This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Oppose Permission for use on Wikimedia is not sufficient -- we require a free license to use the image anywhere by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Also, since we have no way of knowing who you actually are, in order to restore the file, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This copy of "Todesbuch" is send to me by das Bundesministerium für Inneres. On this image is no copyright. I have the permission to use it to inform on the page of Jan Emmer. I have no commercial bennefit of it. Therefor my request for undeletion.--M Emmer (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree that there is probably nothing here that is copyrightable, but I'd like a German speaking Admin to confirm that. For it to be PD by date, it must both be an anonymous work and have been published before 1946. I doubt that it was published that early. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Support I can confirm that there is nothing original in there. These are excerpts from a list of handwritten names in a registry with later annotations where these entries come from. {{PD-text}}. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: The permission is already provided on Flickr, at least the permission from the archive. The email I got is a clarification from their side, not a permission in itself (Having those kinds of non-permission emails in OTRS doesn't add a lot IMO). Another thing would be to ask them to provide the individual permissions from the architects, but that is not something that I see happening. Basvb (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Done: We can always discuss if we should use OTRS or not but that is not a reason to keep a file deleted after the copyright status has been cleared. @Basvb: could you please update the file page with this new and highly relevant information? Thank your for all your effort regarding this image!. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12: , the recent developments were on another (related/exactly the same situation) image which resulted (IMO) in new insights for this image. I'm not sure which new and highly relevant information I could update this image which, I could do some general clean-up/categorisation, but that's not based on new information. Basvb (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Die beiden Dateien Datei:SchmidAlteTH.jpg und File:SchmidRS.jpg (beide in Category:Kantonsschule Trogen) wurden automatisch von Benutzer:CommonsDelinker gelöscht, obwohl die Einverständiserklärung am 24.5.16. an Permission von Heidi Eisenhut (Kantonsbibliothek Appenzell Außerrhoden) gemailt wurde und die Dateien mit {OTRS pending} gekennzeichnet waren.
Am 26.8.16 bat ich per Mail an permissions-de um Wiederherstellung, habe aber seither nichts mehr gehört... Ich benötige die beiden Dateien u.a. für Vorträge über Wikipedia und das Archiv, das ich betreue. Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Herzliche Grüsse! --Archive Aurora (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Commons Delinker hat nur die jeweiligen Links aus der Wikipedia entfernt (daher der Name). Gelöscht wurden beide Dateien von @JuTa: mit der Begründung, dass seit 1. Juli tatsächlich keine OTRS-Erklärung vorgelegen hat. Frage an die Kollegen von OTRS: ist diese Mail an vielleicht an permissions-de geschickt worden und wurde nicht an Commons weitergeleitet? De728631 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hallo De728631. Vielen Dank für deine Antwort! Ich habe nachgeschaut: Das Mail ging an permissions-de@wikimedia.org. Am 26.9.16 ging nochmals eine Einverständiserklärung an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org. Anscheinend habe ich mehrere Mailadressen für Einverständiserklärungen verwendet.... Welches ist nun die richtige Mailadresse und an wen muss ich mich nun wenden, um diese Probleme zu lösen? Vielen Dank und herzliche Grüsse--Archive Aurora (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Erst einmal sollten die Bearbeiter bei OTRS prüfen, was damals auf permissions-de eingegangen ist. Ich werde mal ein paar Benutzer dazu ansprechen. Danach können wir schauen, wie's weiter geht. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ich habe gerade von Steinsplitter die Auskunft bekommen, dass der Vorgang bei OTRS noch nicht bearbeitet wurde und es auch noch eine Weile dauern wird, bis man sich darum kümmern kann. Wartezeiten von einigen Monaten sind bei OTRS leider die Regel, weil die Mannschaft dort chronisch unterbesetzt ist und es auch alles freiwillige Helfer sind, die sich in ihrer Freizeit um solche Mails kümmern. Für dich bedeutet das, dass du leider noch etwas warten musst, aber sobald deine Mail bearbeit worden ist, können wir die Dateien wohl wieder herstellen. De728631 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Gern geschehen. Beste Grüße zurück in die Schweiz.
Info for the closing editor: OTRS ticket has not yet been processed. The images may be restored pending a check of the permission by OTRS. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done Awaiting OTRS. 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) 10:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose Unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. As Kumkum told you, the Turkish government uses a non-commercial-only license. We only accept media that can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial. Storkk (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have 1 questions. Where specifically indicated that the materials are non-commercial-only license? Quotation please. (in §2, §3d, §29 from Law n°4982 on Right Of Information Acquirement nothing is said about it) Gl dili (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot read Turkish, so I can only guess that the relevant text is "Bu Kanunla erişilen bilgi ve belgeler ticarî amaçla çoğaltılamaz ve kullanılamaz."... but in any case, that is irrelevant: you need to provide, specifically, the wording that releases the material under a free license as we define it. Without that, the image cannot be restored. The onus is on you, the uploader or "keep/restore" requester. Storkk (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. The §2 says "this law concern all state entities" (Bu Kanun; kamu kurum ve kuruluşları ile kamu kurumu niteliğindeki meslek kuruluşlarının faaliyetlerinde uygulanır.), the §3 says "all sort of data" (her türlü veriyi), the §29 says "everything concerned by this law cannot be used for commercial purposes" (Bu Kanunla erişilen bilgi ve belgeler ticarî amaçla çoğaltılamaz ve kullanılamaz.). Kumkum (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You're lying and misleading!!! 1) This document we are talking about a very different. There are no words: information, use, license. These words are required!
This law is absolutely clear ; banknotes licensing is something else in Commons ; the link you brought, witch is not a turkish state institution (it's a review, the ADS review) has actually the right to give its work the licencing it wants, as it is not concerned by the law 4982. Kumkum (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done It's clear that the site from which the photo was taken does not have any free license and that the cited Turkish law gives such things an NC license, which is not acceptable here. Gl dili must avoid accusing people of lying -- while we occasionally make mistakes (but not in this case), experienced editors on Commons very rarely lie. Such accusations are against policy and if repeated may lead to the accuser being blocked form editing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Comment You have not named a file that you want restored. You yourself have not uploaded any files that have been deleted. Therefore there is nothing we can do here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I requested permission to use this image on WP from the person who took the photo. I have an email from him granting permission. Do I need to log that here somehow? MurielMary (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There are six copyrights here -- the copyright for the photograph of the book, held by the photographer, the copyright for the book cover, held by the publisher, and the copyrights for each of the four photographs, held by their photographers. Taking them in order:
While you have permission from the photographer for the use of the photograph on WP, both WP and Commons require broader free licenses, to use the image anywhere by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use. This must be sent directly from the photographer using the procedure at OTRS.
The publisher must also send a free license to OTRS.
It is unlikely that the publisher has licenses for the four photographs that allows it to freely license the use of the photographs for other purposes. It is much more likely that it has no licenses, or that they are licensed solely for the purpose of the book cover. Unless the publisher actually has a free license for the four images which allows it to sublicense them freely, you must get free licenses from each of the four photographers, also via OTRS.
Note that this is a New Zealand book, so the copyrights lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator. Copyrights for a 1961 work must still be in force.
This image was extracted (using the croptool) from an image uploaded to Commons by its author, who released full rights to use this media. Why it was deleted has not at all been clarified, as it was a derivative work of free media.SecretName101 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The video image showing Chloe Grace Moretz shown in your crop is copyrighted. In the original image, File:2016 DNC - Chloe Grace Moretz.jpeg, the video is probably de minimis, so the large image showing the whole convention can be kept on Commons. However, when you crop so that only the video is in the image, the result clearly violates the copyright on the video. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Clearly PD based on the explanation given over a month ago at User_talk:Jcb#File:RalphFlanders1910.jpg. It's astonishing that an administrator appears to refuse pre-1923 publication as being compliant with COM:L.
As said by an administrator in a very similar Jcb case Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-09, "sending people to com:UNDEL after the deletion rational has been countered is a bit of a dick move."
Yes, I feel that too high a degree of caution was exercised in this case. It's difficult to produce copies of obscure machine-tool magazines to confirm the publication date. It's also a photograph of such low importance that the photographer's estate would be highly unlikely to contest its use here, if the case weren't proven, regarding publication. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The key issue is that it was deleted without discussion. If anyone wants to discuss the publication history of the magazine and when the portrait would have been included (i.e. during Flanders' tenure, making it pre-1923), then it should be subject to a Deletion request where we can put down a record of opinions and known facts. The rapid "no source" deletions that appear to happen without consideration of likely copyright issues, has become poor practice and a hazard to all of our public domain material which has an incomplete publication or provenance record. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This photo was taken by Zunzhi Wang, who must confirm the free license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. It appears to have been removed by Didym during routine cleanup of a copyright violator's uploads. Storkk (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I ask to undelete this image, because even if it is not my own work (it is really made by somebody many years ago for my family), it takes part of my private family archive that I want to share with the users of wikipedia. That's why I put that it is my own work - because it is an absolute property of mine. I hope that my explanation is enough baseful and you mill take necessary measures to undelete my foto. --Dmitry1035 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Owning a copy of a photograph does not equate to owning its copyright, which almost always belongs to the photographer. These photos all likely have different photographers, some of whom may be members of your family. In those cases, the photographers (if alive) should confirm they agree to the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS; they can write in Russian if that makes it easier. If they are no longer alive, their heirs may be able to release the rights. If the photographers are unknown (likely the studio family portrait, for example), it is unlikely we will be able to restore them as they are almost certainly still copyrighted (and will be until 70 years after the photographer's death). This is the case even if the photographer wouldn't remember, or wouldn't care (see COM:PRP). Storkk (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I ask to undelete this foto because it is my own work made for non-commercial purpose. In that case, I can share it on wikipedia, because it doesn't contradict the Law of Panorama Freedom of Kazakstan. --Dmitry1035 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Kazakh Freedom of Panorama is non-commercial only. However, we only accept media that can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial. See COM:L. Storkk (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Undelete. Hi. I concur with the nom. This image is deleted because of a semi-transparent border around main window. Multiple DRs so far have established that such items are below TOO. (In the event that the border becomes too elaborate, it is still de minimis.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That tarnished and censored image distorts the fact about its subject, requiring a verbal warning. But more importantly, it does so without just cause. What is free is removed from it and it is very dangerous to make it a precedent. (For the people outside U.S.: these portion are free in U.S., which is the country of origin. I am aware that had these parts were made in e.g. Japan, they would have not been free.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment If you insist on displaying the window title bar, I recommend taking a new screenshot with a non-transparent theme (Windows 8 or later) for the sake of unambiguity of Template:PD-shape or Template:PD-ineligible for everyone. It's not much effort if you have one of those operating systems around, which I don't have. The decision to crop was per Commons:Screenshot guideline: Cut away all possibly non-free elements. Only show the relevant content. Emphasis mine. There is no port to create this screenshot on a free operating system. 80.221.159.6719:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In doing so I must go through a lot of trouble of installing Windows 8 or 10, installing Notedpad++, grabbing a copy of MediaWiki source code, etc.? Even if my time was so worthless as to undertake such an nonpaying task, I don't see why should I indulge you with a violation of all previous DRs precedents. I am certainly not a proponent of cutting away free content whenever the next Mr. Nobody comes along, put his finger on a part and says "in my mind, this part is possibly non-free; cut it away". (If anything, in my mind everything on Commons is possibly non-free. Shut the site down and go home!) You have misunderstood Commons:Screenshot. That's a great wrong that should be set right. —Codename Lisa (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. But now imagine you did travel and capture a photo of Kim Jong-un, and then someone came along and said your image is possibly not free, even though all evidences support the fact that it indeed is! Add to it the fact that photography is an art form (thus entitled to the licensing by the photographer) but screenshooting isn't.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Restoration of pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg
Hi! Carl Lindberg Sorry, i'm forgot, I want fix like this - "Commons:Village pum# 4.5 Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done|I didn't delete these in a hurry. I looked at ...", but your choice more better - with respect. Thanks Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
See the below links for temporarily sort out the complicated discussion:
I have created this file from files available on commons. It was nominated for deletion with no other explanation than "Copyright issue". I asked for precision and provided the files I had used to make my file :
I got no further explanation on the "Copyright issue" and my file was deleted under the reason that the eagle was different from the source file (which is obvious as I mentionned that the file had been edited). If the file is really problematic, could at least someone give me a precise explanation of what the "Copyright issue" was ?
