut einem echt den Spaß an der Mitarbeit. Stellen Sie das Foto wieder her! --var (Diskussion) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

--var (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No FOP in France. Architect Pierre Chirol died in 1953, so this building will be freely pictured only in 2024. --INeverCry 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:File:Amante-perfeito-Keslley.jpg File:Traicao-Keslley.jpg File:Noites-de-luxo-Keslley.jpg File:Ate-que-a-morte-nos-separe-Keslley0.jpg File:Floreyviu-Keslley.jpg File:A-noiva-do-meu-irmao.jpg File:O-padrinho-do-noivo.jpg

Todas as imagens utilizadas nesta página foram cedidos o direito de publica-las no Wikipedia pela própria autora. File:Amante-perfeito-Keslley.jpg File:Traicao-Keslley.jpg File:Noites-de-luxo-Keslley.jpg File:Ate-que-a-morte-nos-separe-Keslley.jpg File:Floreyviu-Keslley.jpg File:A-noiva-do-meu-irmao.jpg File:O-padrinho-do-noivo.jpg

--AliceLiana2 (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)AliceLiana2 05/09/2016

 Not done: per Elcobbola, insufficient licensing. --INeverCry 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:COA_Kyiv_National_University_of_Trade_and_Economics.svg

This is public domain as emblem of university which is in Government of Ukraine property--Leonid76 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per {{PD-UA-exempt}}. --INeverCry 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Major Calamity of Muslims.png

hey dear this is my work could you let me do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer990 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 06 September 2016 (UTC)

This was deleted under the assumption that it is a copyrighted book cover. Is this correct or not? Thuresson (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:DW/COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 01:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:UDI direct marking with laser on medical device (umbilical cord scissor).jpg

Hello, we are author and owner of this picture: File:UDI direct marking with laser on medical device (umbilical cord scissor).jpg

Can you please undelete the picture.

Thanks Felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltec GmbH (talk • contribs) 06:51, 06 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo from fobalaser.com, "All rights, in particular reproduction, processing and translation rights are reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form (print, photocopy, microfilm or other method) or electronically stored, processed, reproduced or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.". Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ookay Artwork.png

My own work, didn't use any other images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizhopper (talk • contribs) 09:44, 06 September 2016 (UTC) Rizhopper (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded on September 2, 2016. Previsously published on June 5, 2016, here. Also, on September 1, you uploaded this to English Wikipedia under the assumption that is is a non-free work. I don't understand how a file can be non-free one day and the next day have a Creative Commons license? Thuresson (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Unambigious COM:DW of image here. --Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:India-Cycle-Sporting-4-internationalevent-warsaw-berlin-prague-race.jpg

Hello,

I am researching the history of the Cycling Federation of India. I was in the middle of examining several photographs uploaded by a user showing the Indian cycling team from the Olympics and other competitions of the 1940s and 1950s. These, especially the file in the subject, have now unfortunately disappeared. I read the History and saw that copyright was uncertain but the user had left a message saying these are his/her photographs. The discussion was then closed.

These photographs were really useful to me in my research as I am able to identify some of the people in them.

I should like to know the reasons for their deletion as it seems very plausible that the person uploading them was the creator or the inheritor of these photographs as I have never in my research come across them before. If this is not the case then I should like to get in touch with the user who uploaded them to find out the origin of these photographs.

Please could you explain the deletion?

I am grateful for any information and reasoning you can provide, or to be put in touch with the user who uploaded them in the first place.

Best wishes,

Dr. Tehmina Goskar (Courgettelawn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courgettelawn (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 September 2016‎ (UTC)

These were deleted per this deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Dmuc. INeverCry 01:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: above is a question about why images were deleted for which this is not the venue. No request/rationale to restore provided. --Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Yorquiris_en_el_videoclip_Esta_Noche.jpg

This photo is my property, it is mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etresincere (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 September 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This appears at http://yorquiris.com/2016/08/24/yorquiris-saldra-en-el-videoclip-esta-noche/ a week before the upload here, and with an All Rights Reserved license. INeverCry 01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Эlcobbola talk 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:The British Ironworks, Abersychan-1984.jpg

I am requesting that this file be undeleted as the photgraph is my own composition it is owned by myself Ron McCormick, although I use the nickname RonClifton You can also find the picture published in a public exhibition of my work and promoted via www.facebook.com/thekickplategallery To my knowledge it is the only known photograph that shows the full site of the British Ironworks at Abersyche, South Wales and appropriate to this page This is a lo-resolution JPG and I am happy for it to be published under a Creative Commons license If there are any queries I may be contacted at either ron.mccormick@ntlworld.com or ron.clifton100@virginmedia.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonClifton (talk • contribs) 08:27, 07 September 2016 (UTC)

Please use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to proceed with this. Thuresson (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above, COM:OTRS permission required. --Эlcobbola talk 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RatBaiting2.jpg

Hello, please reverse delete this file. It is not copyright protected. thank you. I have this image in my personal collection. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"In order to make sure that the claimed copyright status is accurate, the file description page needs to mention not only who generated the file/ image but where the file in question came from. This is known as its "source" and it allows others to verify that the licensing is correct and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, for any purpose, even commercially.", see Commons:Essential information. Your personal collection is not a resource that others can use to verify the status. Thuresson (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem, reverse the image deletion and I will put the original source at that point. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This seems backwards to me; the source should be provided before restoration. How else can we evaluate whether its license is free? What is the source? And remember, ownership of the physical object ("I have this image in my personal collection") is not the same as owning the intellectual property rights. Эlcobbola talk 00:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close - no response for a week. A new request can be made, but the source is needed before undeletion can be considered. --INeverCry 19:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:SpotCam HD family.png

I own the copyrights of the product image in the picture and also I am the creator of this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachery neeb (talk • contribs) 04:29, 02 September 2016 (UTC)

It is questionable if this image is within scope, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpotCam. Thuresson (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No response for 5 days. No explanation of how this file is in COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 19:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

WP tesi.pdf

I hold the copyright to this text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southutopia (talk • contribs) 05:12, 02 September 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify why this file is useful for Wikimedia. The file was deleted since there were concerns about Commons:Scope, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WP tesi.pdf. Thuresson (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No response for 5 days. No explanation of how this file is in COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 19:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:LB Polyester Fiesta.jpg, File:LB with Casio.jpg, File:LB Live.jpg, File:LB Choir Workshop 01.jpg, File:LB Headshot.jpg

These images have been made available as free content by the artist, and as such are freely distributable under a Commons License.

There are five images available for use here: File:LB Polyester Fiesta.jpg, File:LB with Casio.jpg, File:LB Live.jpg, File:LB Choir Workshop 01.jpg, File:LB Headshot.jpg

If possible, can the images be restored to the post?

Kind regards, --Ruse1966 (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Restore deleted images

And also:

And also:

And also:

@INeverCry:

Please restore deleted images. Received permission from the author. The resolution sent to the e-mail. Please check authorization and restore files. see:

--Mykola Vasylechko 16:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: (pinging the deleting admin, who is also an OTRS member). @NickK: Can you comment on the document shown? I'm a beginner studying Russian, but I don't have the ability in Russian or Ukrainian to judge documents that apply to legal matters like copyright. INeverCry 19:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
PermissionOTRS 2016090710013187 — yes! --Mykola Vasylechko 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: , @Микола Василечко: I've restored all but File:Buchach Shevchenko monument.jpg which contains no deleted file. Can you check the filename? INeverCry 21:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I'll close this as done for now. If the right name for that last file is found, feel free to post at my talk to get it restored too. --INeverCry 22:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

More scupltures by Roman Vilhushynskyi

Same case as discussed an hour or two ago: Ticket:2016090710013187 with permission from Roman Vilhushynskyi. Unlike the previous case, this covers not only photos by Mykola Vasylechko but also those made by other authors:

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: Can you add the tickets for these?. --INeverCry 23:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ramanujan Nundi Etu Atu by Vemuri Venkateswararao.pdf

Please restore File:Ramanujan Nundi Etu Atu by Vemuri Venkateswararao.pdf by ticket:2016061910010172 and OTRS-noticeboard request. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: Go ahead and add the ticket. --INeverCry 08:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Hetero muerto.png

This photo is on many Internet forums, no author. It is also used on a website called www.stophomofascistas.com (cut), but it is a personal page without copyright policy.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=es&biw=1280&bih=907&tbs=sbi:AMhZZitWaaWHZGfBhiFi-_1WOF6Fd4oJnaJRmXsnuMo_1lYJXIrUsf-6Ke5xsFrSQ1sXn23iRnYl_1qsexSvpAhSA-2Gh-nJSFFy5SUxCRUHswPY3FXqAcgCWt0CBdasgRb0S1jHso318SK9mGIlqg7UOwPxvxEop12BdIS83qH-LglVu0nI3YvsB7OHb69TiwCOHE4bW8hG3psdDHL2rKBDALNiK81ob-GsdAslB8bQXYDwnL839CWhmLFR_1A83HoTRjSIjIYvuAmKZNo6nRlcKbt0fwlKlr5MPFbH463TM6U1IfakdF0Pa6RV5xOEiunwZ7H_10vUNCIw8BeTxEiHcktXePE9oqm-m5nUSdlJwcOykc3HWhntTXAH0nXkHiuBHyrqn8bCLTaeAgitOZFoGWSjn01U51kzs4PYIV5iCcW3-W65JWLmcJUSQP4sX2w-q4vGZlHAdApZaEAx2UuRwy5XIdioerLmuDxpi-ANybG7pitdBXRFjolR4qOW_1nH9JXvxC0lepZitivodqxTgSzSXy-wqDrRhvrOsFmzwjusxOn5KCgGsGcVJfsFhfXdlaBgOtZx_1yNllsD2AtCK3AYYco87WsCUcY9L0sFTEiMGXtaR96pPdIQm9lELD8hYwERMemUzmGRBEbYlas2A8-222OXDAJ_1PWZI8uEoj8hak6ZjCyoxaPUjOT7_1xUUOjW-xJIGOMgFjzm75PC6Yu_1JMesLgZUppjgUfFT1SBqP3-2Z4fNNWm6RKuhOWqAK5QqYTyQ2Gn9s_1wayIXvHSDWnFNQ4G0v3j4yAHHCtu_1qLf6Cr5T2NB1adf-vdNpP_1PnumtBMLphPDj09P7v90gKXS4FjcOOxIiSh8k-zyJicRpKHh9IoeHNncPf4jduOnfQKQ5ZqeUkXoWWAd5ZnnA6ckI2mJInT6QsvlqOm4DJIJpnriEYwc_1HEegMHgVDX3S-m7qPpJqzazE-T75qqBWoSaCsth7BVzKgPwEqe3iNf8Y25RZx1AZITrB5ZNk0Xp_1HahJkfYg95cIvsdjfcA4XX1YDVxigdH5izUtpuGN2lZn_1CwbX7Gh4HTX5TboM8FQ-rVtEi7j0Dk2uyxFEW6TVur6PdnqpJ4sQA2N1cm6UQAm-jP-SF2bdZBOIm3BJMYLtO-OD4UzTMx73FCH7gOZwpgfeai5-U0cGWnbiQbzXn3Ubj2ORuvjSLjhiQxHl1gw_1pkaMxOCKWI75bA9oS8nZ1x6VxRiofiqQPWeFSwrIWMOLiZ-YX9nydJ4kRnVvmg_1AyCLcVvZF9D-s4tzuiDTF2oYvVGzfLkIi1i8kKh7Xs27cXmqAMsowuch3DBrvwPG17S1b1p-SWYe-uh2-YRLwPkbQjjm2tqrWYJwv7aBYgusicLEd4RR3MT5DZ8MEtHIl907phFy47n9s_1z86jM26y1PMT_1EOg4SjoyTjGdUbgGeJZO9l4ONtyKiyH2cgcn7zheW4WmCdb7FaJZj1-inKI1yywcK38FYgHeJeKmOGzRdNXnEbf_1t72-Cn5R1FPzhZuOFVA1y3Tu-4AcOzvGb-N98fMWhITT6PLGwF40lwSCMuIFYRawPy5FZNXBi_1vD9ejPI5JCWfpPmUlBjF--nVvv77Jq0uVyNOWUz_1U7yQxYdpJkERkrp9mYe-jhvaCAMtuFeWXycU_1dq2iAWcfy9P5CLTOgN5T-J91nq5KUMRcDJQ4fppl76CVlpB4&ei=97PQV_SkLYyxab37u3g&start=0&sa=N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn to you (talk • contribs) 01:12, 08 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:PRP#5: "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained.". --Эlcobbola talk 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Undeletion requests/File:Kuva- Hannu Lindroos (2013).jpg

To whom it may concern,

The reason to demand the undeletion of the file [Kuva- Hannu Lindroos (2013).jpg] in the article concerning Villa Karo (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Karo)

Hannu Lindroos has taken the photo, but has given all the rights for Villa Karo, Finnish-African cultural center and Artist Residency to use in our communication and marketing concerning Villa Karo. The content of the photo is the main building of Villa Karo. The name of the photograph and the year is marked clearly. Should I rather leave them out?

Waiting for your response!

Kindly Yours, Villa Karo Finnish-African cultural center and Artist residency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villakaro (talk • contribs)

Deleted after a formal deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kuva- Hannu Lindroos (2013).jpg. Please follow the onstructions at Commons:OTRS to proceed with undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS required per DR and above. --Эlcobbola talk 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Neckar-Beach.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's mine! Éléphante Islande (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose From the daily newspaper Esslinger Zeitung, November 15, 2014 (link).