I don't understand this from a COM:SCOPE standpoint. Does the above imply that you are concocting your own blazon for Adolphe de Nassau ("own" not related to rights, but in the sense of own rendition--a fictitious or imagined blazon)? If so, how would that be realistically useful for an educational purpose? Эlcobbolatalk15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As long as the blazon, i.e. the heraldic description of a coat of arms, is observed it is totally irrelevant how the actual depiction is realised in terms of style and graphical details. There is not a unique valid rendition of a coat of arms but any artist is free to draw their own version according to the blazon, so this has nothing to do with COM:SCOPE. As I read Biplanjaune's request, he took some previously uploaded graphical elements as linked above and gave them a personal touch. That is alright given that the source content is freely licenced or PD. This procedure is a common practice at Commons when new images of arms are created. The only thing he forgot to do was attributing the source files and authors on his own upload from the beginning. This can be healed though so I support an undeletion. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. The word "blazon" was used to mirror the file name. The issue, perhaps not well expressed, is that there is no source information whatsoever (i.e., we do not even have the heraldic description to determine, per Carl below, whether it's a known blazon and true to the description.) Эlcobbolatalk21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Support if it's a known blazon, and the above descriptions are true. The DR was lacking in information as to what the copyright issue actually was, so does not seem like a valid reason to delete on its face. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Per my comment(s) above. The blazon vs. description issue is a red herring, as this image doesn't even have a source for the latter. Without a source for the description, reusers have no way of determining whether this is inline with the description, or merely a figment of the uploader's imagination. A realistic educational use is required, where educational is "providing knowledge; instructional or informative." Whether this provides knowledge, instruction or information cannot be assessed without a sourced heraldic description. Эlcobbolatalk21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I got your point, without a reference for the blazon it looks like Biplanjaune just made this up. The arms of Nassau in the inescutcheon are actually lacking the typical billets, and this should be fixed, but the general combination of Imperial Eagle plus Nassau arms has been attested by Siebmacher. For the greater arms of Adolph, see File:Siebmacher 1701-1705 C002.jpg. If Biplanjaune's image is not restored, we should also delete the similar versions in Category:Coats of arms of Adolf of Nassau. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why this file was so briskly deleted. The image sourcing did contained a link to the Canadian Library and Archives record which clearly indicates that Canada considers the copyright expired. The link to the record is here: [1]. The record also notes that the "Copyright entered in the Library of Congress". As this image was registered in the US before 1923 it's automatically PD in the US. The painting is the result of Jack's employment as a Canadian official war artist which is why the image record notes the Canadian War Records Office any why that office exercised copyright control in the UK. I'm not sure what I'm missing because this appears to be a straightforward keep.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The original copyright was owned by the Canadian War Memorials Fund, which appears to be a charity, not part of the Canadian government, so I don't think Crown Copyright applies. The copyright would have expired in Canada (50pma) and the US (published before 1923). They could be uploaded to en-wiki, for sure. However... even if a work for hire, the term is still usually based on the life of the human author. The "country of origin" is the country of first publication. It sounds like the painting was made in the UK by a British artist (who later emigrated to Canada). Per this page, it does sound like the CWMF commissioned works were displayed in London after the war and through the 1920s and 1930s. They were eventually moved to the National Gallery of Canada and later to another museum there. That admittedly does sound like the country of first publication is the UK, which is 70pma. Now... if they were *simultaneously* published (within 30 days) in Canada as well, that would change the country of origin to Canada, since (in the case of simultaneous publication) it is the one with the shorter term. But we may need some better evidence of that. The source link simply says the copyright has expired (which is true in Canada regardless of country of origin), not that it was Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding was that the Canadian War Memorials Fund was in partnership between Lord Beaverbrook and the Canadian War Records Office, the creation and collection of the pieces being for the Canadian War Records Office. In effect Beaverbrook put up the cash by the CWRO was the holder.(Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War by Vance, p. 164-165). The fact that most Canadian War Artist were commissioned so that they could work in the field is clear demonstration of this partnership. Likewise, the image record at LAC clearly states that the Canadian War Records Office exercised authority over the publications of reproduction images in the UK images by The Medici Modern Art Society. The publication of Art and War: Canadian War Memorials in 1919 is also a clear demonstration that the Canadian War Records Office took control of publication rights of the images.--09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose That may or may not be be case (I don't doubt it, but I have not investigated it either). However, it is largely irrelevant. As Carl says, since the work was first published (in the legal, copyright sense of the word) in the UK, then the country of origin is the UK and the UK copyright expires 70 years pma. Since Richard Jack died in 1952, it will be under UK copyright until 1/1/2023 and, since we require that works be free of copyright in the country of origin, we can't keep it until then. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The key error is this assessment is that Jack never controlled copyright of the work. Any and all reproductions of the painting, in the UK and elsewhere cite either the Canadian War Records Office or later the Canadian War Museum. This is expected as the painting was due to the creator’s employment, rather than by a freelance creator.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like it was set up as a charity... if an external entity put up the money, I don't think it would count as being for the Crown (it would not be a work for hire if the government was not paying for it). If a private entity creates a work, they can donate it to the government, but it would not become Crown Copyright, but rather a normal copyright administered by the Crown. Anyways, the fund was explicitly claiming copyright back then (per the notices and US registrations), and if it was crown copyright, that would have been the claim instead. Per here, Beaverbrook also created the Canadian War Records Office using his own funds. Individual government departments usually don't claim copyright for themselves. @Jameslwoodward -- if it was Crown Copyright, that would trump the copyright term to be 50 years from publication. Once that happened the lifetime of the author ceased to matter. You might argue that if the work was first published by the government, it became Crown Copyright by the terms of the UK Copyright Act 1911. It just sounds like this was a pretty tenuous link to being a government department -- it was mostly a private effort engineered by Lord Beaverbrook, with permission from the Canadian government but not really under their control. It does seem that a lot of works were exhibited in January and February 1919 in London -- see here. If we could show that pamphlet was also distributed in Canada at the same time, that might help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Undelete For a number of reasons:
The work has an expired copyright in Canada. The link to the record is here: [2] and displayed under the Flickr feed of the Canadian Library and Archives fee here: [3]
The Canadian Government via the Canadian War Records Office and subsequently the Canadian War Museum had exercised full copyright control of reproductions of the painting. This had been the case since 1919, demonstrating a long standing real and implied control of the work that has gone undisputed. The Canadian War Records office having licensed the Medici Modern Art Society to reproduce images of the work.
My understanding is that under UK law, works created as commissions prior to 1 August 1989 were owned by the commissioner and not the creator.
Although the painting was created for the Canadian War Memorials Fund (whose status is somewhat ambiguous), Jack was a paid commissioned officer (Major) in the Canadian War Record Office from 1916 to 1918. Full military records including pay records are found here:[4]. The works could be argued are the result of employment, not commission.
The US Catalog of Copyright Entries (Part 4. Works of Art, Etc. New Series, Page 89, 1919, ref 4627-4636) notes the Canadian War Records Office as the copyright holder of "Battle of Vimy Ridge by Richard Jack"[5]--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Support For those who don't have a Google Play account here is a public version of the US copyright catalog. The UK copyright act says that Crown copyright applies when a work is produced by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties (Chapter X, section 163). Jack was an officer in the Canadian War Records Office at the time he painted the work and it was commissioned for an "outgrowth" of the CWRO. This should make the painting qualify for Crown copyright which is now expired both in Canada and the UK. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
File: from Mitsuru Kurayama .jpg portrait in person, there is a request of the want to use this photo, but was published, it has also been removed at the request of the same person this time. There was a indication of the use of this photo from the portrait rights holders? What if Kurayama so you got muttered himself to by name in Mitsuru Kurayama of the fort and Kurayama cram school "eien20've been a portrait image deletion request in Wikipedia. Highly ridiculous!" And even.
translator: Google
Oppose The Google translation of this request doesn't make a lot of sense, but the case is straightforward. The author cited in the file description, 倉山塾用宣材写真, is not the same as the uploader, あきつの飛鳥山, and the uploader does not claim that the file is his or her own work. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright owner must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Здравствуйте, Александр! Конечно фотографировал не я, но эти фотографии мне достались в наследство от отца и следовательно я могу их публиковать. Или я что-то не знаю? заранее извините, что отвлекаю.
С Уважением,
Евгений. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divbig (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: I can't read Russian except for the name Александр (Sasha), so I'm guessing this concerns the various deletion requests you filed for this user's images. De728631 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Divbig: Согласно законодательству, авторскими правами на снимки обладает фотограф. Все остальные владеют только правами на экземляры, и не могут их сканировать в целях распространения, а тем более устанавливать на них свободную лицензию, что требуется при загрузке на Викисклад. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Kaupo Kalda. As employer, the copyright belongs to the Ministry, I reckon, even if in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (can an Estonian-N double check it please as I used Google translator). --Ruthven(msg)11:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Renee Altrov. As employer, the copyright the Ministry holds the right, I reckon; anyways, in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (maybe an Estonian-N can double check it please). --Ruthven(msg)11:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked into that and well .... technically, it was just asked if the use of those photos would be ok in wiki (even thou the specific license should had been specified and that fact clarified, that after adding the photos there with that licence everyone could use them i.e. the ordinary stuff), but at a same time it's clear from the letters that as long as authors names are mentioned, then both of them are ok with it (for example Kaupo said that "If possible, then get my name next to it. It would be great.") And it's clear that they were ordered from photographers to be used as a promotional images of Ministry and Minister. So it had to be clear from the start to them, that those images would be used in that way.
You could also inform him, that he could send future permissions to "permissions-et@" if he would prefer Estonian to have a look at it. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The image was deleted because you did not properly indicate the source of the picture. You wrote "propio" (own) but it was not clear that it was scanned or photographed off this old document. Do you know when this family tree document was written? And could Matteo Pozzo Ardizzi also have drawn the image of the coat of arms? It looks sufficiently old enough to be out of copyright but we need more information about the original artist of this image. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Also note that even if the photographer were anonymous, in Hungary the 70 years runs from the date of publication, not the date of creation. You say that you scanned the original photograph, so in order to use {{PD-old}} you must show that the photograph was published before 1946. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's see it, what happened:
1. There is a photograph (File:Földosztás Fóton 1945 tavaszán.tif), taken in the spring of 1945. 70 + 1 years have passed since that time.
2. The photographer is unknown. It was n o t taken by Marian Reismann (1911-1991). Sure, she was at the site and took photos at that time, in 1945 – similar to this photo -. But this one photo is not that one.
3. This photo was not published in 1945 or later (as fare as we know it.
4. So you (Jameslwoodward) say, it's not possible to publish it until 70 years passed since the publication (?) of this photo (what should never happen, as it is not legal to publish it at all).
5. Wise. So it's impossible to publish this photo, anytime (legally).
2016.09.30
--Elekes Andor (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as per above. No one has said "it's impossible to publish this photo, anytime." That an author is unknown to you (us) does not mean it is unknown to anyone. That a publication date is unknown to you (us) does not mean it is unknown to anyone. The Commons requires evidence and sourcing sufficient to verify the claimed license. These are voluntarily and deliberately adopted policies that apply to us, not to "the real world." Indeed, this precludes hosting of certain images (such as this one, unfortunately) as we simply do not have adequate provenance information. Эlcobbolatalk17:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Linedwell: could you please clarify the customer's position in the company, and that he is legally able to license the image on behalf of the company? Storkk (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Linedwell: what I meant was, "could you please clarify with the customer" that he is legally able to license the company's IP. If, for example, he is MD of marketing and just wants to put the image on the company's WP page, he would likely not be in a position to license the file. Storkk (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: It's indeed the customer of my ticket. In this ticket he indicates that he is the owner of the brand Binet (and the copyright holder) and allows the use of the 3 files mentioned on the second ticket under GNU Free Documentation License. Regards, Linedwell (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: I don't understand why this file has a copyright violation. I explained, by uploading the picture, that I don't have the rights of the album cover. Credits goes to the source I've mentionned, Universal Music Canada.
You can find the picture all over the Internet, on Amazaon, on iTunes and other online music stores.
Furthermore, you can also find the album cover from the previous edition of the Now! Canadian series, and even for the 60 editions of Now That's What I Call Music! (U.S. Series) pages and for the 94 editions of Now That's What I Call Music (UK series) pages.
If it's because I checked the wrong option at the "Release Rights" step for uploading the photo, please feel free to explain what was the mistake, as you may know I'm a novice editor for the Wikipedia Community.
In conclusion, I assure you that the picture is for the only purpose of the article of the compilation.
Oppose "All over the internet" does not make files freely usable. Almost everything on the Internet is not freely licensed. Album covers are almost always copyrighted. In order to restore these, you will need to get the publisher to send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: We only host media that can be freely used by anyone for any purpose, please see COM:L. These may have been released for promotional purposes, or they might be used on local wikis under a fair use rationale, but they cannot be hosted on Commons. --Storkk (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please note that the book cover (rejected by you) was uploaded by me (the author of the book). Presumably it was rejected because at the time my log-in name was Fiders 41 and not Michael Aufrere Williams. This has now been changed. Thus the uploaded photograph of the book cover is legitimate.
Dr. M. A. Williams
For previously published works, since accounts are basically anonymous, we typically ask for separate confirmation by email from the copyright owner via the COM:OTRS process. Files are generally undeleted at the end of that process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: As Carl said, because we cannot be sure that you (the Commons user) are actually you (the author), please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm that fact. --Storkk (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted a file (near speedy after 3 min he was pinged) with false reason.
After address him, he declared this CoA file (fully flimsy) as logo, he declared also that the given source/reference is not the same depiction (fully flimsy)[6]
I was blamed to "disturbing the process" {no source} tagging, on removing this tag for the existing DR for exact this reason with exact this edit comment.
For me this all told is absolutely specious reasoning (and so uncivil (one-man show) behaviour for an admin. If I was really pissed off, I would make a report on AN).
PS: it is the exact SVG source of File: Rothenstadt.png. ↔ User: Perhelion00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't see it, but a "no source" tag is for copyright only. It is not appropriate to use that tag to indicate that a COA is fictitious (or has no blazon information) -- that should then always be a regular DR (at best) to see if the community thinks it's not useful for an educational purpose. It is not a copyright violation to have a CoA with no blazon reference, so the tag should not have been used. The lack of blazon source info is at most a scope question and therefore should never be a speedy deletion. (Same for sourcing of data information on maps, graphs, etc.) So... Support undeletion as it appears deletion was out of process, though a regular DR may still be warranted (no real idea there) (valid copyright source provided; appears existing tag was correct; see below). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, the fully clear reference with reputation is this (and maybe the only one you can find online). The DR was only a very cynic reaction (awkwardness) from Btr though this situation with "no source" tagging (the admin was aware of this, so he decided ad hominem twice. In fact a reason for an admin admonition).[7]
Oppose - as already explained at my user talk page, this version of the COA is unsourced. Every different presentation of a COA has its own copyright situation. The "source" as given by topic starter points to a different version of the COA. The license only applies if it's a government work, but in this case we don't know, because vital source information is missing. So this is about copyright: the copyright situation is unknown, because the source is missing. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Was the file marked "own work" ? If so that would be a source, and a "no source" tag is inappropriate. Or are you suspecting that the SVG was extracted from a vector source like a PDF? If so, we would need to identify that source. Much of the time, SVGs are self-drawn by contributors. If that is the case, then a "no source" tag should never be applied -- the contributor probably does own the copyright and can license it. If it's too close to an existing version, such that you feel it has been traced, then we'd need to find that to compare the two. Some countries do disallow copyright on all versions of municipal COAs regardless of the artist, though a self-drawn COA from those countries could still have copyright elsewhere. What was the license tag on this? And was it the original license? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, and your comments above aren't really on point. We don't require an external source when the uploader is the creator (except, of course, for the issue of scope and conformance with the CoA/blazon description). We do, however, require a source when a particular CoA/blazon is not the work of the uploader, taken from an external source. This, the latter, is presumably the case here as the author entered was "unknown", the source entered was "unknown", and the template was {{PD-Coa-Germany}} (i.e., not self). Presumably that template is true, but COM:EVID and COM:L require a source so confirming. Similarly, if true, a source should be trivially easy to find and should have accompanied this request, instead of the unhelpful and inappropriate comments directed at Jcb. Эlcobbolatalk16:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Hrm. I was assuming this was self-drawn, but if not -- and the PD-Coa-Germany was the license on the original upload, with an unknown source -- then that is fair. We do need to show that the file came from an official source to use that tag, true enough. That is a copyright issue and using the no-source tag would make sense. That is assuming the vectorization was done by a third party -- if done by the uploader, and was just making a version of a coat of arms seen elsewhere, the initial license tag itself was wrong (or at least misleading). When was the file uploaded? I don't even see that in the logs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No, what Jcb says can't be true and he also says this the first time "to me" (so I had probably unhelpful and inappropriate comments directed).
It doesn't really matter who created the CoA, because they all are PD-Coa-Germany and the Nutzungsrecht - "right of use" and Namensrecht - “legal name” is always by the CoA owner. So I don't understand the logic behind this, what changes the license if the creator is someone other? Also "nur ähnlichen Wiedergabe gegeben"[8] - so even if at only similar reproduction.
Anyway the uploader Btr is probably also the creator (as he said on the given link above). But he don't agree to set own because he assume wrong license calling, because he only redrawn it. So he is definitely right not to have the right to own the Schöpfungshöhe - threshold of originality (which also generally in most cases not exist for CoA in Germany, only for extraordinary depictions). As I said it is helplessness of the user and I'm only the helper in this “game” (actually, this should be the task of admins, but instead they accuse me to be even unhelpful and inappropriate, but Im sorry if this all is a big missunderstanding). ↔ User: Perhelion10:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Requester acknowledges that uploader copied a pre-existing work ("he only redrawn it") which means we require a source. This is unambiguous per COM:L. Also unambiguous is that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained" to provide this sourcing. (COM:EVID). Admins are volunteers like everyone else and have no obligation to do sourcing work for others. Currently there are over 54,000 files tagged as no source; it simply wouldn't be possible. The deletion was proper, and that the requester has devoted time to being "unhelpful and inappropriate" (not an accusation, fact: "absolutely specious reasoning (and so uncivil (one-man show) behaviour for an admin. If I was really pissed off, I would make a report on AN[9]) instead of finding a source is unfortunate. Эlcobbolatalk14:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is still a bit odd to me. I now do see File:Rothenstadt.png, uploaded by the same user, with a similar license issue, and that was almost certainly generated from the SVG in question. That used to be named Rothenstadt.svg and was uploaded about the same time. User:Btr was both the original uploader, *and* the one who nominated the SVG for deletion for lacking a source (was that after a speedy tag was applied?). That user does not have a large history of SVG work, though there is a little. I do see a virtually identical image here, which is a bit different border but obviously have the same source, although that was uploaded there after the upload here, so it could have been taken from here. Very different version here... can't find much other info, and don't see another obvious source for the uploaded file here. There may be some confusion over the PD-Coa-Germany tag... I read that as being versions from official sources are OK, and anyone can use the design (per other rules), but it may still be that personally-drawn versions can still have a copyright. If the uploader assumed that the law means that *all* versions are not copyright protected, regardless of author, even if they would hold a valid copyright in other countries and just put that tag on it rather than "own" as they were entitled to, that could get us into this situation. If the user feels they drew the SVG but slavish followed an existing bitmap such that there was no additional authorship... OK, but what was the copyright status of the source image they were copying? That is the copyright question here. If that was an official source, the tag may make sense. If not, that's where things get dodgy -- if the original had a copyright, and the SVG author assumed it was inherently PD, that could be an issue. But if they just made their own drawing of an existing official design -- i.e. it was not slavish, just vaguely close -- that would be fine. It's just hard to know, especially when the uploader themselves questions the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's odd to me too. As you articulate, there is a myriad of possible scenarios here; the desire (putting aside requirement) for a source is a desire for a reconciliation and explanation. Эlcobbolatalk15:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Эlcobbola I really don't understand you, I've given the source three times. This file is also the first German CoA ever I see deleted with this reason and I've seen thousands of CoA here.
There are only two possible scenarios: own work or not, in both scenarios the CoA is PD-CoA-Germany. There are no German CoA with copyright tag other than PD (although it would be possible?). So can you (or someone) please explain why the given source is not sufficient?!? And please let us forget all that ad hominem to Jcb to me and Btr, I mean this all is a big missunderstanding. ↔ User: Perhelion00:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Bleah, I should have looked at that source ([10]) again once I saw File:Rothenstadt.png. The SVG is pretty clearly a slavish copy of the CoA in that picture (and that is also the direct source for the ngw.nl picture). So... the question is if there is any copyright to the pictured CoA at that source. If that is an official version (would seem most likely, it is a picture of the CoA on a wall) then it would be PD-CoA-Germany, and the SVG would be PD-ineligible on top of that. Some places, especially the UK, may still consider it separately copyrightable, so it would not hurt to have an explicit license on the vectorization for those jurisdictions). It would be best to note that the SVG was self-drawn after the arms seen in the source photograph. But since this does seem again to be self-drawn by the uploader, I'm back to supporting the undeletion. Still odd that the uploader requested deletion, and I can't really fault the original no-source tag, but that is clearly the graphical source of the SVG. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Perhelion: : Okay, I'm with you now. I hadn't noticed the domain/owner (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst) of the link you'd provided; I saw the Wappengalarie to the right and the "Mit My Wappen haben wir eine Fotogalerie eingerichtet, in der Sie Ihre Wappenfunde präsentieren können" description and mistook the site for a collection of user images (i.e., unknown origin, status, age, etc.), not something officially affiliated. If HdBG says it's the Rothenstadt CoA, that's good enough to validate {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Accordingly, I Support undeletion (I would restore myself but for @Jcb: 's remaining opposition above). Danke für deine Geduld. Эlcobbolatalk18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As a note... it is a photograph of the CoA on a wall (you see a plant at the bottom left). So it's not the photograph source itself we'd care about, just what building the pictured CoA is on -- that would almost certainly be a municipal building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That does help the assumption, yes ;-) If it was a photo on some blog, and they mentioned it was the municipal building, that would be just as good though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(As mentioned in my first post in this discussion), the linked COA is different from the deleted image. At least the colors and the border are different. Jcb (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That is not enough to cause a copyright problem. The file is an SVGification of the CoA at that link; you would not be surprised to see the colors and border slightly different -- those are not that significant in heraldry, and do not cause a copyright issue regardless. You really want to look at the delineations of the castle, the bricks, etc. -- and those are basically slavishly copied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting for undeletion of this image because this is a legitimate official logo of Beta Sigma Omega Phi known as Betans. I wanted this image to be added in the infobox of my article Beta Sigma Omega Phi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Caintic (talk • contribs) 06:31, 02 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
We ask that you kindly contact Marko (the copyright holder) to email (NOT forward your communication with him) Wikimedia commons (see COM:OTRS) specifying that <filename> is indeed released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and can be used for *any* purpose under the condition that credit is given to him. Please see COM:OTRS for further information. Thank you kindly! --CoolCanuckeh?23:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at the page and sent an email with what I thought he would need for this process (I am new to this annoying copyright gig). --Vami IV 2/10/16 18:49 (CST)
Above all files are original ,not copied and for educational purpose .Reason not clear for deletion .Please undelete my above files.--Nagric 04:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 02 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose Agreed. Also note that we have many well drawn SVG files of these subjects and that in addition to the crude drawings and out of focus photography, several of them have misspelled words in the drawing. I also note that this user has been told at least five times that he must sign his posts and how to do it, but he still refuses. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Peço desculpa, mas não entendi o problema sobre a foto que foi apagada.