 Not done: No, it's Wondratschek's. COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Muratses

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have written permissions to upload them. I had explained those facts to a certain user/editor and see a Japanese name as deleting person とある白い猫 for my Turkish page???. There is no objection at their ends. Can forward the permissions to you if necessary. Muratses (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ezequiel_Palacios_y_su_bandera.jpg

La fotografia me pertenece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavossalomon (talk • contribs) 10:47, 08 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MiyeouMiye Collage20160823.jpg

Hi. I have created this collage and it is my own work. I forgot to give it a license which later I went back in and I added Cc-zero. I guess you did not take that into consideration. I give permission to anyone to update, copy and etc of the above file. This is my own work. I request you un-delete the above file. Thank you for taking this into consideration... --Philbous (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Please restore the photo of Moshe Ha-Elion / Moshe Ha-Elion article

Hello, I don't understand why the photo of Moshe Ha-Elion in his house in Israel from the Wikipedia article "Moshe Ha-Elion" was deleted. That photo was taken by my husband (Eyal Streett) and I personally asked Moshe Ha-Elion if it was OK to use it and he agreed. I don't remember if I put as a owner of the photo my name (Antonia Tejeda Barros) or my husband's (Eyal Streett), because I was new in writing an article correctly and I didn't know how to do it (I did write an article last year but didn't do it correctly and the article was deleted). Moshe Ha-Elion is an Holocaust survivor who is today 91 years old. He was 21 months in Auschwitz. He is a writer, a voice of the Shoah and a friend of ours. I don't understand why it's not OK that his picture is in his article. Please consider to add the photo as soon as possible. The photo does not violate any copyright, since my husband Eyal Streett took the photo when he went to Israel, to Moshe Ha-Elion's house. Please restore the photo. Thank you very much and many greetings from Spain / Antonia Tejeda Barros Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Antonia Tejeda Barros, I'm generally supportive of restoration (File:Moshe Ha Elion in his house. Bat Yam, Israel, January 21, 2016.jpg) but we need more explicit permission. "I personally asked Moshe Ha-Elion if it was OK to use it and he agreed" is not adequate: 1) permission needs to come from the copyright holder (your husband, as photographer) and 2) "OK to use" is not acceptable. Please see COM:L for the conditions that need to be met (e.g., we need explicit confirmation of a license--that derivatives, republication, commercial use, etc. are allowed.) Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 04:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Elections Posters (Switzerland)

{{FoP-Switzerland/en}} says, "works installed at or on publicly accessible places or ground may be pictured", so that it is allowed to load up elections posters, that are photographed at public places. So I wish, that somebody undelets the following pictures:

--Wettiger Nochrichte (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose You omit that it also says "The works must be permanently installed," which these are not. COM:FOP, which contains additional information about the Swiss FoP situation says further, "Posters in public are not considered 'permanently situated' by the literature" (source footnote omitted). Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
More precise link. Actually, as noted there (or in this article in German-language Wikipedia), there is a minority in Swiss law literature (namely Barrelet/Egloff) who argue that "permanently situated" may also apply to works installed as part of a temporary exhibition (i.e. deliberately placed in public space for a particular length of time), but the majority seems to disagree, and as Elcobbola says, posters usually are not seen as falling unter FoP-Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
So far it has never be a problem. In the canton of Aargau the posters are 8 weeks installed at public places. In the Fop its said "A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported). poster, you can see eight weeks is not "only visible by accident".--Badener (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The template is a mere summary, and that text is misleading/incorrect. I gave you a cite from COM:FOP explicitly addressing posters. Whether it's been a problem before or not is w:WP:OSE. Эlcobbola talk 18:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Elcobbola and Gestumblindi - the posters aren't likely to be covered by Swiss FoP. We have to go with COM:PRP in this situation. --INeverCry 05:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Gutscheinpony Superhelden-und-Boesewichte Infografik.jpg

Hallo zusammen,

meine Infografik wurde aufgrund möglicher Urheberrechtsverletzung gelöscht. Sie wurde durch mich im Rahmen meiner Arbeit bei Gutscheinpony erstellt und darf unter der Creative Commons Lizenz (3.0) verwendet werden. Die Einstellungen dazu habe ich leider nicht beim editieren finden können (ich bin ganz neu hier - offensichtlich).

Ich denke, dass die Infografik einen deutlichen Mehrwert für die User und Userinnen darstellt, weil es sonst nur Infografiken gibt, die ausschließlich Marvel ODER DC thematisieren. In meiner Infografik hingegen werden beide Universen verglichen.

Ich freue mich, wenn die Löschung wieder aufgehoben werden könnte bzw. ich die Möglichkeit bekommen würde, die Grafik noch einmal mit den geltenden Lizenzbestimmungen hochzuladen.

Liebe Grüße

--Aileen MD (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Aileen MD, die Nutzungsbedingungen von Gutscheinpony enthalten keinerlei Hinweise auf Creative Commons. Stattdessen steht dort: "GutscheinPony und die Partnershops behalten sämtliche Urheber- und sonstige Rechte an dem Service sowie den veröffentlichten Inhalten, Informationen, Bildern, Videos und Datenbanken (nachfolgend „geschütztes Eigentum“ genannt). Eine Veränderung, Kopie, Wiederveröffentlichung, Übertragung an Dritte, Verbreitung oder Speicherung des geschützten Eigentums ohne vorherige Zustimmung von GutscheinPony oder dem jeweils betroffenen Partnershop ist ausdrücklich untersagt." Du kannst also nicht also nicht einfach eine Creative Commons Lizenz vergeben, wenn Du Originalgrafiken von Gutscheinpony und/oder Marvel und DC Comics verwendest. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Apache Singa Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Apache Singa website says:

"Copyright 2016 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. Apache Singa, Apache, the Apache feather logo, and the Apache Singa project logos are trademarks of The Apache Software Foundation. All other marks mentioned may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.. "

The logo of Singa is under Apache License and can be used in Wikimedia like the logos of other Apache projects. Moazreyad (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Apache license. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:06, 9 September 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 image was sent on August 12 by the owner of the photo, Jessie Jones. The permission email can be resent if you can help me determine where to send it. Thank you. Njnorland (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

OTRS permission can take some time to process. There's a pretty hefty backlog. You might want to check on the progress of the permission that was sent at the OTRS noticeboard. INeverCry 04:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: otrs ticket found. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chavez carcel.jpg

Hello,

I do not know why this picture was blocked if I have mentioned the Newspaper who took it.

In case the Newspaper is not the owner, I would be happy to say who teh original owner was.

Thank you very much.

Armando — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublonfl (talk • contribs) 08:38, 09 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted as a copyright violation. Please read Commons:Welcome before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Smotkin.jpg

File:Smotkim
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abovicht (talk • contribs) 10:37, 09 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: taken from facebook. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Necropoli di Cafaggio

OTRS authorization obtained with ticket:2016090210009218. --Ruthven (msg) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, that domain is further down the chain; these are okay. Эlcobbola talk 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Images restored. --Эlcobbola talk 14:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Dr Jennifer Walden

OTRS ticket #2016080110020673 received by photographer for:

--Ruthven (msg) 14:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Images restored. --Эlcobbola talk 14:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ASCLogo.jpg

I have created the above logo. I changed the format from .png to .jpg. I give permission to anyone to use this logo {{Cc-zero}}. my user id: philbous. Thank you. --Philbous (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please ask the Arine Sports Club to follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 04:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sundby Idraetspark En Fodboldspiller by www.mysona.dk.JPG

As stated under Commons:Deletion_requests/Danish_Statues, this file should now be undeleted as its usage is now allowed by the danish freedom of panorama laws. Froztbyte (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Froztbyte: please feel free to add the photo to any relevant Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MiyeouMiye Collage20160823.jpg

I have created this collage myself from pictures that I have taken personally. I give

Creative Commons CC-Zero This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

license to all. I guess I need to upload the individual pictures and source them. I have some of these pictures already on Flickr under philbous. Thanks.--Philbous (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Uploading the individual images and sourcing them is needed here. --INeverCry 07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Said the Sky DJ Producer.png

It's my own work, not derived from any other images. Rizhopper (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough it looks like the logo of "Said the Sky" (photos). Thuresson (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola - no response from requester. --INeverCry 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Marco_Voleri_1.jpg

OTRS obtained with ticket:2016090110006437. Thanks. --Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My mistake: I now asked for an e-mail from the same domain as the offical website. Thanks. --Ruthven (msg) 20:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: A new request can be made when sufficient OTRS permission is obtained. --INeverCry 23:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Валентин Валентинович Овсянников.jpg

Фотография опубликована автором на официальной странице Детского театра эстрады http://www.vstudio.ru/ А также на официальном сайте автора http://www.vvstudio.ru/ И на его странице Facebook https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000227164999&fref=ts 09.09.2016 --Martynovadaria (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 23:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lans-en-Vercors. Square.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016060910000415 - Valaid permission received (CC-BY-SA 3.0 & GFDL) Scoopfinder(d) 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: Please add the ticket. --INeverCry 23:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Please undelete the following file: File:UDI direct marking with laser on medical device (umbilical cord scissor).jpg

Hallo Wikipedia Community,

könntet ihr bitte dieses Bild wiederherstellen File:UDI direct marking with laser on medical device (umbilical cord scissor).jpg, wir die Alltec GmbH/FOBA sind Urheber dieses Bildes und besitzen alle Rechte. Falls es Probleme gibt oder wir etwas falsch gemacht haben, freue ich mich über Verbesserungsvorschläge.

Viele Grüße Felix

--Alltec GmbH (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This request was closed as Not done on September 7. You have not provided any new information. Thuresson (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done As above -- no reason given from undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

ARPoetry

Hello, I would like to persuade you to upload again ARPoetry files because these files maker named ni_ka send the licence letter to wikipedia commons. Some files are failed to present to show AR詩 pages but these files are good for seeing.

Uploading these files and makes wikipedia pages are so difficult. So I hope you to return it. --はかいし (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, these appear to show copyrighted works and therefore we need a license from the artist. Second, and more important, they appear to be personal art from a non-notable artist and therefore they are out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 20:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Scissorkick-cover.png.

Hello, i request undeletion for this logo please.

I know the owner of Scissorkick and i can ask him for a government issued id to prove the permission he gives me to use this logo in wikimedia commons.

Please help me resolve this issue. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkco (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have named your only upload above -- I assume that's the subject of this UnDR.
 Oppose There are two problems. First, it appears to be a personal logo and therefore violates COM:ADVERT. Second, it appears on the Web without a free license so even if the first problem is resolved, we will need a license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Explanation is needed why this logo isn't promotional/COM:ADVERT - if this is done, OTRS permission from the copyright holder will also be needed. --INeverCry 20:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


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

(File:Christian Seidel Portrait.jpg)

Hallo, ich bitte um die Wiederherstellung des Bildes (File:Christian Seidel Portrait.jpg). Ich habe dieses Bild direkt vom Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte erhalten und seine mündliche Freigabe. Die schriftliche Freigabe wird vom Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte in Kürze über den Wikipedia Freigabe-Assistenten an den Support gesendet. Danke!

CTC2 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Note that copyright licenses and transfers must be in writing, so an oral permission has no effect.
If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then you should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If you have not had a reply, please check that you have sent it correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Processed and confirmed OTRS permission is needed. --INeverCry 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Montaje de Ada Lovelace.png

The file was proposed for deletion because, apparently, there was license information missing from Alfred Edward Chalon (who died in 1860) and Jackie Aim (see here). I explained that, as was stated in the image description, the image is a derivative work from another Commons image (File:'Garden of Ada'.jpg), and the information about these authors is clearly shown in that other image page. It looks that the person who proposed the deletion didn't see the other image mentioned in the description page.

The picture was deleted without further explanation by Jcb, who didn't even reply to my explanations, which obviously didn't make me happy, specially after he simply told me that "he didn't think the image is a derivative work" when I explained him the situation (?). Well, it is; that's why I mentioned the other image and these two guys in the first place. As I also told Jcb, saying that the image isn't a derivative work of File:'C'.jpg makes the deletion even more incorrect, as these two authors wouldn't even be needed to be mentioned in the description page (they are mentioned because the image is a derivative from the other one).

Anyway: I request the image to be restored. Thank you. --Racso (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three copyrights here. The first, is the original belonging to Chalon, which is long PD. The second is the one belonging to the Commons image File:'Garden of Ada'.jpg which is CC-BY-SA-2.0. The third belongs to the creator of the derivative work File:Montaje_de_Ada_Lovelace.png for which we do not have a satisfactory license.

More to the point, though, is that the image is personal art from a non-notable artist, so even if it were properly licensed, it would be out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 20:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AdoptASafta logo.png

I personally created this logo. I own this logo. It represents an initiative that I founded. Please undelete it.

--Jaymshultz (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Jay M. Shultz

 Oppose It appears at http://www.adoptasafta.com/ with an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, policy requires that in order to keep it on Commons, we must have a formal license from an authorized officer of the organization.
More to the point, though, is the fact that the organization may or may not be notable, as we define it here. Google finds little that is not self-promotional and there does not appear to be a WP article. Until an independent person (one not connected with the organization) decides that it is important enough for a WP article, I see little need for its logo here.

I am the owner of the URL, and the creator of the logo. What other formal license do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymshultz (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 20:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Shomer Israel Fellowship.jpg

Hello. I created this photo and logo. It is for an initiative that I created. Please undelete it.

Thank you.

--Jaymshultz (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Jay M. Shultz

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://amyisraelfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SHOMER-FB-LOGO.jpg, so policy requires that we get a free license from an authorized official of the organization via OTRS.

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 20:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:White City Shabbat Guinness World Record Largest Shabbat Dinner Kabbalat Shabbat.jpg

I took this photo for an organization that I founded and an event I created. I own the copyright. Please undelete this photo.

--Jaymshultz (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Jay M. Shultz

 Oppose The metadata says "Photograph by Casey Kelbaugh" and that he owns the copyright. That is inconsistent with the statement above. It cannot be restored here without a free license from Kelbaugh via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from Casey Kelbaugh is required. --INeverCry 20:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The-dark-horse-premiere-0121.jpg

Did everything as requested by user Vera and provided cc-Zero licence via the release generator link that Vera suggested. File should not have been deleted; cc-zero licence has been provided by Greg Doherty the photographer. Masterclass21 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If a formal license has been submitted through the OTRS and everything is OK, then the photo will be undeleted by an administrator in due time. Thuresson (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 07:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


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

James-napier-robertson-the-dark-horse-0133.jpg

Did everything as requested by user Vera and provided cc-Zero licence via the release generator link that Vera suggested. File should not have been deleted; cc-zero licence has been provided by Greg Doherty the photographer.Masterclass21 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If a formal license has been submitted through the OTRS and everything is OK, then the photo will be undeleted by an administrator in due time. Thuresson (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 07:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


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

James-napier-robertson-the-dark-horse-0514.jpg

As above, did everything as requested by user Vera and provided cc-Zero licence via the release generator link that Vera suggested. File should not have been deleted; cc-zero licence has been provided by Greg Doherty the photographer. Masterclass21 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If a formal license has been submitted through the OTRS and everything is OK, then the photo will be undeleted by an administrator in due time. Thuresson (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can/will be restored. --INeverCry 07:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:NH546-1.jpg

I took this picture myself and therefore own the copyright to this image. I have agreed for this to be used under the Creative commons agreement. Please re-instate this image.--Tomtom8k (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtom8k (talk • contribs) 15:54, 09 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment This was deleted by User:Hedwig in Washington with the comment, " © 2015 Tom J Bell."
Hedwig, I don't see that either in the image itself or in the image description. Where should I look? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Was it in the metadata? I see the same in en:File:Nigel Briggs Portrait.jpg, which is by the same uploader. Unless we find the image on the net somewhere, in the same resolution, I'm not sure an EXIF copyright notice giving the uploader's real name is grounds for deletion review (especially speedy). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
That's entirely possible -- as far as I know, Admins can't see the metadata without actually restoring the image, so I haven't seen it. Although I agree that it is likely that Tom J. Bell is User:Tomtom8k, since we have an explicit copyright notice that does not match the licensor, I think we need an OTRS permission from Tom J. Bell. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we require OTRS simply if a real name is used in the copyright notice -- only if the image appears on the Internet in its uploaded resolution. Otherwise, like other uploads -- we would assume good faith, and assume that is the uploader's real name. I don't see the en-wiki image anywhere; not sure what this one was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't agree. If the image appeared elsewhere on the Web with an explicit copyright notice, we would require OTRS. It seems to me that the same must apply when the explicit notice came with the image, except in the case where the notice is in the same name as the username of the uploader.
And I disagree with that. If a user identifies their real name which is different than their username, all of their uploads then become suspect because we can't be who they claim they are? The reason for OTRS is if the image might have been copied off the internet; the fact a user identifies their real name does not change that one way or the other, to me. If the name is a known professional photographer, then maybe -- though if the uploaded resolutions still make it reasonably likely that the uploader is the author, I would still assume good faith and not require OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that I am Tom J Bell and that I took the original photo as well as the photo mentioned above en:File:Nigel Briggs Portrait.jpg. My apologies that the metadata tag was included I didn't realise it was still attached to the image. --Tomtom8k (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you, Tom. It would be good if you added that to Tomtom8k and to each of your images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hetero muerto.png

I come to reapply for permission to this photo because the last answer is contradictory. The Эlcobbola manager told me: "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained." But he erased the picture?