Ela é de autoria dos Spinning e eu sou um dos fundadores da banda. A imagem foi criada por nós aquando o lançamento do Ep "Alter Act" em 2013 e é a capa do EP.
Please find, attached, a copy of the image, which I am happy to supply to you with permission to use solely according to your licence, detailed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Oppose We also do not accept licenses that have been forwarded here. If the NPG chooses to freely license the image, it must send the license directly to OTRS. Also:
"It is essential that you ensure images are captioned and credited as they are on the Gallery's own website" is a problem.
"Credited" is fine, as it is required by the CC-BY license, but "captioned" is not -- a free license does not give the copyright holder any control over captioning. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Per Carl, the license is not compatible with Commons. Walter Bird died in 1969, so the image won't fall into the public domain until 2040. --Storkk (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
8888_uprising_in_Burma.jpg
The file had the appropiate Creative Commons License, and the respective photographer and the book in which the picture appeared was quoted.
--Readyus (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This material belongs to me, why was it deleted? Can you please restore.
The El Monte Rey in San Bernardino, CA is my image. I' am El Monte Rey. No one else owns my image, please restore my image, I have been trying really hard to be on Common and Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blkft898 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 04 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose This request is presumably about File:El Monte Rey in San Bernardino, CA (2014).jpg, which is your only deleted image. If you are El Monte Rey, the subject of the photo, then you are not the photographer and the image is not "own work" as you claimed. The image is watermarked "E and Oz Pictures". In order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS or (b) you must send OTRS a copy of your written agreement with the photographer that allows you to freely license the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No Pain Labor & Delivery – Global Health Initiative (NPLD-GHI, 无痛分娩中国行)
Please undelete the topic, we are drafting it. We will change the words and tones and will not make it promotional.
We will say it objectively
Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likely08 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 05 October 2016 (UTC)
@Likely08: I can't see what draft are you saying here, based on your contributions. I am sure you visited the wrong wiki. If the draft is actually here, then I Oppose per COM:SCOPE, we only accept media, not drafts nor articles. --★Poké9511:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by User:Thinkingarena
The copyright owner of the following files agreed to release the files to public domain under CC-BY-SA-3.0. ticket:2016091410018598. However those files deleted as out of scope. So I am bringing the issue to her.
Also, files uploaded by User:Thinkingarena include official document of the Israeli authority which deleted also as out of scope. I don't know if there is anything coprightble in this document. Your advice regarding be appreciated:
@Geagea: I undeleted the first three files. could you please take care of the OTRS-part? Not sure about the last file so I am leaving that one for someone more familiar with this specific topic. Natuur12 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Done: According to User:Deror avi the situation in Israel is not like in USA. Not all "blank form" are free. Only forms that mentioned in the regulations are free. The Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 says: section 6: Official Publications: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4, copyright shall not subsist in statutes, regulations, Knesset Protocols and judicial decisions of the courts or of any other government entities having judicial authority according to law.. this form is mentioned in the regulation her, therefore it's free. -- Geagea (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose We only accept media that can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial. We do not accept images that are only permissioned for Wikipedia (see COM:L). If VitaePro/VitaeLab AS is the copyright holder of both the packaging and the photograph, a legal representative (who is authorized to license their IP) should confirm that they intend to license the file freely by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose You have given no reason why this image should be restored. It was deleted because it appears on the Web without a free license. It cannot be restored unless the actual photographer sends a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a COM:DW of the trophy. The license for the image is fine, but the photographer doesn't own the copyright to the trophy that is prominently shown. lNeverCry05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editor,
Under the policy of Wikipedia I have the right to upload my own copy righted photos. Please do not delete any of the photos I have uploaded via wizard. I categorically say all the photos I have uploaded are my photos and no one else owns the copyright.
Verärgert muss ich feststellen, dass auch das zweite Bild zur Wiki-Seite "Werner Vordtriede" einfach gelöscht wurde.
Es handelt sich um das Bild von 1957. Alle entsprechenden Schritte habe ich abgearbeitet und eine Freigabe mit Vermerk
auf der Wiki-Seite angebracht. Da ich nichts gehört habe, der Vermerk von Dritten herausgenommen wurde und auch keine Supportanfrage kam, bin ich von einer Ordnungsmäßigkeit ausgegangen.
Die Bestätigung des Rechtinhabers habe ich am 17.09.2016 dem Support zugesandt. Ticket 2016091710007666.
Rechteinhaber: Prof. Dr. Dieter Borchmeyer, München
Bevollmächtigter: Juergenlang63 (Vordtriede-Haus Freiburg)
OpposeOTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it often has a backlog of several weeks or even more than a month. I would not expect a ticket dated September 17 to have been acted on yet. In order to restore this, OTRS must receive a free license directly from the photographer or his heirs. As a general rule we do not accept material sent by the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The file Jed-Rose.jpg is owned by the Rose Research Center which is owned by Dr. Jed Rose himself. He has rights to this picture and it was used with his permission on his Wikipedia page. There is no copyright violation.
Oppose We need a confirmation from the copyright holder that this image may be used under a free commercial license. Even though Dr. Rose may have the right of use for this image, the copyright usually rests with the original photographer. That means that the photographer should send an email to clarify the legal status of this photograph. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Solicito la restauracion del archivo Escudo_Real_Salinas_by_Darwin_Jimy_Flores_Quispe.svg, el cual es un archivo de mi creacion propia, y si uds creen que no lo es, indicarme cual es el archivo al cual hago referencia con mi trabajo, y si se diese el borrado permanente de mi creacion, dare por cancelada mi cuenta en wikimedia commons. atte. --Dajimy (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This purports to be the logo of a football club. You may personally have created the svg file, but that would mere be a derivative work. Evidence of permission from the club should be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbolatalk20:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Olá.
Estou pedindo para liberar essa imagem porque ela é minha, sou o fundador e líder do Stereotrilhos, e gostaria de liberar a capa do álbum para divulgação.
Att. Juliano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliano A Fernandes (talk • contribs) 19:45, 06 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the right of promotional distribution, do you as the band leader also own the copyright of this artwork? We need permission from the copyright holder to publish it under a free commercial licencense. Usually this can only be granted by the original designer. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
only reason for deletion given was "out of scope" a catch all phrase which really just means a user does not see the use of a file, plenty of other files like this file exist, so there was no considered or genuine reason for this file to be deleted Oxyman (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - COM:SCOPE is a policy, not a catch all phrase, with requirements that a given image be "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" and realistically useful for an educational purpose. That one could hypothetically concoct a use ("a user does not see the use of a file") is specifically addressed by COM:NOTUSED, and does not necessarily satisfy the aforementioned requirements. The DR rationale, that this is a concept image for a now-defunct entity, is implicitly that a design that never did, and never will, come to fruition is not likely to be realistically instructional, informative, etc. This is a perfectly valid line of reasoning. There was no considered or genuine rebuttal at the DR (merely reiterating it was a concept, which was not in dispute) or here above (essentially w:WP:OTHERSTUFF - "plenty of other files like this file exist"). Эlcobbolatalk16:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that COM:SCOPE is not a policy But unfortunately it is used as a catch all phrase by people that just want to delete stuff they personally see no use for. just repeating "COM:SCOPE is a policy" will just increase this inappropriate behavior and does nothing to address the very real problem here. Granted I could have explained that the diagram shows the thought process that was going on at the time, but really I feel it should not always be necessary to go through the rigmarole of explaining everything just because someone has used a catch all phrase. Also if we cannot upload files like others already on Commons then how can we ever know what files to upload,l in reality despite denials that is what does and needs to go on Oxyman (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
To the contrary, that is implicitly what you're arguing. Four experienced users (Mattbuck, Jcb, Jim and myself) have indicated this is not in scope, yet that is met by the refrain that "out of scope is a catch all." This is not the response of someone engaging with scope as a policy. Indeed, it's telling that you can't be bothered to explain why it's in scope ("I feel it should not always be necessary to go through the rigmarole of explaining everything"; " it should not be necessary to explaining (sic) this"), but have no problem engaging in soapboxing rants here ("It's no surprise that users stop bothering to upload files.") Those who have the law on their side pound the law. Those with facts pound the facts. Those with nothing pound the table. The last one would be you, complete with the OTHERSTUFF fallacies and assumptions of bad faith ("just because moderators stick together"). Эlcobbolatalk20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
'I'm sorry that is just a personal attack' that takes everything I said out of context and not addressing anyn of my real concerns or points, the reposes I have had in this "discussion" is exactly as i said ,just moderators sticking together that response appearing as it does just after I responded to the other contributer to this argument, it is irrelevant weather you personally like my arguments or me, But I guess it is OK for you to go around making personal attacks. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks then it would be better not to post Oxyman (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It's Ok for you to soapbox and insult and not contribute in a positive way then? You do not have a point just insults Oxyman (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose As elcobbola says, "other stuff exists" is never a valid reason for anything -- I'm sure that at least 1% of Commons files -- more than 300,000 -- should be deleted for one reason or another. If this is a drawing taken from an official version of the concept, then it is a DW and therefore a copyvio. If it is something that the uploader made up from scratch -- which is what is claimed in the file description -- then it is simply a non-official person's idea of what the train might have looked like. That has no educational value, so either this is a copyvio or is out of scope and, either way, it should not be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but just repeating another users arguments is not an answer, if there is no precedent here for files then there would be no rational for any files to be kept, I find the concepts surrounding an eventual decision to be educational, it should not be necessary to explaining this just because moderators stick together, as can be shown above. It's no surprise that users stop bothering to upload files here as after all we need to delete at least 1% of Commons files with no real consideration. Oxyman (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You have not responded to my fundamental concern -- either this is a DW and therefore a copyvio or it was created out of the uploader's imagination and is therefore not useful. Put another way, if it is close enough to an actual drawing of the train created by the people working on the project to be useful, then it is a copyvio. If it is not a copyvio, then it is not useful. This is a frequent Catch 22 with this kind of work and there is no easy way around it.