See: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-09#File:Hetero_muerto.png Burn to you (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is actually from the official policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle and the quote is used as an example of an attitude that is against the purpose of Wikicommons. Thuresson (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

But how I can find out who owns photo? What if there is not an owner?--Burn to you (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to initiate a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Thuresson (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Most works, including this one, have a copyright owner. We honor that even if the owner is unknown. In order to restore this, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Camagüey_"Maximo_Gomez"_Vocational_School_.jpg

I am the author of the work depicted in this photo and owner of the rights to the image. This image originally appeared in my website (http://www.togores.net/arquitectura-y-diseno/laescuelavocacionalmaximogomezencamagueey/vista-aerea) and I have also shared it in Instagram. I have also submitted the following Licensing permission text on 08/08/2016:

Reinaldo N. Togores <togores.design@gmail.com>

8 sept. (hace 2 días)

para permissions-co. I hereby affirm that I, Architect Reinaldo N. Togores, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Camagüey_"Maximo_Gomez"_Vocational_School_.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the 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.

Reinaldo N. Togores 2016-09-08


Please undelete this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togores (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS required. --Эlcobbola talk 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yom HaAliyah - 10th of Nisan.jpg

Why was this Yom HaAliyah pic deleted? It takes a public images and has overpay edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymshultz (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted after a formal deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yom HaAliyah - 10th of Nisan.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
As I noted at the DR cited above, the uploader claimed that the photograph was his own work. That seems unlikely and, unless it is actually his own work, we need a free license from the photographer, or evidence that it is PD. More to the point, however, is that the work is out of scope because it is personal art from a non-notable artist.
After posting the DR, I discovered that the image had been posted and deleted previously under a different name, so I closed the DR and deleted the image since the reload was outside of process and therefore subject to the {{Speedy}} rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above, and no undeletion rationale provided; this is not the venue for questions about deletion. --Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Redmi Note 3 Render.png

This image was created by me on Photoshop and is not copied or taken from any website.--Donkey335 (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The copyright has been granted to me by Xiaomi itself to edit or recreate.--Donkey335 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Please guide me how to ask it from them.--Donkey335 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Official product render (e.g. Amazon product image) COM:OTRS from Xiaomi needed. --Эlcobbola talk 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kaore Canyon upstream route map.jpg

Also:

This photo is not a work of art.

This photo is just a sign. The contents of this sign is content is "Shintaro Nakaoka has passed to school road".

Shintaro Nakaoka is the Japan of the greats. He died in 1867.

You should withdraw the deletion.--Earthbound1960 (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted after a formal deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Earthboud1960. No new information has been provided after the request was closed. Thuresson (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Your understanding of copyright is incomplete. Virtually all created works -- photographs, paintings, sculpture, maps, text, etc. -- have copyrights. That is true whether they were created as works of art or for any other purpose, including informational signs. These maps and signs all have copyrights and cannot be kept on Commons without either a free license from the creator or some reason why they are in the Public Domain. Age is the usual reason for that, but that is obviously not the case here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Derivative works of contemporary works. No 2D FoP in Japan. --Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MIUI 8 homescreen.png

This is a screenshot taken on my phone and not copied from any website.--Donkey335 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose MIUI is not freely licensed -- your screen shot infringes on the MIUI copyright and those for several of the icons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Unambigous copyvio. Screenshot of phone GUI. --Эlcobbola talk 14:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Virginia Gameplay Screenshot.png

This file is widely available in the public domain, having been hosted on multiple press sites. And has been hosted on the game's official page by a representative of the publisher: http://www.505games.com/wp-content/uploads/virginia-screenshot-7.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlandssummary (talk • contribs) 11:37, 13 September 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file is, indeed, widely available, but that does not make it freely licensed. The web site that is cited above does not have any evidence of a free license. Almost everything on the Web has a copyright and unless there is an explicit free license, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per COM:PRP#5. --Эlcobbola talk 14:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Virginia Key Art.jpg

This file is widely available in the public domain. And has been hosted on the game's official Steam page by a representative of the developer: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=751485815 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlandssummary (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The file is, indeed, widely available, but that does not make it freely licensed. The web site that is cited above has an explicit copyright notice. Almost everything on the Web has a copyright and unless there is an explicit free license, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per COM:PRP#5. --Эlcobbola talk 14:28, 13 September 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 is an official senate photo which should make it a no brainier for fair use under the Canadian copyright act. It was also uploaded on Flickr, which Wikipeida also acknowledges as a legitimate source for vetting copyright/use for images. There is no way the quality of the encyclopedia is improved by keeping the original image over this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgweneAV (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the Canadian Parliament Web site disagrees with you at http://www.parl.gc.ca/ImportantNotices.aspx?Language=E:
"The contents of this Web site are covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act and related regulations and international agreements. Permission to reproduce in whole or in part or otherwise use content on this Web site may be sought from the appropriate source."
Also please note that the comment in the file description:
"PD-because|Canadian Senate photographs are fair use in non commercial situations like Wikipedia"
has no validity. Images on Commons (and WP:EN) must be free for all uses, including commercial use.
Finally, note also that fair use is not valid on Commons -- a repository can never justify a fair use claim. It is possible that the image could be hosted at WP:EN as fair use, please see the WP:EN article on the subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It may be legal -- so the deletion reason of "copyright violation" may not technically be accurate -- but Commons only accepts "free" files per policy, and does not accept files under a fair use rationale. Part of that is that "fair use" is more legally dubious for an image database, as we are providing them for *any* use, not a specific use in a specific article -- so it may not fall under fair use anyways. But also because this is a free image repository, so it's part of Commons founding aims. It's also a bit more than just policy; the Wikimedia Foundation has mandated that Commons is not allowed to host fair use images. That also goes for publicity photos, which may have more of an implied license than fair use, but still do not qualify as "free". We use "copyright violation" for files that are obviously not free, and where the copyright has not expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Wikimedia Commons does not accept non-free media with a fair use claim. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Macreanu Iulian

Please undelete the following files that were deleted here. Meanwhile I provided relevant information about the sources of the files. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Source and author is irrelevant because is {{PD-RO-exempt}} "(c) medals". --Turbojet (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The design of the medal may be PD, but we need to know who the photograph is, as the medals is a 3D object (cf. Commons:Derivative works). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I put the supplementary information. However, it is hard to say that a medal is a 3D object, it is rather a thick object, as the ”third dimension” is basically pure metal or cloth, carrying no creative or original work. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
All time the photos of medals were deemed symbols of the state, being in the public domain. --Turbojet (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Medals, yes, but about the photographer? 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)~
Undelete. It was already mentioned that I made the photo. Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete: There is no evidence that the picture is free. --Turbojet (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Changed: We need confirmation that the picture was published, otherwise PD-RO-photo does not apply. Jastrow (Λέγετε)
Undelete. The image was published by its author Alexandru Garoflid (died in 1943) in his book Agricultura veche, Tipografia "Cartea Românească", Bucureşti, 1943, p. 11. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
--> Delete because is duplicate of the file File:Bouquet - Cabanes dans les steppes.jpg. Summary and licensing not revised.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a derivative work of a public domain image File:Bouquet - Cabanes dans les steppes.jpg, so there is no reason to be deleted. It use just a part of the original work, in order to better and more proper illustrate an certain type of housing. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) from an vintage postcard published in 1904. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete because is the some image piece of the file File:Bordei 1860 Dieudonne Auguste Lancelot.jpg, as File:1840 Locuinta de tip bordei in stepa 1.png. Summary and licensing not revised. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a derivative work of a public domain image File:Bordei 1860 Dieudonne Auguste Lancelot.jpg, so there is no reason to be deleted. It use just a part of the original work, in order to better and more proper illustrate an certain type of housing. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Radu Corbu died 1941, but the photographer? There is no evidence that the picture is free. --Turbojet (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The photo is before the year 1929 when the professor retired, and the image was inserted in the gallery of the personalities of that school, before 1956--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image was published for the first time in Atanasie Popescu, Liceul "N. Bălcescu" din Brăila şi Şcolile a căror continuitate este. Monografie; 1863-1908, Tipografia Românească, Brăila, 1937 and reproduced latter in Vasile A. Cocoş, Liceul „Nicolae Bălcescu” - Brăila. 1863-1963, Brăila, 1970. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The requested information about the source and the copyrights tags were provided. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) from the the Dresdner Anzeiger newspaper, the number from 7 December 1916. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of an old military map from the National Military Archive (official document of the Romanian state - public domain). Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary+Licensing - updated --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete: There is no evidence that the picture is free. --Turbojet (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction of an official symbol of the Romanian state - public domain (Oficiul Național pentru Cultul Eroilor - ONCE). Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of an official document of the Romanian state - public domain. Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of an official document of the Romanian state (Fișa matricolă penală din penitenciar) - public domain. Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of an official document of the Romanian state (Fișa matricolă penală din penitenciar) - public domain. Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) from "Operaţiile de la Flămânda", Alexandru Averescu (G-ral.), Editura Cultura Naţională, Bucureşti, România, 1926. The author=Alexandru Averescu (G-ral.) died in 1938. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction of a number of Romanian newspapers issued on 15/28 August 2016. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}--Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary+Licensing - updated--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of the cover of the book "Armata Romaniei. Marelui ei Căpitan", published in Bucharest, in 1902. at the "Socec" publishing house. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary+Licensing - updated--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) from the cover of the book "Armata Romaniei. Marelui ei Căpitan", published in Bucharest, in 1902, at the "Socec" publishing house. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Keep it under {{PD-textlogo}}--Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) from the "Furnica" magazine, the issue nr. 48 from august 1913, p. 12. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary+Licensing - updated--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is made by me, in the late 1990 years, during a commemorative ceremony in Schinetea cemetery. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of an official document of the Romanian state (Primaria Bucurestiului - Bucharest City Hall) from 1911 - public domain. Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction (cropped) of an official document of the Romanian state (Primaria Bucurestiului - Bucharest City Hall) from 1911 - public domain. Keep it under {{PD-RO-exempt}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction from an old postcard from the 1920s. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. The image is a reproduction from Aşezământul cultural Ion C. Brătianu, Viaţa şi opera lui Vintilă I. C. Brătianu, Imprimeriile „Independenţa”, Bucureşti, 1936, p. 608. Keep it under {{PD-RO-photo}}. --Macreanu Iulian (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose {{PD-RO-photo}} applies only to photographs that were published before 1986 or 1991. The DR carefully sorted out those images which had proof of publication and kept them. Those images (listed above) that had no such proof of publication were deleted. I see nothing above to change the fact that we have no evidence that the images above were actually published before the required dates.

I note that there are several images above to which that reasoning does not apply. I think that this request should be closed as  Not done and that Macreanu Iulian should open a new request -- or perhaps more than one, for each different set of facts that apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim - better to open requests dealing with these files in a more individual/selective manner. --INeverCry 20:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The file is mine, is not a good practice that anyone who likes can delete, is unfaire

Recently y i added some pics i took. Some user (tarawa) delete it, simply because he thought was an copyright violation, i dont understand why i put the photo as my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxidomask (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: no file mentioned, and requestor has multiple deleted files within the same time period. Please refile with a specific file and related rationale. --Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- reopened with explanation for newbie)
 Oppose Four of your files have been deleted:
The first two, which are the same image, were deleted because the image appears at http://www.eldiario.com.co/seccion/%C2%BFSABE+LA+%C3%9ALTIMA%3F/sabe-la-ltima-ap-a-tiene-alcalde-polic-a1608.html with an explicit copyright notice.
The third was deleted because you are not the author and therefore we will need a license from the author.
The fourth was deleted because you took it from Facebook, which is not freely licensed.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the value in reopening a request that cannot be addressed here; in a best case scenario, these images would require OTRS permission. If this is to assist a newbie, why not a talk page message? Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holders of these images is required. --INeverCry 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AnkurJain.jpg

The author on Flickr has since changed the copyright to be appropriate for Wikipedia upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miseauxnormes (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC) https://www.flickr.com/photos/147173113@N02/29638929905/in/dateposted-public/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miseauxnormes (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I doubt that the Flickr license is valid -- the subject is the Flickr user and it does not appear to be a selfie, so it is unlikely that the Flickr user has the right to license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose This is used by on Jain's official site and is credited by multiple sources to Knock Knock (i.e., Humin, Inc.) [2][3][4]. Permission needs to come from Humin, Inc., not an unverified Flickr account purporting to be the subject. Эlcobbola talk 14:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Wortbild-Logo - Project Worm.png - for usage in RegiowikiAT

Please restore the above file, which was and is not in 'no encyclopedic use', as stated in the deletion request (see in the deletion request archive Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/02/04?uselang=de or directly Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wortbild-Logo - Project Worm.png).

It was and will be used in the Austrian wiki RegiowikiAT, which is a project supported by the WMAT (Wikimedia Austria, Wikimedia Österreich – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens.) and holds many in the German Wikipedia deleted and to Austria related articles, similarly to the MARJORIE-WIKI, which holds also many in the Wikipedia deleted articles, but these are primarily related to Germany, Swiss or have no direct relation to a country.

This file is needed for the article Project Worm in the RegiowikiAT. (Note: The founder and main contributor of the RegiowikiAT, which is @Karl Gruber (short K@rl), marked this file and nearly 800 other files, which are used in the RegiowikiAT, with Template:RegiowikiAT and therefore gets the content of the category Category:Used files in Regiowiki AT to avoid such deletion requests, which states 'no encyclopedic use' of files used by RegiowikiAT.)

Best regards from Austria, Sonne7 (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to set the mentioned template also here - is done now. Template:RegiowikiAT Regards, Sonne7 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)   13:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)   Sonne7 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose While we do not delete files that are in use on other WMF projects, we have no obligation or mandate to support off-WMF projects, particularly when the applicable WP has judged the subject to be out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is apparently the logo for "Project Worm". File was used in de:Project Worm, an article that has been deleted since the subject was not considered relevant for an encyclopedia. Hence the file fails the criteria "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" in Commons:Project scope. I don't see any reason why RegiowikiAT can not upload the file locally. Thuresson (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Addams Family pinball backbox.jpg

The comment left was that the work was 'Obviously not user's own creation, Addams family artwork'. While, No, I didn't design the image, I did take the photo of the pinball machine backglass. The pixelation and reflection of the family name indicates as much. Does it need to be the entire pinball machine to be acceptable? This seems like an overzealous deletion and I'm unclear about the issue here. Any additional info would be appreciated. Thanks! --Dnllnd (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The issue is that the artwork on the background of the machine you photographed is copyrighted and most likely non-free. Publishing a photo of it would require the consent of the original artist or whoever else holds the copyright to that Addams poster. Essentially, by taking a photo of it you do not only create your own copyright but are also creating a so-called derivative work of the Addams poster whose own copyright you would have to respect. De728631 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:DW. --INeverCry 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Haftbefehl Unzensiert.jpg

Es liegt eine Freigabe im OTRS vor, die aber am Bild nicht dokumentiert war // There is a release in OTRS ago that was not documented in the image --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: Please add the OTRS ticket. --INeverCry 07:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mario Teschke 2015.jpg

I do not understand, why this picture was deleted. This is my brother Mario Teschke, a Germany actor. We should like to have his picture in the post.--Michael Teschke (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Michael Teschke

 Support This was used in de:Mario Teschke on 31 August 2016 when a deletion discussion was filed for "Out of scope, unused personal photo". It was still in the article when the discussion was closed. Sloppy work, I daresay. However, because of this we would need a confirmation by email from the uploader and photographer Michael Teschke.