As for "It's no surprise that users stop bothering to upload files here", we actually get about 10,000 new files every day. We delete around 1,700 files every day, but you're dreaming if you believe that we actually catch all of the files that should be deleted. I guess at 1% -- I wouldn't be surprised if it were much higher. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither have you responded my fundamental concern -- so I' repeat the relevant lines "just repeating another users arguments is not an answer, if there is no precedent here for files then there would be no rational for any files to be kept," "I'm not arguing that COM:SCOPE is not a policy But unfortunately it is used as a catch all phrase by people that just want to delete stuff" There never was a prevention on uploading own work, or own concepts which can be useful. You are claiming it could be like another piece of artwork so could be a copyvio, that is a large and unreasonable leap which is just an argument made up as yourself see no use of the file (you certainly don't provide any evidence of the supposed copied source), also it must be deleted as you estimate 1% of all files should be deleated. These are not considered reasons just argument fodder. Also I'm not arguing that less files are being uploaded so your statistics are irrelevant, more that individual uploaders contributing valuable own work are not bothering to upload files rather then mass bot uploads from other sources. Oxyman (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
To criticize somebody's arguments or line of reasoning is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be to bring up your personal qualities as a human being. Thuresson (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as deletion nominator - This diagram is of a train which does not and will not exist, for a TOC which no longer exists. There is no reason why this would be in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Concept First Capital Connect Thameslink Diagram.PNG
Re nominating in the hope that we can have a discussion without personal attacks as happened before and without just admins sticking together as they are experienced and apparently anyone who disagrees with them is inexperienced. I hope a genuine discussion this time can be had Oxyman (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
edit conflict
Oppose First, I object to "we can have a discussion without personal attacks as happened before and without just admins sticking together". The discussion included four highly experienced Admins. Most requests here close with only one or two editors involved. We often agree, but certainly never "stick together" in any sense of that -- we disagree when appropriate. Also, there were no personal attacks in the previous discussion. There was certainly frustration at Oxyman's repeating the same thing, but no one said anything personal about him or her.
Second, I will for a third time state the obvious, which Oxyman has not at all addressed. This is an "own work" drawing by a person who has no known connection to the project illustrated. If it is copied from material that was generated by the FCC Thameslink project, then it is a derivative work and therefore a copyvio and cannot be kept here without a license from the original designer. On the other hand, if it is not a close copy of the FCC Thameslink design, then it is not educational because it cannot be used in an article on the FCC Thameslink project or anything else. How would you caption it -- "Drawing showing what an unknown person thinks this train might look like"?
There may be some confusion here because the uploader, User:Unisouth~commonswiki, has contributed some very good drawings of existing rail equipment (e.g File:Class 165 First Great Western Diagram.PNG. Drawings of existing equipment are a valuable addition to Commons and to WP:EN -- they are not copyvios because they are drawn from actual equipment which does not have a copyright. They are useful, because they show what the actual equipment looks like in various liveries. In contrast, the subject drawing must either be copied from a copyrighted drawing -- which might make it useful, but also a copyvio, or it's Unisouth's imagination, in which case it is not a copyvio, but also not useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done Reopening an undeletion request with the same rationale will not restore this file. --★Poké9512:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The nominator said the first two images "have two different cameras". Today, most people have a cell phone, which typically has a camera, and a digital camera. It's not a surprise to have two different cameras at all. Nevertheless, this user has uploaded some of his files locally on Persian and German Wikipedias. Take a look at the metadata of the following files:
File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg is clearly a scrap of an old Iranian newspaper so we can make sure that the image has been published before (i.e., not been in a private collection). Article 16 of the Iranian copyright law (the 3rd item in {{PD-Iran}}) stipulates that all photographic works fall into public domain after 30 years of publication date. The image is about the w:1953 Iranian coup d'état.
File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg: I talked with the user on Persian Wikipedia about this image, which is also about the 1953 Iranian coup. He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends. I do believe his honesty and integrity based on our mutual cooperation on Persian Wikipedia.
OpposeFile:Zip trafic 1.jpg, File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg; Neutral on File:Aldi empty leer.jpg. The Aldi and Zip images were added to fa.wiki articles by the uploader ([11][12]), so their use ceteris paribus is not supportive of scope. The Zip image is terrible quality, including with poorly censored number plates, and is from a vantage that doesn't really illustrate the zipper merge; thus I don't think it's in Scope. For the other "self" image, if we need a image of Aldi shelves that need restocking, so be it. As for File:Zip trafic 1.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg, we require a source. "He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends" (emphasis mine - !!!) is not acceptable. COM:L requires source "information sufficient for others to verify the license status"; we cannot say to re-users of our content "you will need to find a friend of a friend of Xerxessenior to verify the PD claim." The images are not of the full publication, so there is no way to verify date or jurisdiction (for example, Persian is also spoken in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere.) Certainly the aforementioned claim is believed and not meant to deceive, but people can misremember and make honest mistakes which is precisely why COM:L and COM:EVID require verifiable sourcing. Эlcobbolatalk17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:INUSE states that "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." I do not see any mention to "ceteris paribus" in the policy page. He added the pictures and the Persian Wikipedia community decided to keep them. One way to build consensus is through editing (en:WP:EDITCONSENSUS). If nobody objects, a new consensus has been reached. And nobody objected. We had used the Zip image to illustrate this traffic method in high speeds. If you still disagree, I am more than happy to continue this discussion on Persian Wikipedia, not here.
Regarding the Iranian coup pictures, what kind of source should he provide? Does it suffice to name the magazines? He knows the name of magazines and their publication year: fa:خواندنیها (de:Khandaniha) and fa:تهران مصور both in 1953. These magazines were published in Iran. They stopped being published after the w:1979 Iranian Revolution (37 years ago) so their content is definitely in the public domain. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: and @INeverCry: , I am pinging you as the nominator and the eliminator respectively. I have kept an eye on this page during the last two weeks but nothing has happened. Could you please consider this request? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Support per AGF and OP. I cringe at the support by @Ellin Beltz: for such flagrant disregard for COM:INUSE and failure to see the inanity of the "have two different cameras" even after the cameras were ID'd and refusal to respond to the "Does it suffice to name the magazines and their publication year?" question. (I don't think it does, but googling the headline or a line from the article could bring up a google result with more info. Tried that, 4nn1l2? Re. INUSE: were the images not removed from the articles after they were deleted here?--Elvey (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done This has been open for over a month and it is time it is resolved. It is clear that the uploader has a misunderstanding of "own work" -- at the DR he said "is definitely my own work!" of two files that were scanned from an old publication. That therefore raises the question of whether the other images are actually his own work. User:4nn1l2 comments, "Today, most people have a cell phone, which typically has a camera, and a digital camera." However, these two images were taken with two different cell phones -- that is still possible, but certainly raises a significant doubt, which is our standard of proof. Also, as Эlcobbola has pointed out, the Zip traffic image does not really show zip traffic, has a slanted horizon, and is very hazy gray. It also has a watermark which I can't read, but further raises questions about the source.
Although the two scans from the past are likely PD-Iran, our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", not "likely" and without the name and date of the publication, we cannot keep them. Since the uploader does not know even that most basic information, we must question whether he knows the subject matter or even where the publication originated. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file mentioned in Title, is owned by me, i created that Logo about 7 years ago & now are using for our forum, so i think it must be undelete. for further anyone can contact with me. i am owner of Sindhsalamat-logo.png file.
--Thaheem Ubed (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)thaheem*ubed
Can you post a note at http://sindhsalamat.com/ stating that the logo is released under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license? You could then link to this message here and then in the permission field of the image when it's restored. Alternately, we would need OTRS permission from an email address at the http://sindhsalamat.com/ domain releasing the logo under CC-BY-SA-4.0 or another free license. This is meant to protect Commons and your copyright. INeverCry04:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
OpposeThis is a sculpture of Madonna. Anyway, the wax sculptures at Tussaud's or elsewhere are copyrighted artworks of their own. So even if such a photograph is released under a free license, the subject of the photo must not be reproduced without permission from the sculptor. Please read Commons:Trabajos derivados. As to the Michael Jackson image, the photograph at Flickr is tagged "All rights reserved" and should not have been uploaded at all. De728631 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
While Mme Tussaud's sculpture in London and Hong Kong can be shown on Commons because of the FOP exception, similar sculpture in the USA is not exempt and photographs of it cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I made this remark about the Madonna image because the section heading of this thread refers to Michael Jackson. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand now, as I said above -- but I didn't at first understand that your link and the uploader's were the same, so I didn't understand why you linked to an image of Madonna. Others may be smarter than me and get it immediately, or perhaps not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was deleted on 24.07.2012. This was my own photograph of my brother, Gerhard Gleich, showing me, in his atelier in Vienna, his sculpture "Polyflower". At the time, I was not aware of the fact that to publish the photograph, I would also need his consent. It would be easy to get his consent. But even today, I am not sure about the correct procedure. Could someone, please, help Johann Nepomuk (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done Not deleted, but you need to ask the copyright holder of this image to send an email to the OTRS for this to be kept. --★Poké9506:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I work for Shawn Mills at Green House Data, and he asked me to change his picture on his wikipedia profile to his new picture which can be found on this page: https://www.greenhousedata.com/about/leadership-team.
I don't see how this violates any copyright laws when I credited the source and am the one who originally posted it to our Green House Data website. Please reconsider your deletion of this picture.
Note also that your editing your employer's article is a serious violation of the rules both here and at WP:EN, see the policy on Conflict of Interest. At the very least, you must declare your conflict on your talk pages in both projects. Also note that you have no control over the image chosen for the article. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done per INC, we need a OTRS permission from greenhousedata.com. And please declare your conflict on your user pages and talk pages here and on Commons. --★Poké9509:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The original source file comes from my own website www.sarahjanepell.com. I am the copyright owner of the image, and the website. The image is a self portrait or 'selfie' taken with my iPad. My trading name is SPELLART. I also hold the domain and project name Bending Horizons (see www.bendinghorizons) hence I have chosen this as my User:bendinghorizons. Please advise how I need to provide proof of authorship, ownership and permission to publish. My wiki page is being updated by third parties to ensure a neutral view and I wanted to add an image. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendinghorizons (talk • contribs) 12:43, 07 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It is a wonderful portrait photograph. It is so good that I must express my doubts that is actually a selfie. It would have to be taken with a self timer (both hands are in the image) and it just doesn't look it. I also note that it is small, much smaller than an iPad image and has no EXIF metadata, both of which are hallmarks of an image pulled from the Web.
The easiest way to prove that it is your image is for you to upload, with a new file name, the full size iPad image with its EXIF and post that file name here. After we examine it, it could be deleted. Alternately, you could send a free license to OTRS from an address at sarahjanepell.com. That will, as I noted at my reply to your comment on my talk page, take much longer.
I know this may be a nuisance, but, unfortunately, we do have fans or vandals who claim to be notable people and post images here without permission. User:Bendinghorizons could be anyone. Therefore we are fairly careful in accepting images that do not appear to be "own work". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In order to keep this, we would need a free license from Pokeman. That's extremely unlikely because Pokemon makes a lot of money by licensing its characters. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The following images have been mistakenly speedy deleted by Jameslwoodward due to suspicion of copy right violation.
I would like to state that I am the copyright owner of the following images and they have the Free License of Attribution-ShareAlike and Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0.
I have the legal permission to post the following book cover as well (by author, publisher and illustrator). However, it may not be suitable for Wikimedia since typically, a book cover is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives.
OpposeI would like to state that I am the copyright owner of the following images and they have the Free License of Attribution-ShareAlike and Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0. and it may not be suitable for Wikimedia since typically, a book cover is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives. (emphasis is mine) Here at Commons, we only accept free media, which are free to be used for any purpose (which includes commercial use and derivative works). Attribution-NoDerivatives and Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives are not free licenses. If you would like to have these images restored, please send an email to the OTRS and irrevocably accept that you release these files under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★Poké9501:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose "Public domain" is not the same as "published in the web". In this case, Julian Davies is the copyright holder of this image (and the book), so we need an OTRS permission from them. --★Poké9509:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Since this page includes illustrations, the illustrator, Phil Day, also holds a copyright which must be licensed. It is possible that Finlay Lloyd, the publisher, can license this image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I request you to restore the file because based on the reason stated, the image is not under traditional copyright nor restricted for public use. The image has been made public and can be used by anyone from anywhere.
Oppose So, first, apparently this image is not your "own work" as you claimed in the file description. I see no reason why this image is not copyrighted -- almost every created work has a copyright. There are few exceptions and none of them apply here. The fact that "the image has been made public" does not say anything about its copyright -- almost everything available on the Web has a copyright and cannot be uploaded to Commons. In fact, this image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.alexreports.info/2016/03/photos-rachel-bakam-opens-up-on-rumours.html.
File should be undeleted because it was deleted "for copyright vio" but no further reason was given. It is a vectorized version of the PNG that is still on commons, which was a work done by an employee of the United States Army while performing his duties (specifically, me). Furthermore, I am unsure as to why there was no message left on my talk page. I believe the image was originally moved here from Wikipedia, and am unsure how the author/source transferred. I would have been more than happy to correct any errors in PD tags if there was a need for it. HiB2Bornot2B (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Ellin, you deleted this. Am I missing something -- it appears to be OK.
I redrew this based based on a raster file we worked with in the 297th MI BN, while I performed duties as the Secretary to the Battalion Commander. The rendering in scale and design is based on the actual Distinctive Unit Insignia worn by members of that unit. I would have no problem releasing it into the PD as the author, either; this is especially true since I was under the belief that the file was already PD. HiB2Bornot2B (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Support If you did the SVG as part of your official duties, it would be PD-USGov, but if you did it in your spare time for yourself, you could own some copyright. Obviously, the base graphic is PD-USGov from the sounds of it, even if different from the IOH one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The Institute of Heldery gives the official description and an example CoA. The question, then, is whether this particular depiction of the CoA was copied from a pre-existing work. This deleted version (or the png on which it was based) differs meaningfully from the IOH version: notice lines on the gauntlet, outline of the sword, ribbing of the hilt, etc., which may suggest independent creation; remember, even "if two authors created works that are similar or even identical, each work could be registered provided that the authors did not copy expression from each other." (Compendium Of U.S. Copyright Office Practices 313.4(A)) So, HiB2Bornot2B, did you draw this CoA based on the description or on an existing CoA? Эlcobbolatalk19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The file has no source. ''{{No source since|month=September|day=10|year=2016}}
{{Information
|Description={{en|SVG format of the 297th MI BN DUI. I redrew the original which I believe is in PNG format. I am okay with releasing it into the public domain, but as a U.S. Government Employee, I think it can be released under that license anyway.}}
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}
{{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}}
== {{Original upload log}} ==
{{original description page|en.wikipedia|297th_MI_BN_DUI.svg}}
* 2007-06-21 20:30 [[:en:User:HiB2Bornot2B|HiB2Bornot2B]] 512×530× (580690 bytes) ''<nowiki>SVG format of the 297th MI BN DUI. I redrew the original which I believe is in PNG format. I am okay with releasing it into the public domain, but as a U.S. Government Employee, I think it can be released under that license anyway.
There is a statement "I redrew the original" but there's no indication where that original is located. One would assume that the person doing the redrawing would have had access to that information. Jcb sent it to no source, and since this image has no source, I deleted it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It was drawn by an Army employee in the course of his work and is identical, except for format, to File:297th mi bn dui.png, the PNG version drawn by the same uploader.
I agree that the "Source = " line in the file description is blank, but it could be any of a number of things -- "Own work", "redraw of File:297th mi bn dui.png", or "The Army Institute of Heraldry", although that's a jpeg. Can't we just restore the file and close this, adding "own work" as the source? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
All it would have taken to fix this was to put that link for the Heraldry file as source with the comment about the redraw. At the time we went through this initially, there was no source. Some wee abbreviation is wonderful, but it's not how you find the image on the TAIoH, not everyone is a military heraldry expert. I would think someone redrawing an image would have no trouble providing the source to the image from which they were drawing. Most people just automatically do that. I have restored the file. I added a full description to it when previously it had none. I changed "SVG format of the 297th MI BN DUI" from shorthand to actually what the unit is so that search engines have a chance of finding it. I have removed the no source tag and added a proper description and a link to the TAIoH page as well as "other versions" link to the png. I have also appended all the appropriate information to File:297th mi bn dui.png which was also "no source" because of "no infobox template". Both files are fixed and problems solved, is there anything else? Please forgive my sluggish response in last five days I had a massive prescription antibiotic reaction and was not always capable of sitting, typing, forming a coherent sentence or being awake. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to know why this file was deleted, it was a screenshot of the Tebeosfera website (www.tebeosfera.com), I'm one of its administrators. The site is property of a Cultural Association, and both myself (Secretary and Coordinator) and Manuel Barrero (Director) agree to publish this image under public domain. What could we do to undelete it?
Oppose Agreed.We cannot restore this without both (a) a free license from an authorized official of the organization owning the Web site, and (b) proof beyond a significant doubt that the Web site has the right to freely license all of the works shown in the image. See OTRS for instructions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The image was released by Gemfields, the copyright owner, under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Please check Ticket#2016100410010049 for the release declaration. --Gemfields PLC (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose I assume your request is for your two uploads:
Избирательный участок место, где нет никаких запретов на съемку, более того, Арина в данном случае не праздное лицо, а человек обеспечивающий охрану избирательного участка. В сети лежал видео всех участков РФ, лежат в соответствии с законом, и тут появляется человек удаляющий файл по причине, что мол разрешения не спросили... Все что защищает закон - это права личности, то, что нельзя под этим фото написать, что "Арина-покллонник пива Туборг" и использовать так в рекламе, но её нахождение на выборах ну никак не под какую защиту не подпадает. Прошу восстановить файл, а админу объяснить правила и законы на которые он ссылается. --S, AV17:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a mess. Neither the comments above nor at the DR addressed the concern over which this was ultimately deleted: COM:CSCR. Whether photography is allowed in the polling place, whether the woman is an official, and whether it is a "real picture from real event" are irrelevant considerations. That said, COM:CSCR is implicitly an offshoot of COM:NCR, which are issues and considerations germane to those who choose to use Commons' content, but not necessarily to the Commons as a mere host. Thus, deletion for CSCR reasons may be questionable, or at least would certainly benefit from more discussion on how this law would apply to us. That said, this is simply not in scope. This is a non-notable, junior official sitting in an unremarkable room (i.e., no indication it's related to an election--let alone a specific election--or to polling but for the written description) talking on her mobile. Although one of the DR participants added it to an election article in response to the DR, COM:SCOPE requires files be legitimately in use; that addition strains credulity and has an air of gaming the system (although, to be clear, I have no doubt the person was acting on a good faith, albeit misguided, belief that retaining the image would be helpful to the project). Frankly, that use is (was) somewhat akin to illustrating the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II with a picture of a constable having a chat in a back pew at Westminster Abbey: no realistic educational value or use. Эlcobbolatalk14:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
А вам не приходило в голову откуда я знаю, что даму зовут Арина Прунь? Она довольно публичное лицо в городе, занимается связями с общественностью. [Текст], [Видео], [Фото]. Если собрать все видео на местных телеканалах, выйдут не одни сутки с её участием, это не Опра, конечно, но более известная личность, чем 90% людей так или иначе промелькнувших на Викискладе и надо отметить, что её карьера сейчас на пике. Нет ни одной недели, чтоб её не помянули региональные СМИ. Она гораздо популярнее, чем все те, кто пришел на данный участок голосования вместе взятые. --S, AV19:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That a name shows up in Google searches does not speak to notability, and is not the threshold; non-trivial third party coverage focused specifically on the person is. As an easy example, one could search for a local (i.e. a given metro area) news correspondent and indeed find appearances on camera and the name in print. That is not notability. Here, that is well evidenced by the fact that the image was dumped into an election article instead of an article on her. None of our sister projects, including ru.wiki, have a page on her, which seems quite telling. This, of course, also does not address the CSCR issue for which the image was actually deleted. Эlcobbolatalk22:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I deleted the image for violating CSCR, but I agree with Эlcobbola that the image is out of scope -- it shows a woman talking on a cell phone inside a building -- there is nothing that indicates it is a polling station and I see no educational use of the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the poster for my short film Thunder Road, to which I have no copyright. It is free to use and I'd love to feature it on the short film's page.
Thank you very much.
I have the right to upload this poster of the film.
I'm the member of the film company. My email is shelly.shih@amazingfilm.com. I'm authorized to upload it..
Shhhhhihyu (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Because it was previously published with an explicit copyright notice, in order to restore it here, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
All the Support Brigade Shoulder Insignias were recently deleted for lacking source, but they are all currently available at the tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilotat (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Another one? This is really starting to become bad practise. Jcb tagging files that have been here for years and can be fixed only to delete them himself seven days later. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am requesting undeletion of the 2 files listed: File:Movie Lights 3 - Judith Eisler.jpg & File: Sadie-Thompson-1-Judith Eisler.jpg.
I edited the wiki page of Judith Eilser, the artist, and have permission directly from her to use the images here. You can contact her
at jeisler@gmail.com Please let me know what I need to do to veriify fair use of these images.
thank you
--Nmunford (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Nancy Munford
Reason: The file represents the official election poster of the campaing of 1936. It is in the public domain since 1936 (80 years ago) and it has been diffused at a relatively large scale. The photography was also publshed in the Bulletin "Le Houx - special edition 1937 - Provost de la Fardinière - Sa Vie - Son Oeuvre" (Editor Heny Mallez - Cambrai - France); it is also the official photography when Henri Provost de la Fardinière was a Deputy at the Franch Parliament in 1936. That's why I consider that the photography has its place with the notice dedicated to its author. Histoavranches (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There are two copyrights here. The first is for the photograph. Since it is signed, and therefore not anonymous, it does not become PD until 70 years after the death of the photographer. 1936 is far too recent to assume that the photographer died before 70 years ago. The second copyright is for the text at the bottom. If it can be shown that Henri Provost de la Fardinière wrote it, then it is PD, as he died in 1937, but that has not been proven either. In order to restore this, we therefore need both the death date of the photographer (or a license from his heirs) and knowledge of who wrote the text at the bottom and when he died. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Herr Wald, wo genau ist da die Lizenz Creative Commons-by-sa-3.0? Das Album-Cover kann ich in den Beispielfotos auf der Webseite leider auch nicht finden. Ein direkter Weblink zur Lizenz für dieses Bild wäre also sehr hilfreich. Bei der Gelegenheit sollten am besten auch gleich die Lizenzen für File:Maggers United 2016.jpg und File:Maggers United.jpg bestätigt werden. Das geht allerdings auch per Email. Die Anleitung und eine Textvorlage dafür finden sich in COM:OTRS. Wenn eine solche Bestätigung per Email gesendet wurde, setzen Sie bitte den Textbaustein {{OTRS pending}} auf die Dateiseiten der Bilder hier bei Commons, damit wir Bescheid wissen. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There is no free licensing whatsoever mentioned at http://www.bildwald.de/. On the contrary, http://www.bildwald.de/pages/impressumdisclaimerdatenschutz/ explicitly states under § 3 Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte that "any use not permitted by the German Copyright and Performance Protection Law requires the prior written consent" and that "the unauthorized duplication or dissemination of individual contents or complete pages is prohibited and punishable." —LX (talk, contribs)17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: Yo realicé todas estas fotos, forman parte de mi proyecto artístico. He recibido numerosos premios y becas, por lo que considero relevantes dichas imágenes:
I do all this photos, don't exist any problem about the Copyright. All this photos take part in a artistic project. I had received numerous prizes and grants in Spain and other countries. My work has used on numerous international exposition and films. Please, speak me in spanish. I try to speak you in english, you can try to speak spanish too.
Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Aitorpotter, there were two reasons these were deleted. First, the subject does not have an article on WP:EN or WP:ES and therefore they are almost certainly out of scope. Commons is not Facebook and we do not host images of people who do not mee the test of notability. Second, these are all claimed to be "own work", but the subject is the uploader and they are not selfies. Therefore the actual photographer owns the copyright and even if they were in scope, they could not be kept on Commons without a free license from the photographer. As for the request to resond in Spanish, we all use Google translate when we need to -- you should try it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This picture, extracted from a group photo taken in 1913, was first published in Moderne Illustrierte Wochenschrift of 11 December 1913, with no attribution.
That is 103 years ago. There is a high chance that the anonymous army photographer who took it is now dead by more of 70 years.
Support It is too recent by thirty years to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. However, my closing comment at the cited DR was, ""Unknown" does not mean "anonymous". It is up to anyone who wants to keep this to show that work was originally published anonymously." Now that we know when and where it was published, I think it can be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. To be very honest, there seems to be an earlier publication: L'Illustration, Nr. 3691, page 385, 22 November 1913, Paris. As this transcript shows, it seems to be anonymous too: http://www.loyalbooks.com/download/text/Lillustration-no-3691-22-Novembre-1913.txt . I cannot strictly guarantee there is not an even earlier publication. The first press article on the subject is on 6 November, 16 days before.
But common sense suggests that this photograph has been taken by some army photographer as part as his regular duty and that History has completely lost track of that person. The original group photo is reproduced here : de:Datei:Zabern IR 99 5. Komp Jg. 1911-13 Vollbild.PNG.
For EU countries, the copyright term is generally based on the life of the human author, if identified, even if the company owns that copyright. If history has lost track of that person, that is what is known as an "orphan work" and there is no legal way to host those, unless it gets old enough to assume any author has died more than 70 years ago (there is no hard and fast rule, but at some point we will assume that -- but certainly not for things only 100 years old). There is awareness of the orphan work problem but most countries have not tried to find a way to address it, and there is no common sense that can be used in that area (other than 120-140 year old works). For the "anonymous" terms to hold, we really need to show the original publication was in fact anonymous, and not just that the name has been lost. If there is a separate term for government works (some countries but not all), that could make a difference too -- but for this type of work, neither France nor Germany has such terms. But it sure looks like this should qualify for anonymous, so Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose Reopen and combine three requests. All of these are uploads from User:Danistiglia, so it's a pretty good guess that he is the requester.
The first has the following in the file description: "esta foto pertenece a Maite Zumelzú para ser utilizada en su propio wikipedia". Such a restriction is prohibited here and if the image belongs to Maite Zumelzú, then how can it be the uploader's own work?. The other two say: "esta foto pertenece a Daniel Stigliano para utilizarse en su propio wikipedia" which is the same prohibited restriction and, since the subject is the uploader, they violate the actual photographer's copyright.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose We need permission from the original photographer Hisashi Tanida. To restore the image, Mr Tanida should send an email as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
In 2008, in Kolkata christian ground (Park street and AJC bose Road crossing), took that image. After that many website use my image without my attribution. Now commons said that I have violate the copyright. This is so silly situation. I am working for Wikimedia near about 10 years. Thanks you wikimedia commons for delete this image. I urge you all admin please delete all my image. This my last request to community. Thanks for understanding.Jayantanth (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Same day I have also shots some more images at South Park Street Cemetery. Please delete all this images.
I am extremely sorry for nominating this file for deletion as the metadata was missing and other websites used the file without proper attribution, thus creating confusion. The file has been restored by User:Jcb. Warm regards, -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems reasonable to keep all USAF patches as public domain, so long as there are no assertions that they are fantasy or fake, on the basis that designs for USAF units are created and used by military personnel during their employment by the DoD.
As I would like to avoid documenting searches and links off-wiki when I do not have access to the images on Commons or the image page texts, rather than documenting them on-wiki in a deletion request, I suggest these, and the rest at https://www.flickr.com/photos/wikimediacommons/albums/72157675101001356, are considered as a case precedent for undeletions without prejudice for any future reasonable nomination under a deletion request. I further propose that future deletions of USAF emblems are recommended to go via a deletion request rather than being speedy deleted after being tagged as unsourced or unlicensed, for all the reasons put forth in past discussions as to why this is poor practice for Wikimedia Commons' mission to preserve public domain educational media uploaded in good faith. Obviously this excludes cases of bad faith uploads by known flickr washing accounts etc. --Fæ (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has taken place at several locations in the past months, leading to no other point of view by experienced admins like INeverCry, Ellin Beltz and myself. Deleted files can be undeleted if a valid source is provided to show that they are genuine USAF works. The license is only valid if USAF is the true author. The obligation to add adequat source information has not been absent for the past decade, so I don't understand what could be unclear about this situation. Please stop forum shopping about this subject. Jcb (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You are being rude and making bad faith allegations. I am following the process discussed with the deleting administrator which has occurred on the link above and by email. Having the privilege of wearing an administrator hat, does not mean you are free to indulge in long term tendentious and argumentative behaviour. Thanks for the non-rude parts of your comment. --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: seems to missing the entire point again. The objection is not just to removing PD documents of this type, it is the process used to delete them without giving notice that would permit other editors to determine a valid source. A significant number of the removed USAF emblem images were moved to commons from en|Wikipedia by User:MGA73bot2 or related versions. This bot positions source information in the wrong place, leaving it blank on the appropriate place on the commons template. An additional problem with emblems moved in this manner is that the source information is sometimes truncated. Images moved in this manner require more care than tagging them for speedy removal. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Please list the remaining files in a seperate request so I can breeze through them. I cannot understand why PD images are deleted like this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Un usuario Secondarywaltz borró el archivo que acababa de subir acerca de Michael Jackson en 1984, coloqué el enlace de la fuente de la que saqué el archivo, además ésta imagen no es exclusiva de MadonnaGlam, hay muchas páginas con ésta imagen. subí ésta foto ya que el catálogo de imágenes de Michael Jackson es muy reducido a comparación de otros artistas. espero su comprensión y colaboración para restaurar éste archivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresc30 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 06 October 2016 (UTC)
The problematic Bollywood Hungama administrators had changed the layout of their website on 21 September 2016, which led to the deletion/automatic removal of some images from their own website uploaded before 21 September 2016. Take these examples: File:Neha Dhupia at the launch of Costa's 100 store 08.jpg and File:Lisa Haydon at Ekta Kapoor's Iftaar party for 'Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!'.jpg. These files were reviewed. This means that these images were available on their website before 21 September 2016 and got deleted/autotically removed after 21 September 2016, when Bollywood Hungama changed their website. Now the source link of these images have gone dead. I'd discussed the issue with INeverCry on User talk:INeverCry#Bollywood Hungama files to solve the issue, but he said me to discuss it here, so I'm here. I know that the license of an image can't be passed unless and until the uploader mentions the correct source link to the file. But what can we do when the images from Bollywood Hungama have been removed. I've even searched the title of the deleted images on their website, but failed. To pass the license of the files, what you can do is that check the Bollywood Hungama watermark on the images. If they contain, this means that the image owner is 100% Bollywood Hungama. If there is no watermark, don't pass. And in this case, I'm 100% sure that these two images contain the Bollywood Hungama watermark. Please try to understand. Why should we suffer when it's the problem of Bollywood Hungama? Our hard work shouldn't be destroyed because of Bollywood Hungama. Mr.SmartℒION ⋠☎️I👨👩⋡ 04:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Since these had not yet been reviewed by an authorized reviewer, I think there is nothing to do here. It is up to the uploader to ensure that images are reviewed when necessary -- if you don't do that, there is nothing we can do to fix it. The presence of a watermark is not definitive -- anyone can add a watermark. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what to think of this. As opposed to the press photo, Kla4's image has a somewhat reddish tinge, but both of them could have been cropped from this larger version. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. All three originated at the same time in the same camera. The position of the clouds sets the time and the identical parallax shows the identical location. Note, for example, the grass free stripe to the right of the pylon -- the two dark spots are identical. Both the version at international.ae and the version that DE728631 found credit "Oliver Maire / EPA", so I don't think we can restore this unless we get a free license from him.
As for the accusation that this was "Deleted with complete disregard for the arguments mentioned on the file's discussion page", that is not correct. The uploader kept repeating the same thing, without any satisfactory explanation of the identical base images, differently cropped. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sanandros: 17 U.S. Code § 104 (b) "The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if — (5) the work is first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States." The UN is not a sovereign government, and it's resolutions are not 'laws'. Reventtalk03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Sry but the UN is not the author of the resolutions. They are done by the representatives of the governments. So it's basically the same process as if the governments would decide for an international treaty. The Term "publish" is here not exact enough as I also can publish any act but you still can not determine the copyright status solely by the publisher. I think every thing is written in Bowett's law of international institutions but I'm not sure as I don't have that book and I also can't access that book right now. But even the State Department is publishing resolutions but don't indicate any copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sanandros: In the 'special' case of works first published by the UN or the OAS, you 'can' in fact determine the copyright status solely by the publisher. It is an exception, and it exists because US law specifically says so. Works first published by the UN or the OAS are copyrighted in the United States, regardless of authorship. The relevant word is 'first. It does not matter, at all, if the State Department notes that a copyright exists or not.
The Security Council resolution you linked is, in fact, not protected by copyright, but it's not for the reason you state. It's unprotected because it was published by the UN under document number S/RES/1624 (2005), and the UN specifically states in ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 that they will not seek protection for "written material officially issued under a United Nations document symbol". The situation is more like a 'public domain dedication' of copyrighted material, but it's still copyrighted, because US law says so, explicitly. Reventtalk07:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yea OK it would take to much time to check literature on that topic. If I have once time then I going to do that but not now.--Sanandros (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@JuTa: As the original creator of these DRs, would you care to comment? I'm inclined to undelete these as {{PD-UN-doc}}, as that seems to be the consensus (between here, and the VPC discussion linked above), but you should have specifically been pinged. Reventtalk10:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@JuTa: (nods) I'm not faulting you for that, just making sure you are okay with undeletion given the discussion. The deletions were 'legitimate' given the information provided at the time. Reventtalk20:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Works initially published by the United Nations are subjects of copyright protection... this is explicit in US law. However, the United Nations 'historically' sought such protection for very few works, in the days in which formalities were still required, and has maintained an official, and 'explicit', policy of 'leaving certain works in the public domain', and not seeking protection for them, for over thirty years now. That resolutions of the Security Council ("written material officially issued under a United Nations document symbol, regardless of the form of production") fall within the scope of this policy of not seeking copyright protection seems quite obvious, and does not appear to be a matter of disagreement. The UN does not appear to have ever attempted to protect such material, in it's entire history.
The UN also issues, and sells, annual volumes of the complied resolutions, with supporting material. Those publications are 'not' in the public domain; though they incorporate material that the UN does not seek to protect, they also include material that is copyrighted. It is merely the actual resolutions themselves, as issued by the UN under a document symbol and a UN masthead, that I have undeleted here... there has clearly been much other material uploaded to Commons, over time, to which this does not apply... my 'closure' here is just, specifically, about the SC resolutions, as clearly falling under a specific point of the UN's administrative policy.
The UN's policy of not seeking protection for certain works is not a formal license, and is not 'irrevocable'.... however, it is explicit, long standing, and provided with a clear rationale. The likelihood of the UN ever changing this policy, at least for the 'subset' of SC resolutions, seems exceedingly minimal. If this does ever occur in the future, the status of these works can and should be revisited, but while that policy remains in affect there seems to be a consensus to keep these documents on both Commons and Wikisource, as 'public domain'. Reventtalk20:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hola, he sido notificado del borrado de una imagen por "ha sido marcado como una posible violación de los derechos de autor".