Zur Erklärung: ich sehe keinen Grund, warum das Bild nicht wiederhergestellt werden sollte. Aber weil es bereits auf Mario Teschkes Webseite steht, brauchen wir einen Nachweis per Email, dass das Foto auf Commons unter einer freien Lizenz von jedermann benutzt werden darf. Siehe dazu bitte COM:OTRS/de. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Restored and deleted as copyvio for clarity. Written permission from the copyright owner is required. See above comment.
✓ Done Ankry (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Frontier Myanmar Issue 38 cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, this picture was originally uploaded on the Frontier Myanmar Flickr stream with appropriate permissions. Link here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/frontiermyanmar/ Ducksanddrakes1 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to be under the proper license, although it's a bit odd that their photostream only includes a single image. Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Their website, http://frontiermyanmar.net/, lists their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube accounts but doesn't mention Flickr anywhere. I wouldn't restore this based on the Flickr account alone: I'd want to see OTRS permission. INeverCry 07:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, I've contacted the rights holder who has lodged a ticket through the OTRS process. Ducksanddrakes1 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Per above, OTRS is being sent. Please don't create empty image pages with an OTRS template; the volunteer who handles the ticket will take the necessary actions for you. --Эlcobbola talk 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Eugenio portrait.jpg

Here you have the link for the file (a donation to public domain) on flickr, to be reuploaded on wikimedia. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144499112@N06/29050465004/ I noticed that the file was deleted, so I asked the photographer Maria Laura Matthey to create a Flickr account and to donate the file to public domain, which things she did. Thank you, Lorenzo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzo Buongiovanni (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 01:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chaos Arena board game, Third Millennium Edition.JPG

File:Chaos Arena board game, Third Millennium Edition.JPG

This file was deleted because the photographed item (a board game) was claimed to be not my copyright. However: not only did I take the photograph, I am also the producer/publisher of the game and I hold the copyright. I therefore request the picture to be undeleted.

--Miezpiez (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send an email too OTRS confirming this copyright information - if everything checks out, OTRS will restore the image. --INeverCry 01:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Beatriz Rico Ellas Dan La Nota 07-03-2016.jpg

Dear colleagues,

My name is Ruben Ramirez, I am the husband of the person who appear on the picture, that is: Beatriz Rico. She requested me to change the horrible picture that someone put on her profile in Wikipedia, it was captured from a video on Youtube and it is the sixth time I try to upload a picture from different sources. All of them have been deleted, but the last 2 pictures have been deleted with no sense, as their copyright status are free. The pictures have been taken from a friend of her, one of them is in a public website, I remark, with NO COPYRIGHT. The other comes from flickr, so it is specifically explained that pictures from flickr are allowed without restrictions.

I apologize if I do not explain right, but we are afraid we are going to make a report of this situation, because it is unfair she has to see this picture of her that she hates. Next time we will go directly to the judge in order to solve this trouble, so I kindly ask you to change the picture or to explain step by step how to do it, because our knowledge of wiki commons is not advanced and we just want to have another picture of Beatriz Rico that does not damage her personal image. If you want us to send you a picture of her in order to upload it, let us know.

I keep waiting for your response and a solution.

Ruben Ramirez Rcachu (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

With this image, you indicated that the author is Goio Villanueva. We would need OTRS permission from Goio Villanueva to host this image on Commons. As for your other comments, images on websites are automatically copyrighted unless they directly state that images on the site are under a free license, and images from other people require their permission through OTRS as well. Flickr images have to be released under a free license too. See COM:FLICKR for appropriate licensing on Flickr. If you took an image of your wife with your own camera or phone, that would also be OK to upload to Commons. INeverCry 07:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per consensus. OTRS permission is needed before restoration. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 03:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Not_yet_please.jpg

File:Not_yet_please.jpg was deleted as being out of scope. However, it was converted to an SVG, File:Not yet please.svg, that is currently in use on the Portuguese Wikipedia. As such, to preserve the copyright and edit history, File:Not_yet_please.jpg should be undeleted. --Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 03:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TheGlobalGoals Logo and Icons.jpg Undeletion

What the hell? I've got proof that the file was directly under Creative Commons, you can't just say "Oh its been deleted from the En Wikipedia, so i should delete it from here". Thats not how it works, i've got proof that these works are under Creative Commons, directly from the organisation themselves. Please Undelete it. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Unambiguous copyvio, even deleted file credited "Getty" as an author (!!!). This image belongs to the UN (including confirming credits here, here, etc), which is "COPYRIGHT © UNITED NATIONS 2016 All rights reserved." [5]. It was deleted for that reason; its deletion from en.wiki was part of the nominating statement for context. If you have permission from the UN, it can be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a valid a evidence for a free licence since anyone could have created such a text. Apart from that it doesn't specify which Creative Commons licence possibly applies (e.g. we don't accept non-commercial licenses). On the other hand there is the copyright disclaimer presented by Elcobbola which is pretty straightforward non-free, and the terms and conditions of that site do not mention Creative Commons either. And yes, if it doesn't fit into Wikipedia in general, we won't accept it either because Commons has even stronger rules. Images on Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial activities. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 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 a book that says that all content that was published on Falstin newspaper was public domain. Does the document have to be public, or can it be shown secretly like in the ORTS correspondence? The book is in Arabic. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason why that would be the case -- this newspaper page was published in 1936, while Palestine was under UK control, so UK copyright law applies. That calls for copyrights lasting 70 years after the death of the author (PMA). In this case, that would be the latest of the deaths of the artist and the writers of the various text shown on the page.
However, if you believe that you have proof beyond a significant doubt to the contrary, you can certainly send it to OTRS, or, you could summarize here what the book says -- the reason that it says that all Falastin content is PD. Note that Falastin was published under three different rules -- the Ottoman Empire, the UK, and Israeli. Content published under the Ottoman Empire (until 1923) is PD, but work after that is all governed by 70 years PMA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jim and the past two [6][7] UnDR requests. What needs to be established and thus related evidence/OTRS tickets has been explained multiple times. If you have such a book, please scan the relevant pages and submit them using the OTRS process (this, by the way, is not due to secrecy per se, but because the prose is likely copyrighted and thus can't be uploaded here.) Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I don't usually close requests that I have commented on, but enough is enough -- if I had known that this had been requested twice before, I would have closed it earlier. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Epiphragme.jpg

Hi,

The artist provided a written permission for this file in Template:OTRS ticket.

Please undelete this file. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 10:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done because of an insufficient OTRS permission. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BOX 750mL SideBRUTwhite.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We own the content (Roc Nation/ Armand de Brignac) Catrocntion (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In such cases we need a written permission so please have your company send an email as outlined in Commons:OTRS. Once that email has been processed, your image will be restored. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS license required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Claudia Gili Files

Buongiorno, chiedo di poter ripristinare il file che è stato rimosso perchè non viola il diritto di copyright e ho il permesso dei legittimi proprietari ad utilizzarle. Grazie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudia Gili (talk • contribs) 12:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Buongiorno, vi chiedo gentilmente di voler ripristinare il contenuto rimosso in quanto sono certa che non violi nessun diritto di copyright. Grazie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudia Gili (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Files Uploaded by Alltec GmbH

Hi all,

can you please undelete these pictures for me, our company account would verified by the wikipedia team, and we are the owner and publisher of these pictures.

Alltec Site: [[8]] Ticket (2014011010008301): [[9]]

Please contact me for any questions. Thanks a lot Felix --Alltec GmbH (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: : the template you entered on the user's talk page is broken and the ticket is not accessible to permission operators. Ankry (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ankry: Whoops, I fixed the template... tried to 'name' a parameter that's not named. I had also linked it on the talk page however. The ticket number isn't 'broken', it's just in the dewiki queue (not commons), but was verified by a Commons admin who has access to the dewiki queue... see otrswiki:Café#Need_a_dewiki_ticket_checked_for_Commons. AFAIK, the ticket only addresses the 'identity' of the account. Reventtalk 10:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose First, that ticket is not in a permissions queue, so it cannot be accessed (and thus confirmed) by Commons OTRS members. Secondly, it apparently identifies that the Alltec_GmbH account is genuinely affiliated with that company (Alltec); this is distinct from identifying that 1) Alltec is the copyright holder of these works and 2) that Alltec has released those rights under a free license. These are very different types of ticket and the latter is needed especially because these are promotional images taken from http://www.foba.de, where Alltec ≠ Foba. Why would we accept a ticket from Alltec for @fobalaser.com images? Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, FOBA is the Brand from Alltec GmbH. I think when we start to publish our images for two years, I think I would be not allowed to create a "Brand Account", so we take this way and create a company account. If it changed or this way is wrong please give me an idea how it works for wikipedia and how can I fix this issue. --Alltec GmbH (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 Support FOBA is in fact a brand of Alltec GmbH, see the headquarters address. So if the user account was previously confirmed (at de.wiki) to operate an Alltec email account I don't see any problems. But ultimately a new email from an Alltec email account to OTRS should suffice. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I will send you an email from an Alltec email account to OTRS. Where can I do this? --Alltec GmbH (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at COM:OTRS/de. It may take some time though for this new ticket to be processed. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If/when OTRS permission is received and processed, these files can be restored. --INeverCry 21:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:McDowell's No1.png

This McDowell's No1 Whiskey logo is the own image which is created by me. It does not violate any Copyrights. unknowingly i uploaded this image twice. Please check and let me use this image.

Sachi4k (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You may have created this version, but it obviously a derivative work of the logo of McDowell's Whisky, and infringes on the brand's copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This image i have created for the brand itself. brand asked to create the logo and update the Wiki page. so can you please tell how to go about it..? Sachi4k (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

First, note that if you are working for the brand, you are violating the rules on Conflict of Interest both here and at WP:EN, see WP:COI. Any work you do there is likely to be removed.
Second, the label is copyrighted. In order for an image of it to be hosted on Commons, an authorized official of the company must send a free license to OTRS. That e-mail must come directly from a domain that is directly traceable to United Spirits Limited such as unitedspirits.in. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Abrikoss

{{PD-Russia}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrikoss (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Abrikoss (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for {{PD-Russia}} to apply, you must prove either (a) that the author died before 1942 or 1946 or (b) that the works were published anonymously before 1946. Note that the fact that you may not know who the author was does not prove that the image was published anonymously -- you must show when and where it was actually published and that the author was anonymous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above - evidence supporting {{PD-Russia}} is needed. --INeverCry 21:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Forsonkwesi

Please restore the following pages:

  1. File:Cape Coast Castle in a haze.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  2. File:Elmina Castle overlooking sea front.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  3. File:Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum picture.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  4. File:Larabanga Mosque picture.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  5. File:Slave Market of Abonse.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  6. File:James town Lighthouse.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  7. File:Home in Ashanti.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  8. File:Casely-hayford 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  9. File:Louis Ekow Casely-Hayford.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: i took quite a number of the photos myself and others with consult therefore, i find it extreme to remove them. Thus I request an undeletion. 41.204.53.189 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose

1-5 and 9 are all small, which suggests strongly that they are not your work. They are too small to be useful. If you actually took them, you could upload (1) and (2) again, with the same name, at full camera resolution.
3-5 and 7 infringe on the copyright belonging to the creator of the work pictured.
6, 8, and 9 appear without a free license elsewhere on the Web.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Elcobbola - copyright violations. --INeverCry 21:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Please restore File:Olegs Latisevs.jpg

Hello, guys. Could I pay your attention to Wiki page Oļegs Latiševs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%C4%BCegs_Lati%C5%A1evs Jcb decide to remove this picture, because "suspected copyright violation ; Olegs Latisevs may not be the photographer since he's on the photograph El Funcionario (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)". Can I ask you to restore this image, because I assure you that it was given to me by the hero of this article Olegs Latisevs, from his personal archive. This photo was taken solely at the request of the author Olegs Latisevs, there is no other copyright holders. You may have seen similar photos Olegs Latisevs in the same uniform. This is possible because in this t-shirt he has performed on a variety of tournaments, including the Olympics. If recovery is not possible, that you recommend me? Can I ask Olegs Latisevs another photo, the right to the possession of which he will give me. Amatour82 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Although many people think that they are the copyright holder of any picture depicting them, in principle the photographer is the copyright holder. Please forward evidence of permission from the photographer to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose In the absence of a formal written agreement transferring the copyright, the copyright holder is the photographer and not the subject. If there is such an agreement, please have the photographer send a copy of it to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Leo messi barce 2005.jpg

Please restore File:Leo messi barce 2005.jpg because we have OTRS permission from author with valid license (ticket:2016091610005044). See also: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Ticket#2016091510006911. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done De728631 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Screenshot z gry Skullstone.jpg

Hi,

It was a screenshot taken from the computer game Skullstone. I'm the author of that game, it was used in Wikipedia page. --FrozenShade666 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the game has several developers that all must agree to license any screenshots. Thuresson (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Several problems here:

  • I find the image on Twitter without a free license. That could be solved if the copyright holder sends a free license to OTRS, but the other problems overwhelm it.
  • I find nothing on the Web about the game except limited, pre-release puffing by its developers. Also, despite the comment above, I see no WP article. That means that the game is probably out of scope because it is not notable.
  • Anything done here or on WP by the game's developers violates policy on Conflict of Interest.
  • It looks to me like the attempt to put the game here is simply more pre-release puffing, which violates Commons policy on advertising and promotion.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear authorship, out of project scope plus Conflict of Interest. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lindauer Hängung 2.jpg

Oben genannte Datei ist das Dokumentarphoto einer Teilausstellung/Ausstellungswand. Sämtliche abgebildeten Kunstwerke sind mit dem Einreichen und der Aufnahme in die Ausstellung vertraglich zwischen mir, dem Aussteller und den jeweiligen Künstlern für jedwede Veröffentlichung freigegeben. Ich bin Urheber des Photos und habe es im Rahmen der Ausstellungsdokumentation selbst aufgenommen und anschließend selbst bearbeitet. Es gibt keine weiteren Rechte Dritter an diesem speziellen Bild. Das Abbild belegt darüber hinaus einen im dazugehörigen Artikel beschriebenen Sachverhalt von allgemeinem Interesse aus dem Bereich der zeitgenössischen Kunst. Oevae13, 16.09.2016 Oevae 13 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Beinhaltet diese vertragliche Vereinbarung nur die Veröffentlichung von Fotos oder auch die Weitergabe und Abwandlung des Inhalts unter einer freien Lizenz? Eine Creative Commons Lizenz CC-by-4.0 bedeutet, dass jedermann auf die Abbildungen der Originalkunstwerke zugreifen darf, sie verändern und damit Geld verdienen kann, ohne die eigentlichen Künstler vorher zu fragen oder zu entschädigen. Es ist die Voraussetzung für alle Dateien auf Wikimedia Commons, dass der Inhalt von jedermann frei für alle möglichen Zwecke verwendet werden kann, und das erscheint mir hier zweifelhaft. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lindauer Hängung 1.jpg

Oben genannte Datei ist das Dokumentarphoto einer Teilausstellung/Ausstellungswand. Sämtliche abgebildeten Kunstwerke sind mit dem Einreichen und der Aufnahme in die Ausstellung vertraglich zwischen mir, dem Aussteller und den jeweiligen Künstlern für jedwede Veröffentlichung freigegeben. Ich bin Urheber des Photos und habe es im Rahmen der Ausstellungsdokumentation selbst aufgenommen und anschließend selbst bearbeitet. Es gibt keine weiteren Rechte Dritter an diesem speziellen Bild. Das Abbild belegt darüber hinaus einen im dazugehörigen Artikel beschriebenen Sachverhalt von allgemeinem Interesse aus dem Bereich der zeitgenössischen Kunst. Oevae13, 16.09.2016 Oevae 13 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Siehe oben. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. I doubt very much that the artists gave away all rights to reproduce their works for commercial use. If you believe that the contract actually includes a free license for any use of the works anywhere, including commercial use, then I suggest you send a copy of the contract to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s is required. --INeverCry 00:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

No Title

I have sent what you told me I had to do, but the picture has been deleted... The picture is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldvs (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This presumably refers to File:Pablo Soler Frost.jpg, which is your only upload. The actual photographer -- not you -- must send a free license to OTRS. If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 00:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

its myself taking the picture

its myself taking the picture — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.150.214.106 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeWe delete around 1,700 images every day. Since you didn't tell us what image you want undeleted and you also didn't give your user name, there is no way for us to do anything here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please log in to your account to make a proper undeletion request. --INeverCry 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:JP portrait.jpg

Hello,

JP Chabrol was my father and this portrait belongs to our family 's stock. Regards

Mireille Chabrol — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:E34:ED09:8E00:D920:B185:986C:8E43 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This file was a duplicate of File:Justin Packshaw.jpg which is up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Justin Packshaw.jpg. You should comment there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Jim: this is clearly not a duplicate of File:Justin Packshaw.jpg (Jean-Pierre Chabrol ≠ Justin Packshaw, and two totally different photos). The problem is, however, that the image had been published here without a free licence before it was uploaded at Commons. @Kikouchab: , are you the photographer that took these photos in the file history? Free licences can only be granted by the photographer or their heirs. De728631 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Aha, sorry for the confusion. There are two deleted files:
On Commons, the difference in capitalization is important. Since the IP user who posted this UnDR did not link the file, I turned up the wrong one.
As far as this image (File:JP portrait.jpg) goes, "this portrait belongs to our family 's stock" is probably not relevant. Owning a copy (paper or digital) of a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright. The copyright is almost always owned by the photographer and we require that he or she license it freely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You uploaded two completely different images of Chabrol under File:JP portrait.jpg, which is not exactly supportive of the purport that you are trying to upload a family image. They appear to have been take from here and here, respectively. Otherwise, per Jim, physical and intellectual property rights are distinct. I'm not convinced you own either, for either, but OTRS permission is required for previously published images all the same. Эlcobbola talk 22:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s is required. --INeverCry 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ioana Ciolacu and Stella McCartney at Designer for Tomorrow Award 2013.png

I have asked for consent from the owner, which not only sent me the above picture, but also sent wiki a mail approving the picture! It is the third time you are deleting this specific picture but I have took all the measures, including consent from the owner, to use it here. Please consider this before deleting it or specify further measures I should take in order for me to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocomoto (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at https://www.designer-for-tomorrow.com/2013/07/04/the-dft-winner-2013-is-announced-congratulations-to-ioana-ciolacu-miron/. In order to restore it, the actual copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS. Note that owning a copy of the image does not make one the copyright owner. The copyright owner is usually the photographer. If anyone else claims the right to license it, the OTRS message must include a copy of the written contract between the photographer and the person or organization writing to OTRS. Note also that, like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks after receiving the message that it is acted on.
If the actual copyright holder has already sent a license to OTRS, then he should have immediately received an automatic reply with a ticket number. If that did not happen, then the message was sent to the wrong place..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We have received a ticket (2016091510007884), however: 1) it does not contain a specific license and 2) it applies to images attached to the ticket, which are not the same as this one. Restoration of the image(s), if any, will be handled for you once the issues are resolved; you do not need to continue making UnDr requests [10]. Also, do not continue reuploading images in the meantime ("It is the third time you are deleting this specific picture"). Эlcobbola talk 22:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Insufficient OTRS permission - once this is resolved, the file can be restored. --INeverCry 00:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nick Verreos IOTW Fashion Week.jpg should be undeleted and reposted.

As the Wiki records indicate, the photo referenced above was uploaded by user Nikolaki2. Nikolaki2 is the account for design label Nikiolaki, which was founded and is owned by designer Nick Verreos and designer/photographer David Paul. There was no reason for this photo to have deleted. The only reason for the deletion is that, after more than 3 years, someone said they thought the photograph looked too professional! The photographer, David Paul, is a designer as well as a highly-skilled photographer. So, it would be questionable if the photo didn't look professional. The only other place the photo has been published is the blog posted by Nick Verreos. Nick Verreos is the subject in the picture and, as stated above, the co-owner of Nikolaki. Please undelete the photo. Mohansen11 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose There is a reason this photo was deleted: it appeared here, in a more complete version, prior to its upload to the Commons. In this circumstance, additional evidence of permission needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Permission needs to come from David Paul, the photographer per above, using a verifiably associated/official domain (e.g. @nikolakidesign.com [11]). Эlcobbola talk 23:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Refugecollection.jpg

Hi, could I please request undeletion of file File:Refugecollection.jpg

I know the owner of the content (Steve Dillon) and have his permission to use the image to enhance the Wikipedia database.

Could you please let me know if there is a way to have Mr Dillon confirm this?

Thankyou in advance

--Mortalboi (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Please restore File:Mt Noorat.jpg was removed by Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

THIMC, The image is an extract from Google Earth. Before adding I reviewed Commons policy as well as Google permissions. I followed the advice from Google permissions, namely "As long as you follow the guidance on this page, and attribute the Content correctly, feel free to move forward with your project" (https://www.google.com.au/permissions/geoguidelines.html, and (https://www.google.com.au/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html). Googles advice is that by using the Google provided API "Google Earth Pro", and ensuring that the automatically "baked in" attribution is not removed from the image, then we are unencumbered in using it. The attribution line included in the image is "Google Earth, Image © 2016 Digital Globe", which cites Google, and the digital provider, as Google requires. Google do not give written permissions as a matter of policy, and it is no surprise considering the administrative burden that would impose. They instead give a blanket permission as long as you attribute the material according to their guidelines, which I have. This should be treated as copyrighted material for which permission has been provided for its use. The image linked to a Wikipedia page which had no image for the geological feature concerned, and the image provided an excellent exposition of the feature and directly related to the descriptive text adjacent. No other image of the feature was available on commons. Please restore it. I am disappointed that when I followed the guidelines, and gave this information in the submission to the documentation, that the addition was subject to a bot removal. Regards --Pesky Varmint (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per elcobbola. It is unlikely that Google will allow commercial use without needing permission for their Google Earth maps. --★ Poké95 09:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)

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

File:OS X El Capitan MacBook Pro'l.jpg

Hello, I wanted to ask how is the file:OS X El Capitan MacBook Pro'l.jpg a violation of copyrights? --MacWikiEst (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: It's not, the photograph anyway. It was flagged by a bot due to being an external source with no license template. I don't know why the deleting admin didn't check the source. Please provide a license template when you upload an image to help avoid this in the future. I've restored the image, but will open a DR to address the issue of being derivative of the OS. --Эlcobbola talk 14:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Screenshot-from-the-sira-app-for-kids.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm one of employees of AlphaApps FZ LLC the owner of this photo. and we give this photo a promotion to publish as CC for wikimedia. Tarepsh (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Tarepsh: Hello, please ask the software writer of this application to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the software writer/copyright holder irrevocably agree to release their software under the GNU General Public License (not CC because CC licenses are not recommended to be used on software, if you took this screenshot, then you may dual-license it with CC-BY(-SA)-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
 Oppose The image comes from a copyrighted game. Therefore policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS.
Note that both here and on WP, editing by employees of the subject is strongly discouraged and such work may be deleted (as it already has been at WP:EN and WP:AR. Please read the policy on conflict of interest and the policy on advertising. At a bare minimum you may be blocked from editing unless you declare your connection to the subject on your User Page on every project on which you make edits -- User:Tarepsh, User:Tarepsh and إنشاء «مستخدم:Tarepsh»..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Blackpink.jpg

This picture is an official picture of girl group Blackpink, it's not fan taken, it's an official picture released by their company, it's been released on several sites to promote the group and posting it on their own wikipedia page isn't a violation of copyright but is a way to help people who go on their wiki page understand who they are.

--Maice2001 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:La Presse März 1989 über "Der Neapelfries".png

Gerne beantrage ich - nachdem ich Permissions alle erforderlichen Angaben via Email gesendet habe - die Wiederherstellung dieser Datei. Besten Dank --Riboa111 (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --INeverCry 07:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:F.Horenský.jpg

Please undelete this file per ticket:2016080810002779. Thank you --Mates (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mates: Please add the ticket. --INeverCry 07:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Vgb.jpg

Esta imagen es de mi propiedad e incluso esta autorIzada por el personaje del articulo a usarse, por favor restaurarla, gracias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipedia (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Since this photo has been published elsewhere, please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to proceed. Thuresson (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 07:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

tarcisio lima.jpg

o arquivo é de autoria de minha esposa, em minha própria câmera (celular)! é a foto que eu uso em meu perfil, no «facebook”. --CIS LIMA (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

??? There is not now and never has been a file named File:tarcisio lima.jpg. User:CIS LIMA has no uploaded files. Without knowing the correct name of the file, we cannot restore it.

Please note that if your wife is the copyright holder, then she, not you, must upload it or, if you uploaded it, she must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not actionable: no file indicated. --Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Funke Abimbola.jpg

This image was deleted on the 7th of September 2016. Meanwhile the OTRS permission was sent on the 10th July 2016. I noticed administrative gap here.

email contents redacted --Storkk (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I hereby request for the restoration of this material Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

 Not done: Procedural close: OTRS has been submitted. The volunteer who handles the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the image for you. The queue is backlogged, so please be patient. --Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: @Olaniyan Olushola: This is ticket:2016071010008903. Morgankevinj replied to this ticket on August 22 requesting clarification as to the filename here, but no response (other than an automated out-of-office) has been received since. Now that you have clarified it is File:Funke Abimbola.jpg (which matches the file attached to the ticket), Morgankevinj may be able to proceed... however it may need another back and forth. Storkk (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bocca di Magra capitelli.jpg

OTRS authorization obtained with ticket:2016090210009218.
Same as per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-09#Necropoli_di_Cafaggio. Thanks. --Ruthven (msg) 17:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ruthven: Please add the ticket. --INeverCry 22:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Whitby-Loftus Line. Published 25th April, 2012..JPG

Dear Sir,

I, Michael Aufrere Williams, am the author of this book and I uploaded the photograph of the book's cover. Confusion no doubt arose as my user name at that time was Fiders41 (now changed to Michael Aufrere Williams). Therefore please insert the photograph of the book's cover.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Michael A. Williams Michael Aufrere Williams (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)19th September, 2016.

 Oppose Three problems here. First, this is a copyrighted book and we have no way here of knowing that User:Michael Aufrere Williams is actually the author of the book. We routinely solve that by having the publisher send a free license to OTRS.
Second, we will need proof that you have properly licensed the copyright to the photograph on the cover. That may also be sent to OTRS. Since you wrote a masters thesis in 2010, it is very unlikely (although not, of course, impossible0 that you are old enough to have taken a photograph before 1959 and that the photograph is actually your own work as claimed.
Third, and most serious, the book does not appear at Amazon.com, so there is a real question of whether it is notable and therefore within the scope of Commons. I note that you have cited several of your writings in the article Whitby, Redcar and Middlesbrough Union Railway. It is against policy on both Commons and WP:EN to use the projects for advertising your work. Conflict of Interest is also something we take seriously and citing works which you wrote is a clear problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BookVenture.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Mspelling (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you just reupload the photo? The logo is not licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 because the website says so. However, the logo is in simply shapes and fonts. Hence, I think the photo would qualify under {{PD-textlogo}}. ( Keep do not delete) Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Keep Changed copying conditions to Template:PD-textlogo. 80.221.159.67 11:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Image was (inappropriately) reuploaded by Mspelling before or during this discussion, but it is {{PD-textlogo}} and has now been relicensed to reflect the same. --Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:BOX 750mL SideBRUTwhite.tif

We own the rights to this file. Please undo its deletion. Contact cb@rocnation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrocntion (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BOX 750mL SideBRUTwhite.tif, this is a copyrighted advertisement. Policy requires that the copyright owner send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Elcobbola. --Storkk (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Zeljko Pahek, artist, with signature (2015).jpg

From everything I can see, the image was correctly uploaded, from a reliable source, that was correctly referenced, and which clearly publishes it under a free license. I can see no reason for deletion. Nikola (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The source indeed says photos of authors are CC-by-SA; however, that site is dated 21 May 2016 and this image previously appeared here at least as early as 09 March 2016 with the notice "© Modesty Comics". This could be COM:LL; I would say COM:PRP requires some sort of explanation/reconciliation if this is to be restored. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Obviously for all speakers of Serbian, page from 21st May is an official Modesty Comics press release, when all materials were released via USUS official site. Press release is also signed by owner of Modesty Comics, Živojin Tamburić himself, who is also member of Association Of Serbian Comic Creators (USUS, Udruženje stripskih umetnika Srbije). Thus all text and photos are officially under CC license from that moment. I would like some other Serbian users to confirm this fact. And I would like to remind that USUS officially adopted its licensing policy under influence and suggestion of Serbian Wikipedia several years ago. --Stripar (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The signature of Živojin Tamburić appears before the photo of Pahek and the related biography, suggesting the photo/bio were not part of the purported release. One does not sign documents in the middle, even in Serbia. If the owner of Modesty Comics has released this with a CC license, it would be a trivial matter to submit confirmation using the process at COM:OTRS. Until then, there is no evidence that the USUS post would override the Modesty Comic notice. The discrepancy needs to be reconciled. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
        • OK, I will let both Modesty Comics and USUS to deal with that particular image and COM:OTRS. In meantime, may I use on Wikipedias other two images from same category (Željko Pahek), which both are exclusively published on USUS site and thus automatically cleared on Commons, per its licensing? --Stripar (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have used "Zeljko Pahek, artist (2015).jpg" for which there is no doubt and discrepancy is it under CC license. As for general legal confirmation, it will be send tomorrow on behalf of official parties. --Stripar (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: This can be restored upon processing and confirming of OTRS permission. --INeverCry 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Thanisthan, Bandipur.jpg

I didn't know for which reason this photo was deleted at just requested by a person with no reason. This is my work and i'm regular contributor of the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajivkilanashrestha (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The image was deleted per this request. The closing admin @Taivo: concluded that "nothing special is depicted" and that the image was not in the project scope of Commons. I think that the depiction of the fog or clouds in the valley is in fact a valuable subject, but there are certain bits and pieces that make me oppose the restoration of this particular image. In my opinion, the perspective was quite poorly chosen: even if the trees on the right side and parts of the sky are cropped out, you would still have the useless metal frame in the centre of the photo. We have better images in Category:Sea of clouds. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason for deletion can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thanisthan, Bandipur.jpg. The request and rationale are not particularly well worded, but I read it to be essentially an invocation of "poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples" from COM:NOTUSED. The image is not in focus, is tilted, is poorly framed, etc. as per De728631 above. Is there a particular reason this is unique or otherwise educational? Эlcobbola talk 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The islands and clouds give it a certain appeal, and if photo-shopped to remove the metal frame in the middle and straighten it, I think it would be a good image. As it stands now, I think our colleagues are correct in not wanting it. And, yes, it is certainly true that we have many -- a million? -- poorer images, but we can only deal with them one at a time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: out of COM:SCOPE. --INeverCry 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Statuten des Vereins Zaniglaser Bergführerwesen.jpg

Beschreibung:

Deutsch: Deckblatt (erste Seite) der Statuten des Vereins Zaniglaser Berführerwesen, Schweizer Kanton Wallis Datum: 12. September 2016 Quelle: Christian Imboden Urheber: Christian Imboden Genehmigung (Weiternutzung dieser Datei): Christian Imboden

Christian Imboden (Diskussion) 12:34, 18. Sep. 2016 (CEST)

 Oppose No reason given for deletion. We know what it is and that you claim to be the author, but it apparently belongs to an association of guides and in order to keep it here, we will need a free license from an authorized official of the association using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The deletion discussion reveals that the issue is about an illustration shown in the image. Specifically, it is a drawing of the badge issued by the umbrella organisation of Swiss mountain guides to an approved guide. It is similar to this one so obviously the original design copyright needs to be cleared. De728631 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Abhinay banker Writer shot.jpg

The photo had been uploaded by the creator named Gaurang Anand and he had given all right from his account+computer that the image is free to use.

I do not have any idea about the user named 'coderzombie' but he/she had requested many times deletation of the page+photos and everytime it had been resulted in KEEP. He/she must be having personal benefits if this page won't be on Wikipedia. This must be checked even.

thanks

Jaydev Pala (talk)

 Oppose The image appears at http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Abhinay%20Banker. That site has an explicit copyright notice and does not allow the reuse of images. In order to retore the image on Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward That is a wikimirror site and check it clearly shows "CONTENT FROM WIKIPEDIA" and "LICENSED UNDER CC-BY-SA" in this case; how it can be the copyright holder?! You have understood it WRONGLY!

also, this website don't seems to be a notable reference as well. One can contact the copyright holder on social media if needed with his name 'Gaurang Anand' as I can't post here an agreement indicating the usage of the same!

The image had been uploaded by the creator with all credits and copyrights about free use then what else need to be proved?

thanks Jaydev Pala (talk)

Your are correct about revolvy.com, thank you for pointing it out.
The subject image was first uploaded by User:Jaydev Pala as File:AbhinayBankerWriter.jpg and was claimed as "own work". That version had no meaningful EXIF. The version above was uploaded by User:The gaurang anand and also claimed as "own work". The second version has EXIF claiming that the copyright holder is Gaurang Anand, but, given that it is different from the earlier version, I suspect strongly that that is a fake. Also note that it is the only upload by this user.
Given the history of two different people claiming to be the photographer and the history of changes in EXIF, I would oppose keeping this image on Commons no matter what evidence might be presented through OTRS.
Note also that your claims above about User:coderzombie are entirely incorrect -- I have reviewed his recent DRs and they are all valid and most have been closed as 'delete'. None have been closed as 'kept'. Your assertion that he must have a Conflict of Interest is not in the best interests of Commons. Making false accusations against colleagues may result in your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no vested interest in removing the images by this user, but this user has consistent record of abusing Wikipedia. He has uploaded many copyrighted pictures and all have been deleted. That's the reason I am suspicious that the other account might be sockpuppet of the same user. Coderzombie (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I, too, was suspicious, and ran a Checkuser on him. There is no apparent relationship between the two accounts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I did a quick search and it seems a photographer named "Gaurang Anand" has clicked pictures of "Abhinay Banker" and he has some on his facebook photography page. If he can verify that he has indeed released the picture with required license. That should be ok I guess. Right? facebook page. Coderzombie (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
However, all the pictures on the photography page are clearly copyrighted, so there'd have to be explicit proof that it's indeed the photographer who is uploading the pictures. Coderzombie (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward & Coderzombie this is the exact link of this photo of Gaurang Anand's Facebook profile: The same photo on Gaurang Anand's Facebook Profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydev Pala (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC) thanks Jaydev Pala (talk)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ptolemy III AE 34mm Hemidrachm.jpg

I actually asked the www.wildwinds.com regarding this image. I just haven't had enough time to add this info. Could the file be restored?

File:Ptolemy III AE 34mm Hemidrachm.jpg

Hey! May I use your image in Russian Wikipedia article? http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/egypt/ptolemy_III/Svoronos_0965.1.jpg

Hi Stepan
Yes, you may you the image. As source could you please add the information "With permission of wildwinds.com, coin ex-CNG Triton V Sale, 15 Jan 2002, lot 569".
best wishes to Russia from Switzerland.

--Frater Iens (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We need the permission to be a free license; see COM:OTRS for the form of permission we'd need, and be sent directly from the copyright owner. Simple permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough. The OTRS process aims to make clear what permissions are being granted (to everyone not just Wikipedia), and tries to verify that the permission does in fact come from the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Margit Saulep.jpg

Hello!

This photo is bought by me and I have rights to publish it where ever I want. I'm a public person and I must have a photo uploaded. The page Margit Saulep is managed by myself.Since I cannot take photo of me myself. Please undelete it. --Mammu8 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Best

Margit Saulep

Please have the photographer confirm that they sold you the copyright by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Please note that since we only accept photos that everyone can use for any purpose (including commercial), if you just bought the publicity rights that is not sufficient. Also please note that you in no way own your Wikipedia page, and that "managing" your own Wikipedia page is strongly discouraged and may lead to your being blocked. Paying others to do so without disclosure violates Wikimedia's Terms of use. You are welcome to request edits on Wikipedia by following the instructions on w:WP:Edit_requests. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Taivo: I couldn't find any etwiki transwiki links for W:WP:COI (or any related policy)... as it isn't listed on m:Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policies, I believe the WMF site policy holds, but perhaps you could give Mammu8 some guidance? Storkk (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The photographer must send OTRS either (a) a free license or (b) a copy of the license to Margit Saulep which allows her to freely sublicense it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BDCYL CyL Digital.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We are owner and publisher of this digital magazine "CyL digital": Junta de Castilla y León http://www.cyldigital.es/revista-cyldigital and we are the preservation responsable: Biblioteca Digital de Castilla y León http://bibliotecadigital.jcyl.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=19402. Thank you! Biblioteca CyL (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Domcorfr: (user has been renamed) unfortunately a simple statement like this is insufficient. Please understand that anyone could create an account and claim to work for a publishing company, so we need some more evidence. Please have your company send an email from an address associated with CyL digital as outlined in COM:OTRS. This is our standard procedure to confirm the free licence for images that have previously been published and were non-free. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Skinny Fresco.jpg

I hereby affirm that I Fresh Moss aka (Skinny Fresco), the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photograph as shown here: File:Skinny Fresco.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.

--OTHBanman (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [Date September 20th 2016]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File: Casually dressed little girls imitating the dreaded terrorist group boko haram.jpg

please note that this file was nominated for deletion which would be unfair. This picture file was uploaded not to insult any religion but to show the reaction of children to terrorism. Since children deserve to have a voice, deleting this file is an approach to steal their right of freedom of expression from them, this will also hide the truth about the psychological effect that terrorism has on children living in a terrorist zone. This is simply children reacting to the violence happening in there environment because they are unfairly victims of human violence etc., and this is there sincere expression, not politically or religiously motivated but motivated by pure sense of human expression.

File: Casually dressed little girls imitating the dreaded terrorist group boko haram.jpg must not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejazzeez (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: This venue is for requesting that deleted images be restored. This image hasn't been deleted. Please direct your comment/s to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casually dressed little girls imitating the dreaded terrorist group boko haram.jpg. --INeverCry 20:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Casually dressed small children imitating the infamous boko haram terrorist group1.jpg

please note that this file was nominated for deletion which would be unfair. This picture file was uploaded not to insult any religion but to show the reaction of children to terrorism. Since children deserve to have a voice, deleting this file is an approach to steal their right of freedom of expression from them, this will also hide the truth about the psychological effect that terrorism has on children living in a terrorist zone. This is simply children reacting to the violence happening in there environment because they are unfairly victims of human violence etc., and this is there sincere expression, not politically or religiously motivated but motivated by pure sense of human expression.

File: Casually dressed little girls imitating the dreaded terrorist group boko haram.jpg must not be deleted File:Casually dressed small children imitating the infamous boko haram terrorist group1.jpg must not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejazzeez (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Same as above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:J. Jewels-Ne-yo-640.jpg

This is my file. I let other people use it and gave them the right to use it so why is it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan coombs (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because it appears at http://jeimusicgroup.com/medfords-j-jewels-releases-new-summer-single-launches-own-music-label/ and other places with an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore it to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ny BG copy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Valid permission via OTRS 2016032510012904 - Please only restore "Ny BG copy.jpg" and its english version (I can't know which one it is between "Notes from Hell 2014 eBook edition.jpg" and ""Notes From Hell".jpg") Scoopfinder(d) 13:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. I restored File:Ny BG copy.jpg and File:Notes from Hell 2014 eBook edition.jpg which is the same cover image with an English title. File:"Notes From Hell".jpg has a different design and another cover image. @Scoopfinder: please add the relevant OTRS tags to the descriptions. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you De728631, I will add the OTRS templates, rename them and anwser on OTRS. Best, --Scoopfinder(d) 14:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Monochrom--Soviet Unterzoegersdorf Sector 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016071110016303 - valid permission received. Notify me when restored and I will add the template and so on :-) Scoopfinder(d) 14:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Scoopfinder: Please add the ticket. --INeverCry 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:JESUS DE LA PASIÓN EN SU CAÍDA.JPG

Jesús de la Pasión en su Caída. Cofradía de Nuestra Señora de los Dolores Albacete. Foto: Juan José Reyes Alfaro Juan José Reyes AB (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Closed -- This image has not been deleted, so there is nothing to be done here.

It probably will be deleted, because (a) it is heavily watermerked, {b} there is no evidence that the uploader is the person in the watermark, (c) the uploader has a record of claiming "own work" on an image that is obviously not his work (see below), and (d) we are not told where this is, so the image may or may not infringe on the copyright of the sculpture pictured. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:La arboleda perdida bahira.jpg

Yo tengo todos los derechos de esta foto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arte1258 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a book cover. In order to restore it we will need (a) evidence that the book is notable and (b) a free license from the publisher via OTRS. That must include evidence that the publisher has a license to the image on the cover which permits the publisher to freely license it. (Most book illustrations are licensed only for the book). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. --INeverCry 22:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Texto sobre Lugás-2.jpg

Hi: The picture is not in Internet; the book has not copyright notice or your symbol or ISBN. Please replace.Adolfobrigido (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

He's right. Please delete it.Adolfobrigido (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Texto sobre Lugás-1.jpg

Hi: The picture not in Internet; the book has not copyright notice or symbol or ISBN. Please replace.Adolfobrigido (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

He's right. Please delete it. Adolfobrigido (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Closed at request of person posting the request. Note that all text has a copyright. Copyright notice or the symbol is no longer required and ISBN has nothing to do with copyright. Also, we do not keep images of text. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

NRK images

I work for NRK and we own the image. It is in NRK's interest that this image not is deleted.

Best regards Håvard Wien Production manager DAB NRK Broadcasting-services Mobil: 90 98 34 72 Tel.direct: 23 04 42 25 Post: NRK, FN32, PB. 8500 Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo nrk.no

--Håvard Wien (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply

 Oppose Please send an email from your business email account as outlined in COM:OTRS. Requests like this cannot be handled directly at the message board require a confirmation per email. Once the email message has been processed by our volunteer team, the images will be restored, but this may take some time. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jackthibeau.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my personal headshot and belongs to me Mtheeb (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears in a number of places on the Web without a free license. Policy therefore requires that the photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 02:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:PMS Production.jpg

We would like to request this file to be undeleted. Our reasons for this request is that this file is our property, it was watermarked through photoshop with the company's name: PMS Productions, so that it would not be used for other purposes,other than to represent our company.

Appreciating your considerations,

--Diliapacheco (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want this file to be used for other purposes than to represent your company you should probably not upload it here at all. Any media on Wikimedia Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial activities. So if you would still like the image to be restored with a free Creative Commons licence (anyone can do anything with the photograph), please send an email from an account associated with PMS Production. You can read more information and instructions at COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:PMS Production.jpg. OP uploaded this file and do not wish to have it freely licensed. Thuresson (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dolorosa Salzillo Albacete.jpg

Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, Albacete. Destruida el 17 de marzo de 1936. Foto Belda Juan José Reyes AB (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted above, the image is watermarked with "Foto J. Belda". That means that the uploader's claim that the photo is his "own work" is obviously incorrect. In order to restore the image we will need either (a) proof that J. Belda died before 1946 or (b) a free license from him or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Death date of J. Belda or OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Although it does not change the outcome, my comment above missed the fact that the Spanish law at the time of this image called for 80 years pma, not 70. If this work was destroyed in 1936 it cannot be out of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:عکس_سیامک_عباسی.jpg

حق کپی رایت کاملا رعایت شده بوده ! 5:24 , 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knonymous (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation of the Persian text: "The copyright was respected." 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the file description, the image comes from Instagram. Images on Instagram are not irrevocably and freely licensed, so are not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim/COM:NETCOPYVIO. --INeverCry 22:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Luftbild Leuchtenburg 2015.jpg

this is our picture that we uploaded. it is our own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiftung Leuchtenburg (talk • contribs) 06:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears in a variety of Web sites without a free license. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder -- almost always the photographer -- must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ankur Singla.jpg

It is an image which does not void any copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshi 010 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, it does. It appears in a wide variety of Web sites without any free license. In order to restore it here, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RoPeCastLogo.jpg

I am the original author of this logo in the context of the podcast project. The podcast behind the logo is licensed CC-BY-SA-NC-3.0 anyway, and I have the spoken consent (that is only necessary in terms of usage right, not of original copyright) of my two collaborators on the project to extend the licensing of the logo to the more general CC-BY-SA-3.0 (or later versions). I don't recall what licensing information I gave in the original upload, but if that information was missing, I may simply have forgot to add it. --chris 論 17:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo appears on the Web at several places, including https://www.szsb.uni-saarland.de/ropecast_nav.html, which has an explicit copyright notice. Policy therefore requires that the actual owner of the copyright must send a free license to OTRS. Note that CC-BY-SA-NC-3.0 or any other NC license is not acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 21:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Martingale-strategy-simulation-European roulette.png

I asked for permision to the owner of the picture, and they agreed to lend that picture to wikipedia, the owners are Casinoguru.es — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakdiel (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission has to be sent by email to OTRS. --INeverCry 00:46, 25 September 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

--59.61.209.250 02:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.svg. No new arguments have been presented. Thuresson (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Fantasy flag. No reason for undeletion given. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KSO vaakuna.png

Hi,

I would like to provide evidence why the decision to delete this picture was unfounded. The decision 1997:11 by the Copyright Council under the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture states that all the Coats of Arms of the municipalities of Finland are not copyright protected due to the 9th paragraph (9§) of the Finnish Copyright Law regarding the copyrights of public decisions.

Keskisuomalainen Osakunta (KSO) is a student nation, and according the the Finnish university laws, it is an autonomous statutory corporation. Like for the Finnish municipalities, the decisions made by student nations are the use of public policy. This means that the 9th paragraph of the copyright law of Finland also holds for student nations. Hence, I argue that the decision to delete the picture was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakkogo (talk • contribs) 16:59, 04 September 2016 (UTC)

There may be something missing in translation, but an "autonomous statutory corporation" makes it sound like it would be treated like any other corporation / legal person, and would not be considered a public authority (part of public government). Universities themselves are legally corporations from the looks of it, which are therefore also not public bodies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Keskisuomalainen Osakunta is not a municipality. According to Nations in Finnish universities, the existence and overall purpose of these Nations is regulated by the Universities Act. That an act says "The University of Helsinki shall have Finnish- and Swedish-language student nations corresponding to specified regions of the country" does not establish them as governmental entities, and language therein only supports, through implication, that they are private (e.g. " The student nations shall be self governing", "Provisions concerning the members, administration, finances and other operation of the student nations and the duty of the members to pay fees to the nation shall be laid down in the rules of the student nations", etc.) Эlcobbola talk 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong about the student nations being completely "private" entities. There are plenty of self governing public organizations in Finland, for example all the university student unions. They all are part of the indirect public administration in Finland. Student nations are not municipalities, but they are related. As the previous page states "Although the organisations of indirect State administration are not part of the actual State administration, they carry out statutory public tasks and, in some cases, execute public powers". I don't know if you can find a translation for the Finnish Copyright Law but it states that all public decisions are excluded from having a copyright. I brought up the case regarding the municipalities' coats of arms since it was similar legal case and it works well as a reference point. Student nation's decision about their coat of arms falls under this. The student nations have probably around 4000 members in total so it would be rather optimistic to hope that there were many specific legal cases about them. But if this doesn't convince you, I would like to know how could the image be reinstated? I am actually the treasurer of the said student nation and I honestly believe we can't grant a permission to use some picture that we can't legally claim copyright to. That decision might be illegal. Do we need to get a court decision to prove this? --Jaakkogo (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The World Intellectual Property Organization provides a translation. A coat of arms for a student nation (organization) is not 1) a law or decree; 2) a resolution, stipulation or other document (these all imply prose); 3) a treaty, convention or other international obligation document; 4) a decision or statement; or 5) a translation of a document. To the extent you imply the "Copyright Council under the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture" found otherwise, and that coats of arms are indeed among one of those categorizes, your own words are that the council's findings pertain to "Coats of Arms of the municipalities of Finland". A student nation, even if chartered or organized by an organ of the state, is not a municipality. If you want to restore this image, we need to receive permission directly from Keskisuomalainen Osakunta indicating that the coat of arms is free. If what you say is true, this should be a very simple to obtain. Эlcobbola talk 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand your point of view into some extend. But the Coat of arms and its chosen design is indeed a decision made by the student nation and hence it falls under the part 4) of the section 9 of the law. I can't understand how can you claim that it wasn't a decision. The precise form of the coat of arms is stated in written form in each student nations rules. How do you think those rules are made if not by a decision made by the student nation? The student nation has only written down on how its coat of arms should look like and the version I downloaded here was actually made by me.
Or do I understand correctly that you disagree about the student nations being "public authorities or other public bodies" as the law states? That also is that I can't understand since the student nations and their legal statuses are clearly founded in the university law. The fact that they are, makes them a public organization. I brought the case about Finnish municipalities up because it resembles this one and in jurisdiction similarities between legal cases and statements are important. The board even used these same argument in their decision.
Anyways, this probably can't be settled unless we give a direct permission. Would you care to advice us on how to provide this evidence? To whom shall we send it and what are the required evidence that it actually comes from us? I will most likely ask a statement from the copyright council regarding all Finnish student nations but that might take time and we would like to have the picture reinstated before that. --Jaakkogo (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Permission is handled through the OTRS process. INeverCry 04:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two issues here. First, the source given (http://www.kso.fi/) has an explicit copyright notice, so permission is required. Second, although the blazon (the written description of the CoA) may be PD, that does not make the specific realization shown here PD. It is often the case that the CoA is old or PD for other reasons, but this affects only the blazon -- the actual drawing has a separate copyright which must also be free. That has not been addressed above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Info Reuploaded on to fi:File:KSO vaakuna.png by original poster without permission while this undeletion request was ongoing. I've nominated for speedy deletion on Finnish Wikipedia as well.  Comment This kind of behavior is not very appreciated. 80.221.159.67 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The reupload image there indicates that it is non-free and is being claimed as fair use (the Logo template), which is perfectly legitimate and exactly what the OP should have done (assuming it complies with the fi.wiki EDP.) Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done (Non-administrator closure) Per opposition and Commons' precautionary principle, until more evidence of free use can be provided through OTRS. 80.221.159.67 13:50, 25 September 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 note that this article is created by me only and have not copied. The Image is used as free image which is not copyright. Hope your agree. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhuaman (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Madhuaman. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Teacher1943

File:Digon.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Work is original and own work.Please keep it.--Nagric 14:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Monogon.jpg

Reason is not clear for deletion.Work is original and notable.Please keep it.--Nagric 15:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Dihedral Angle.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear. Work is original , notable and own.Please keep it--Nagric 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)--Nagric 15:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Hemisphere-1.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Work is original , notable and own.--Nagric 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Dihedral angle.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Work is own, original and notable.--Nagric 15:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cone-1.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Own work,original and notable.Please keep it.--Nagric 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Right Circular Cone.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Own work,Original and notable.Please keep it.--Nagric 15:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)--Nagric 15:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to restore This venue is for images that have already been deleted. Please comment at each of the ongoing deletion discussions for these images. You can get there by clicking the link highlighted in the red deletion notice on each file page. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:C215-StreetArtFest2016-Grenoble-Mur6.jpg

These files have been delete by --ghouston because he "think these are copyrighted murals, so licenses from the artists are required".

First, before deleting files, please, ask me if I have the artist permission. I sent an email to the artist named "C215" to ask him to publish these captures on wikipedia, after the Grenoble Street Art Fest and he agreed. Consequently, please, undelete theses files. Thx

Zassenhaus (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for these to be restored to Commons, the artist or artists must send free license(s) directly to OTRS. Any e-mail correspondence you may have had is irrelevant because we require that the license must come directly from the artist and because permission to "publish these captures on wikipedia" is insufficient -- we require that images be free for any use by anyone, anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Free licences including commercial re-use must be issued directly by the original artist. The appropriate procedure is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg and more

Hello,

As you know, in Belgium there is now Freedom of Panorama. Therefore I am requesting here to restore all my following pictures, which were just deleted because of lack of FOP. At that time I had not experience enough and I did not konw about the FOP. However, since the 15 july 2016, the FOP exist in Belgium (have a look here: Commons:Freedom of panorama). Now they can be all restored:

List
* File:Mur BD Victor Sackville, Francis Carin. Brussels.jpg

Thank you!

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

and by the way, just as example, you can see as example that this file has already been restored:

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hmm. I'm not so sure. Clearly, any of these murals that were created entirely by the artist who painted them are now OK for Commons, and should be restored.
However, it appears that many of them include comic characters that themselves are copyrighted, so that there are two copyrights at work, that for the comic character and that for this representation of the comic character. I think that it is very likely -- certainly beyond our standard of "significant doubt" -- that most, perhaps all of those murals are not licensed from the holders of the copyrights for the characters portrayed.
FOP only works on the copyright belonging to the artist who created the public work. It does not allow use of works that themselves infringe on other copyrights. We cannot keep an image of Charlie Brown just because someone has painted it on a wall in an FOP country without a license from Charles Schultz's estate. Unless the mural shown in File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg has a license from Yves Chaland's heirs, we cannot keep it, either.
I suggest that we close this request and that Ferran Cornellà post two UnDRs, one for those images that show works that are not derivative works and the other, those that are. We can then rapidly undelete the former and consider the latter more carefully. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --INeverCry 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:الشيخ محمد فوزي الكركري.jpg

لماذا تريد حدف هذه الصورة ؟؟ فهي لشيخ الطريقة الكركرية الشيخ محمد فوزي الكركري و اعتقد انه لا يوجد فيها اي شيء يخالف قوانين الموقع وشكرا — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkariya (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Question Did you perhaps mean File:مشاييخ الطريقة.jpg? The image named above has not been deleted or nominated for deletion. On the other hand, File:مشاييخ الطريقة.jpg was deleted because it is advertising. Please read COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation of the Arabic text: "Why do you want to delete this image? The image is about the head of the order of Karkariya, Shaikh Muhammed Fawzi al-Karkari, and I do believe that there is nothing against the law. Thank you" 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You miss the point -- we don't want to delete the subject image -- it has not been deleted and it has never been tagged for deletion. Therefore the request and explanation is completely off target. I suggested that perhaps he meant File:مشاييخ الطريقة.jpg, because that is the only image by this uploader that has been deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close - the image that is the subject of the request hasn't been deleted. --INeverCry 22:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Luftbild Leuchtenburg 2015.jpg

We would like to ask for undelete this file as it is our work and was wrongly deleted. We are the foundation and owner of Leuchtenburg caslte and did take the picture ourself --Stiftung Leuchtenburg (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Stiftung Leuchtenburg

Das Bild ist leider bereits auf der Webseite der Stiftung veröffentlicht worden, und zwar ohne freie Lizenz: [13], daher benötigen wir zusätzlich die Bestätigung des Fotografen, dass das Foto nun unter der Lizenz cc-by-sa-4.0 verfügbar ist. Derartige Lizenzen können nur direkt durch den Inhaber des Urheberrechts vergeben werden, und das ist nach deutschem Recht der Fotograf. Sie müssten also den Fotografen bitten, dass er seine Freigabe per Email sendet, wie es hier beschrieben wird. De728631 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Alpavirama 2011 Web.Jpeg

Also:

Hi

Please Undelete the [files above]. The graphics are owned and made by Film and Video Communication Department in the National Institute of Design, Ahmadabad India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpavirama (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There is not now and never has been a file with the name File:Alpavirama 2011 Web.Jpeg, nor does the name resemble anything you have uploaded. The other two images are posters and there is no evidence that they are freely licensed or that you have the right to upload them. I note, by the way, that in the file descriptions for both you claimed that they were your own work. It is not helpful to Commons when users make incorrect claims. If these are to be restored to Commons, an authorized representative of the film production company must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Andrew Waggoner, Inwood, New York, NY, November 2015.jpg

I took this photo as described in the file name (in New York, NY (Inwood - Fort Tryon Park) in November 2015. I have all rights to this photo and have opted to share it on wikipedia making it free for all to use. Please, reinstate the deleted file. Thanks you, eshbowman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshbowman (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2016‎ (UTC)

The image has already been published on your website without a free licence, so please understand that we need additional proof that you are the original photographer. Please send an email confirming your free licenses for this image as outlined in COM:OTRS. Once this email has been processed by our volunteer team, the file will be restored but this may take some time. Alternatively you could add a disclaimer to your website stating that this particular image has been released under the free licences you chose here (CC-by-sa-4.0 and GFDL) or another free commercial licence of your choice. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is required. --INeverCry 22:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Spooky Southcoast Logo.jpg

File:Spooky Southcoast Logo.jpg

THIS FILE IS NOT IN COPYRIGHT VIOLATION, IT IS OWNED AND AQUIRED BY THE SPOOKY SOUTHCOAST RADIO SHOW/PODCAST AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE ON THEIR WIKI PAGE.

--MatthewBCosta (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose We need permission from the copyright holder to use it under a free licence, so either the original artist or a representative of the radio broadcaster – whoever does hold the copyright – should send an email to OTRS. Once such a mail has been processed by or team of volunteers, the image will be restored. That said, please don't write in ALL CAPS when using these noticeboards or talk pages. It is considered the equivalent to shouting or yelling at the reader. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gustavo Souza5000.jpg

In the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavo Souza5000.jpg, the image was claimed as "out of project scope", without any explanation. The image was deleted without further discussion.

However, User:GRS73 had deleted the whole file description of File:FotoGustavoparaWK.jpg and proposed it for speedy deletion with a link to this closed DR discussion, although the image is used in pt:Gustavo Lopes Pires de Souza. Both images seems to be related to that person. Photos of well identified jurist are IMHO in scope, regardless of fate of the article. --ŠJů (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Apparently our colleagues at WP:PT disagree with you about whether this man is notable. Since there is no article there, an image of him is indeed out of scope for Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: out of COM:SCOPE. --JEFF 07:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Presid 1.png

Motivo: Las imágenes son una edición personal realizada, utilizando la imagen de un baner institucional del Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco (http://www.justiciachaco.gov.ar/). En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que sus imágenes son de dominio público. Archivos Borrados: Presid 1.png Presid 2.png Presid 3.png Presid 4.png Presid 5.png --Anderwsont (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Adicionalmente encontre en la Web de "prensa" lo siguiente:

Se permite su reproducción con la condición de citar la fuente. Diseñado por la Dirección de Tecnologías de la Información - Área Sistemas Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco

http://prensa.justiciachaco.gov.ar/ --Anderwsont (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose There is no indication at the source provided with the images (www.justiciachaco.gov.ar) or the variant above that these images are in the public domain or freely licensed. "Se permite su reproducción con la condición de citar la fuente" is not adequate permission, as it does not indicate a specific license or explicitly address issues such as derivatives and commercial use (see COM:L). If you have contacted the organization and they have released the images ("En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que sus imágenes son de dominio público"), that correspondence needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 23:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --JEFF 07:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:KF Shkendija.png

The file you have deleted is the original logo of KF Shkëndija. If required i can provide documentation for this.

Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olum1212 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was deleted because the logo is copyrighted and non-free by default. We need permission from the copyright holder to upload it under a free Creative Commons licence. The copyright is either held by the designer who created the original logo or by the club. They can send an email as explained in COM:OTRS to validate the Creative Commons license. De728631 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --JEFF 07:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:El Hombrediario.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.75.137.118 (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO. --JEFF 07:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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

plese don't delete it.

This is my first wiki commons. So you will not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 223.176.56.38 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: procedural close - IP request with no image mentioned - please log in to make a request, and be sure to give the name of the file you want to have undeleted. --Jeff 07:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Female shows her paintings.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female shows her paintings.jpg, two reasons for deletion were argued:

  • Per nom.: «How the photo is in project scope? Who are these people?», asks User:Taivo
  • Closing remarks: «Maybe in scope, maybe not», says User:Jameslwoodward
 Keep: This photo shows a jury scene pertaining to a competition to chose images for U.S. Federal Duck Stamps, a subject which is in scope.
  • Question (not a delete vote): «What is the copyright status of that painting depicted?», asks User:Jkadavoor
  • Closing remarks: «we will need a license from the» author of the depicted painting, says User:Jameslwoodward
 Keep, for two reasons, both concurrent and antagonic:
  1. In the deleted photo, the painting is de minimis. I understand that its central position on the photo, regardless of how large it is on it, might support the opposing view, but this photo would retain much or all of its interest should the painting be blurred or blanked (a litmus test for cases of DM): Everybody knows how a duck painting might look like, but the photo shows us the four jury members seating facing the author (or merely a presenter?), and shows us that the event took place in a room with taxidermied birds, which are interesting details for the history of these competitions.
  2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the copyright owner of entries competing in the Federal Duck Stamp Contest‎, and therefore fully qualifies to licence the whole of this photo, painting included, as it did in the case at hand. Or so we can infer from the fact that we have in Commons for over two years 266 fac simile images of such entries, licensed as CC-by-sa by the refered U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in some of their Flickr streams and added to Commons as such in 2014, unchallended so far. (Should this be incorrect, these 266 images should be subjected to a deletion nomination on much stronger terms than the case at hand.)

Please consider undeletion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted if the painting is all rights reserved. As far I know, the status is not mentioned in the file description, nor replied to my question in that DR. Jee 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jkadavoor, the now deleted filepage was very scarce in detail and even less in useful detail. (One example, from memory: it was tagged with "Category:Four females", while the photo shows two men and three women…) There’s no indication that the filename of this photo is in any way a “title” chosen by its photographer or other of samesuch consequence, instead of (as I presume) something hastily penned by someone with scarce knowledge or interest in its subject matter (I’m actually convinced now, after browsing our other photos of similar events, that the nominal “female” is not an author, but a contest staff member who’s holding for the jury each entry, one by one, for their appraisal). The only useful things I could use when I tried to add more information to the file page, before its untimely deletion, were gathered from the photographed scene, not from the additional data grabbed from Flickr.
Your «question in that DR» was implicitly replied. To be clear: My argument is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds copyright to all submited entries, as suggested by the contents of our Category:Illustrations from Federal Duck Stamp Contest.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1. If it is beyond any doubts that "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds copyright to all submited entries", I've no objections to keep that file. But it should be added in file descriptions. 2. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument here. They too may deleted at any moment. 3. I hate arguments like it is because of someone commented there. I just saw it because someone mentioned it in a highly visible page. Jee 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The painting is far from de minimis -- in fact, it is the whole point (and the title) of the photograph, that the painter is showing off her work. The area that a work occupies is never relevant if it is the focus of the photograph. In order for something to be de minimis, it must be completely incidental to the purpose of the image -- in this case, the painting and other things on the wall to the right are de minimis, because the image would have the same effect if it were a blank wall. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You are saying that the now deleted image would be meaningless and useless should the depicted lady be holding up a blank or blurred card? Well, I disagree: One could still learn a lot of accidental details about how jury sittings work in this contest, which is what makes this photo interesting, unlike the umptieth illustration of a duck. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jim. However, if "this photo would retain much or all of its interest should the painting be blurred or blanked" is your position, I don't imagine anyone would object to you re-uploading the image after having done just that. Эlcobbola talk 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
(Yes, it’s my position: I file undeletion requests based on my opinions and views, not other’s; I believe that’s how things are usually done.) If I uploaded a version of this image, after its deletion (which is unlikely because I cannot locate it now), with the painting area blanked or blurred, I’d be immediately blocked for a month or two. As you know so well. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I will be monitoring the contents of Category:Illustrations from Federal Duck Stamp Contest. This category, as said, includes 266 fac simile images (the exact opposite of de minimis, unlike the elucubrations penned above) of other such paintings, which are, like this one, entries to the U.S. Federal Duck Stamp Contest: As said, these were added to Commons trusting that their copyrights are held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who relicensed them as CC-by-sa in its Flickr streams. The very same U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns the copyright of the photograph pertaining to this request. If this request is declined, that means that the Wikimedia Commons community doesn’t accept that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is entitled to license the drawings and paintings submitted to the U.S. Federal Duck Stamp Contest, and therefore these 266 files should be deleted (as also many photos depicting these illustrations, as on the photo of this request).
Unless the involved parties have no interest in any of these duck tales and are simply engaged in cronyist defense of each other after yet another case of bad faith against User:Fæ: Since Fæ said «don’t delete this one», it was deleted… Now dare to delete the other >266 way more flagrant cases of the same copyvio issue, or don’t (which I hope you wont) and thus unmask yourselves as moved by bad faith and disregard for the project.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Scope? I agree with Jim "«Maybe in scope, maybe not», as it does not matter when we talk about potential copyright violations (but yes it is in scope). De Minimis? against as per Jim, of course it is not DM, the duck drawing is obviously the main feature of the photo. Copyright violation? well in such contest when submitting your artwork you may have to give to the entity the right to license your work, it will be helpful to can read the rules of the contest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As Christian says, we need a basis for the assertion that Federal Duck Stamps are PD. That would run counter to every other created work that I know of purchased by the Federal Government. See, for example,the Korean War Veterans Memorial, the cited DRs at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House and File:Sacagawea_dollar_obverse.png.
We also need a basis for the assertion that this painting was made into a Federal Duck Stamp. The image comes from a third party site and is said to be by a F&WS employee (see http://www.public-domain-image.com/free-images/people/female-shows-her-paintings/attachment/female-shows-her-paintings). There is nothing there to say whether this was merely one of the entrants in the contest or a winner. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Further to the above, the subject painting does not appear to have been a winner in 2016, see https://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp/2016-contest-results.php
At https://www.fws.gov/help/notices.html#copyright the F&WS explicitly calls out Federal Duck Stamps as restricted -- "The restrictions described above apply also to the use of the images of the Federal Duck Stamps." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In which case the website terms are incorrect or misleading. FWS website terms (implicitly contract law) do not override Federal law as it applies to property of the USPS, and stamps of artworks dating before 1978 are by default public domain. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost entries to those contests are not free 2013, 2014, 2015. I searched but did not find the entry for this one (nor even the year of the contest, the EXIF is not helpful here). This is reasonable to think that only U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters have now the right to license these artworks. At this time we don't have evidences they have free licensed the artwork shown in this image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Keep In 10 minutes of research i found that this image is not from Federal Duck Stamp but from the 2011 Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest as per statement "Judges take a close look at the entries for the 2011 Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest" on this public domain image. This artwork is licensed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with a CC-BY 2.0 on Flickr. Tm (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tm. It was impossible for me to do an image search as I had no access to the deleted file. Strangely enough I looked at this artwork when I was browsing, but had no way of knowing it was a match. --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per TM and both sources reviewed. --JEFF 09:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Karikatur-Hattar.gif

Es ist freie Kunst, ich weiss nicht, warum das nun als Urheberrechteverletzungen darstellen sollte? Es ist leider typisch, dass Araber / Muslime solche Karikaturten am liebsten alles weghaben möchten, weil ihre religiöse Gefühle verletzen sollte. Nein, hier ist freie Meinung in Schrift und in Bild. -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karikatur-Hattar.gif --SamsMarsRover (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hat sich erledigt.--SamsMarsRover (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Das Original ist eindeutig nicht freie Kunst. In Jordanien gilt eine automatische Schutzfrist von 25 Jahren nach Veröffentlichung des Werkes. Das heisst, dass nun Hattars Erben über das Urheberrecht verfügen. Sofern der Zeichner den Cartoon nicht ausdrücklich als freies Werk deklariert hat (kann ich hier nicht erkennen), können wir das Bild leider nicht auf Commons verwenden. "Fair use" funktioniert natürlich bei einigen lokalen Wikipedias, aber Commons geht nicht. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Das ist doch Humbug, solche strenge Regeln, verhindern die Fortschritte. Kann ich das Bild etwas verändern und dann unter freien Lizenz hier zur Verfügung stellen?--SamsMarsRover (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Das ist kein Humbug, das ist jordanisches Urheberrecht. Und für jegliche Veränderungen des Bilds braucht man eine Erlaubnis durch den Rechteinhaber, also geht das auch nicht. Wie Ww2censor schon weiter unten geschrieben hat, "öffentlich zur Schau gestellt, heisst nicht gemeinfrei." Nur weil etwas online gepostet wurde, heisst das nicht, dass sich gleich jedermann daran nach Belieben bedienen darf. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Kompromissvorschlag: Ich bearbeite das Bild ein bischen, kann ich dann problemlos hier wieder hochladen?SamsMarsRover (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
War ich eben so undeutlich? "Für jegliche Veränderungen des Bilds braucht man eine Erlaubnis." Da gibt es keine Ausnahmen. Und das habe ich mir nicht etwa ausgedacht, sondern das ist geltendes Recht. Übrigens, der Baustein {{o}} heisst in diesem Zusammenhang, dass man die Wiederherstellung der Datei ablehnt, und er sollte auch nur einmal zur Veranschaulichung gebraucht werden. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Undeutlich sind wir vielleicht alle.[14][15] Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I just added this post to the image talk page but it will be better served here; some comments refer to the post at that talk page.
Unfortunately, no publicly shared does not mean public domain. There is absolutely no evidence, either online or in what has been stated that proves or even indicates this is a public domain image. As I stated, if it were, then the 2D copyright tag used would be correct but no on has proven that, just stated it was on facebook and is no longer there. That proves nothing. Coral v Bridgeman does not apply because one must first verify the image is in the public domain and that is is a "slavish copy". The creator Nahed Hattar was Jordanian so I think we shall have to wait until 2042 for this image to fall out of copyright which will be 25 years pma+ according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Jordan. Es tut mir leid, aber ihr Konzept ist falsch. Ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. --JEFF 09:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Beliaev Alexey.jpg and File:Semiglazov Vladimir.jpg

Please restore File:Beliaev Alexey.jpg and File:Semiglazov Vladimir.jpg: {{Petrov Research Institute of Oncology}} --sasha (krassotkin) 09:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and tagged. --JEFF 09:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Schlieren SBB train station.tif

Hi: Jcb has deleted my photo of Schlieren train station. The copyright for this photo is fully mine. Balabinrm (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Balabinrm: Are you the photographer? In the file description you added "thanks to Lomakina E." which may have caused some confusion about the origin of this image. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per Elcobbola. --INeverCry 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait für Buch 001.jpg

ticket:2016081710005955, now licenced with CCbySA3.0--Emergency doc (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Emergency doc: please move the ticket to permissions-commons (or a subqueue depending on language). Storkk (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Done, permissions-commons.--Emergency doc (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Emergency doc: it's a borderline case, but unfortunately I think I have to be a bit of a stickler on this one: I am unable to find a reference to a specific license by the photographer. I have made a more detailed note on the ticket itself. I understand you've already invested a large amount of time in this ticket, and the submitter may be getting a little tired of it too, but I'd appreciate if you could go just a little further. Storkk (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just going to say exactly this. We do require a specific license, which was actually indicated to the "customer" in the email chain, but never followed up on. Эlcobbola talk 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try my best. --Emergency doc (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
IMHO the permission should be enough by now. the clarification they sent seems to fit the CCbySA-Licence. Other opinions?--Emergency doc (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: A new email was sent explicitly confirming CC-by-SA 3.0. --Эlcobbola talk 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Snapchat logo.svg

Originally file was deleted by User:Jcb for Missing permission as of 22 September 2016.

Not having seen what this file looks like, but I can only assume what I think it looks like from filename. Probably similar one of these:

These examples are well below the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. Does this upload qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}? 80.221.159.67 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: As this is a pretty borderline case it should go through a DR before deletion. I've opened one as it is a more appropriate forum to discuss the merits of the image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 Heritage Walk Team

These were deleted as "not realistically useful for an educational purpose", yet in the DR it was explained that they were part of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 Heritage Walk Team from Thrissur and renames were suggested to make the titles more meaningful. They appear to be the only photographs of the team itself, rather than the monuments, that were uploaded to Commons from the event. For these reasons they are in scope.

@Ranjithsiji: as an interested party. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Scope clearly demonstrated and sending people to com:UNDEL after the deletion rational has been countered is a bit of a dick move. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Montakhab Jameeat Baghdad celebrating, 1975.jpg

The image is an inartistic photographic work in nature that was first published in Iraq before 1 January 1999. It is in the according to Law No. 3 of 1971, amended by Order No. 83 in 2004 as it is mentioned in the template below:

{{PD-Iraq}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashima20 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

--Hashima20 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The photograph may have been taken in 1975 but do you have evidence that it was really published before 1999? It looks like someone's personal snapshot rather than a press photo that made it to the newspapers, so if it was first published in this forum then the rationale doesn't work. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
As it states in the forum, the publisher of the post in the forum cropped the photo out of a 1975 edition of the University of Baghdad magazine and took a snapshot of it. --Hashima20 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't think that can be correct. When a newspaper photo is scanned -- whether you scan the newspaper itself or, as claimed here, a photo of a newspaper, the very coarse halftone screen always shows in the scan, usually as a moire with the scan resolution. Therefore newspaper images that are uploaded to Commons are unmistakable. This image shows no sign of the halftone screen, therefore I doubt very much that it came from a newspaper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was taken from a magazine as Hashima20 wrote, and not from a newspaper, would there still be a halftone screen? AFAIK magazine images tend to have better resolutions. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) FWIW, Hashima20 said magazine, not newspaper, which would change the consideration of halftones. That said, the areas of black on the edges suggest this is a scan of a standalone photograph, not of a page from a publication, be it newspaper or magazine. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per COM:PRP. To paraphrase: "someone in an internet forum said they got it from a university magazine" is not adequate evidence. COM:L requires "information sufficient for others to verify the license status" which is not a threshold I believe to have been met, especially given that this appears to be a standalone photograph (i.e. not scanned from a publication) per my comment above. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Other than the not adequate evidence part, the photo was actually cropped from the magazine because the University of Baghdad magazine is known for its hard paper so the publisher of the post, who is a known archivist, could have simply cropped out the photo from the magazine but the hard paper made it look like a standalone photograph. --Hashima20 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I copied it into GIMP and blew it up to 800% and saw no sign of the halftone, which would have been present if it came from a publication. I also note that the corners are rounded, which would be typical of a simple photo, but not present if the image were simply clipped from a publication. In order to keep it Commons requires proof beyond a significant doubt that it has been published. So far, that is completely lacking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


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

File:أحمد السقا.jpeg

About a famous actor.if it was the source file personal and unhelpful, This image about an important character.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per E. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 30 September 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:Bowl of Hygieia

The symbol of the Bowl of Hygieia has a history dating several centuries. It is the international symbol for pharmacies. Though the original source is disputed, no current designer or company could possibly claim that they have a unique copyright of the design, due to any modern version being direct derivatives of centuries old icons, drawings and signs. For example refer to https://www.rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/13-pharmaceutical-symbols.pdf.

I ask that the list of images are undeleted and the DR reopened for a longer and better informed discussion to take place. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The seven images in the subject DR are all direct DWs of File:Bowl hygeia.jpg which was deleted because it had no source, no author, and no license. While you may argue that modern representations of ancient symbols cannot have a copyright, that will vary country to country and without a source, we don;t know whether it would apply here. I also note that File:Bowl hygeia.jpg is significantly different from figure 19 at https://www.rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/13-pharmaceutical-symbols.pdf. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose "no current designer or company could possibly claim that they have a unique copyright of the design, due to any modern version being direct derivatives of centuries old icons, drawings and signs" is nonsense. This is akin to arguing no image of Santa Claus or a dragon could be original because they are invariably derived from centuries old drawings. Disney would disagree. In the US, all that is required for a work to be original is that the author contributed more than a mere trivial variation (Kamar International Inc v. Russ Berrie and Co). There are almost infinite ways to vary non-trivially the depiction of a chalice/bowl entwined by a serpent; for example, this version is worlds apart from this version. Further, "the mere fact that [an author] used a matter in the public domain does not in and of itself preclude a finding of originality, since [they] may have added unique features to the matter so as to render it copyrightable." (R. Dakin & Co. v. A & L Novelty Co.) Indeed, even the replica Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas, Nevada is sufficiently original to have its own copyright (Registration Nos. VAu 1-090-876 and VA 1-882-070). Эlcobbola talk 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim and E. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Multiple files request

Hello, please undelete following files:

per ticket:2016092510005536. Thank you. --Mates (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The ticket asserts that the uploader is a family member and heiress, but does not provide evidence of the conveyance of intellectual property rights. Firstly, as a general proposition, the copyright would be held by the photographer, not the subject (the wording here implies a reliance on a belief in the latter, but I would readily defer to native Czech speakers) and, secondly, regardless of the original copyright holder, the transferal of those rights to the uploader, if indeed true, would have been done by written conveyance. A scanned copy of that document needs to be provided. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Revent

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Files were all kept at DR, then later deleted by Jcb as "No OTRS permission for 30 days", with reference to ticket:2016052110008897. That ticket in fact confirms that these images, from DVIDS, are indeed in the public domain, and the specific files were added to the list of affected files over a month before they were deleted. Reventtalk 12:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: was the one who tagged the files as {OTRS received} - Jcb (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: He's currently blocked, so can't respond. I'm not trying to assign blame, however... they appear to have simply fallen through the cracks. They are clearly PD, though. Reventtalk 13:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As deleting admin I have no problem at all if you undelete those files and make the templates in order. You have access to OTRS as well. Jcb (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Just didn't want to act unilaterally, since they were 'my' uploads. Reventtalk 13:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This was a procedural request. Revent will undelete and update the files per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-09&oldid=296808164"