El caso es que está diseñada por mi y alojada en un blog de mi propiedad: http://www.comprarcunas.com/conseguir-bebe-duerma/
Oppose Since the image appeared on http://www.comprarcunas.com/conseguir-bebe-duerma/, with an explicit copyright notice, "Copyright 2015 www.comprarcunas.com", in order to have it restored here you must either (a) change the copyright notice on the blog or at least on the image there to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or (b) send a free license to OTRS from an address at comprarcunas.com. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose As noted in the deletion summary, the image appears with an explicit copyright notice, "Copyright 2014 Welcome To Alex Reports", at alexreports.info. In order to have this image on Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure described at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The image was deleted initially on copyvio grounds - unless/until those issues can be conclusively resolved, it should stay deleted. Tabercil (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done Page on enwiki was deleted. Also, as Tabercil said above, this image was deleted on copyright grounds. Both out of COM:SCOPE and a COM:COPYVIO, which is very unlikely to be restored. --★Poké9510:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose There is no free licence at the source website and you as the uploader at Commons cannot grant any such licence unless you are the photographer. To keep the image we need a permission from the original photographer Jørn Stubberud. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Deletion request for the image Sanki_King_portrait.jpg was posted by User: Ruff tuff cream (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sanki_King_portrait.jpg) and his comment was that the metadata shows the author as "Taha" and copyright holder as "amr and trk photography". The photographer Taha signs all of his emails as "Taha Rizwan Khan https://www.facebook.com/photography.taha.mohsee", where TRK stands for Taha Rizwan Khan, it should be no riddle. I have also taken a copy of the email that was sent to wikimedia from the photographer himself and the email clearly shows the photographer's signature there. I previously uploaded this image, taken with permission from Mr. Sanki King's team, whose managing team emailed wikimedia with the permission but some Robert Bruce insisted that the photographer and Sanki King email wikimedia commons personally, even though Sanki's managing team clearly explained that the portrait was a part of a paid photoshoot and Sanki King had the rights of all those images and since the team who represents Sanki King had given permission for the image to be used, why were personal permissions required?
Robert Bruce still insisted for personal permissions but the photographers and Mr. Sanki couldn't email wikimedia commons in time and the portrait, along with another image of Sanki King and his work, were deleted. After that I took permission from Sanki King's team, and the photographers of both the images a few days ago and I re-uploaded the images as my own work. Emails of transfer of copyrights of these images have already been sent to wikimedia commons by both photographers & myself. The other image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solitude_WIP.jpg. Now please tell me why was the image deleted in such a hurry and with no research when a signed email by the photographer was sent to wikimedia commons? Ticket numbers: Ticket#2016092310000866 and Ticket#2016092310000866, and I also haven't received any reply from Commons as yet, its been 2 weeks.
The photographer is a part of a duo, AMR & TRK, first person is Mohsee, second is Taha. The name of the author on the image was Taha, as Ruff puff said, and the copyright holder was AMR & TRK Photography, please pay attention to the facebook link of their page if you will "www.facebook.com/photography.taha.mohsee". His full name was in the email and first name is in the link of their page. Most importantly, the file was deleted without any discussion with the uploader. It was nominated for deletion but it was deleted just like that by User: INeverCry. Now please tell me will I have to reupload the image on wikimedia or will the deletion be undone? Looking forward to a prompt reply. Cheers
Oppose OTRS, like Commons, is entirely volunteers. Also like Commons, it is badly understaffed and often runs a backlog of several weeks or even months. The OTRS tickets you name are only a little over a week old. When they are read and approved by a human, the file will be restored without further action on your part.
Note that most of what you have described above simply slowed down our work. The copyright to commissioned portraits routinely rests with the photographer. We require a free license directly from the photographer because we, unfortunately, have users who are perfectly willing to forge license e-mails if given the chance.
Note also that the file was deleted on sight because you, SameStruggle, claimed that the file was your "own work" when that was clearly not the case. Incorrectly claiming that you created a file is a violation of our rules and, as noted above, simply slows everything down. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The file was uploaded as "own work" because the copyright holders of both the images transferred the copyrights to me because the process of permissions was too confusing for them. As I mentioned above, the images had been already deleted once before, even though legit permission emails were sent to Commons by Sanki King's managers who clearly stated that they owned the rights to those images but that was ignored by one of your volunteers Robert Bruce who insisted that individual permissions should be sent to him which the artist and the photographers failed to do so due to their busy schedules. That's why this time they wanted me to look after it by myself, hence they gave me the rights to the images. After the images were uploaded, the ticket numbers were sent to the photographers, Taha Rizwan Khan & Abid Merchant, and both of them then emailed Commons that they had forwarded the rights of the images to me. The ticket numbers are mentioned above, whoever has the access to the Commons emails, ask them to verify this. INeverCry deleted the images without discussion and he also doesn't have access to Commons emails as he told me on his talk page earlier, so he didn't even know that the copyrights of the images had been transferred to me. So I believe this was all done pretty quickly based on assumptions and without any serious inquiries even though both the photographers and I did what we were required to do. SameStruggle (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Files with sufficient OTRS permission are usually tagged with an OTRS ticket by an OTRS member. Commons is run by volunteers, so you have only a small number of enthusiastic people like myself and those above who are dealing with a large number of files and editors. I deleted this believing I was taking the proper action. If I was mistaken or anyone else involved was, COM:UDEL is here for review of deletions and the setting right of such errors. lNeverCry06:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please don't persist in trying to lay blame at the feet of the several volunteers who have worked on this. The entire situation was created by you and your colleagues who made incorrect claims and failed to follow Commons rules. We receive around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. Ten of us do around 75% of that work, led by INC. When we see an image that is obviously a copyright violation -- not "own work" as claimed -- our policy requires immediate deletion, see Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File #1. We all wish that we had the human resources to give more personal attention to things, but as it is, we can barely stay ahead of the deluge. Editors like yourselves can help by simply following the rules.
When an OTRS volunteer gets to the tickets you named, probably in several weeks, he or she will examine the license and its source. If it is approved, the files will be restored without further action on your part. If it is not approved, the volunteer will tell the photographer why it was rejected. Until then, there is nothing you can do. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I am writing in the name of Ms Elsa Peretti regarding the deletion of her profile photo. That photo was chosen by her personally, and was made by Ms Carola Polakov.
The photo "Elsa_Peretti.jpg" has been uploaded after Ms Peretti's lawyers received a signed legal license grant from the author, Ms Polakov. The photo was proposed for deletion from user "Ebaybe" who clearly has some kind of personal dislike for the page or the subject matter.
I had clearly written in the deletion request page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Elsa_Peretti.jpg) that the photo had the appropriate legal license, but received no answer. I tried contacting user "Ebaybe" but received no answer.
User Ebaybe initiated this deletion wroting: copyvio of image at http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2014/charles-james-beyond-fashion/audio-interviews Ebyabe (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
We cannot speak for metmuseum.org and do not know if they have a license for the photo. Ms Elsa Peretti does.
A copy of the signed license is available upon request.
Please know that this issue is being followed by Ms Peretti's lawyers who kindly request an answer as to why the photo was deleted.
Best regards,
Since user accounts are essentially anonymous, we are rather careful about works previously published on the Internet -- we get hundreds if not thousands of copyright violations copied off the net uploaded every day. For such works, we have a separate process where the licensing can be confirmed -- Commons:OTRS. The deleting administrator linked to that policy, though it was a bit terse. With that process, a private email is sent (from the copyright holder) indicating the file and the approved license. Be aware that the photo must be licensed for everyone, not just Wikipedia, and must allow commercial use. You can provide any necessary documentation in that email. If Ms Polakov's license did not allow you to further sublicense the work (to everyone) along those terms, then Ms Polakov may need to send that email directly (as it sounds like she is still the copyright holder). Once the OTRS request has been processed (which can take a little while; they are understaffed) then the file will be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. We get about 10,000 new images every day. About 1,700 of them must be deleted. As Carl says, we frequently have uploaders claim that they have permission to use an image -- those claims often turn out to be incorrect. Therefore we have a strict policy that unless an image is (a) own work, (b) in the public domain for some clearly explained reason, or (c) taken from a source that has a clearly stated and fully acceptable license, then the actual copyright holder, usually the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. The accusation that "user "Ebaybe" [snip] clearly has some kind of personal dislike for the page or the subject matter" is ridiculous -- first, the correct name is User:Ebyabe and second, we are very neutral here. Volunteers like Ebyabe, with over 100,000 contributions to Commons, simply take their work as it comes -- we don't have time to look for things we don't like.
So, please have Ms Polakov send a free license directly to OTRS. When that is received and approved, the image will be restored without further action on your part. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks, or even a month before the image is restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I (Ebyabe) have nothing personal against Ms. Peretti. I don't know enough about her to have an opinion one way or another. I can't even remember quite how the article got my initial attention. However, it has become a rather non-neutral article, serving more as a promotional advertisement for her than an encyclopaedic article.
Regarding the image, a quick Google search finds it at a number of different websites. I only included one, but it looked very much like a copy violation. An admin agreed and deleted it. The easiest way to solve this would be for a picture be taken of her by the webmaster or someone else and submitted. That shouldn't be that hard, right? One of her lawyers could do it, and make sure it had the appropriate licensing. Problem solved.
Speaking of lawyers, saying that hers are following this issue could be construed as legal intimidation, which is not countenanced on Wikipedia. See No Legal Threats for further information. --Ebyabe (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The photo was chosen specifically by Ms Peretti. The author Ms Polakov provided Ms Peretti with a proper license. The file was uploaded to wikipedia commons following the correct procedure. There shall be no further actions on the part of Ms Peretti regarding this issue. It is truly unfortunate that Wikipedia users are unable to benefit from quality material such as this photo. --NPF-webmaster (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Per Jim and Ebyabe. Perhaps her lawyers can help her with the OTRS-proces and explain the difference between having a license to use a work and having the right to sublicense a work before she mails our OTRS-team so we won't lose valuable time. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Done opened a DR. Former FP, FP at he-wiki, picture of the day, heavely used and kept after a DR. Yes, this deserves a better analysis. Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1914 postcard is clearly in public domain. While the deletion notes missing source, for public domain works where secondary attribution (ex. scanner) does not change the copyright status I don't see why source would be necessary. PS. Also, it is possible that I included the source in an edit summary, I used to do it long time ago before I learned to use the Description template (same user requested a deletion of File:Sachsen-koenig - coat of arms.jpg which gave the source in the edit summary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk03:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A 1914 postcard is only Public Domain if the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Please provide a source for the assumption that the photographer died before 1946. Jcb (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Actually, it is even easier. Under the Polish law before 1994, all photographs lost their copyright after ten years, so this was PD around 1924. That law also required a copyright notice. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Imho they are not in scope. They don't exactly 'document' everyday life. E.g. a portrait of a girl, a boy on a bicycle with a sigaret, two children looking out of a window, etc... - Jcb (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: File that is subject of request has been restored. @Natuur12: I've restored the three you mention, but they could use some category work. If any other files need to be restored, Jcb has said this is OK with him. --lNeverCry03:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
I hereby affirm that I, M.M. Stratton (aka FuturaGirl on wikipedia), am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work (work for hire photo taken by Julie Klima) as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cherry Capri at the Gamble House.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.
Oppose In order to restore these, for the first two, an authorized official of Swingomatic Records must send a free license to OTRS. For the third, the named photographer, Julie Klima, must send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems that this user has been not tagging their pictures very well, not using {{Own}} and attributing authorship to their real (?) name while editing from an alt account (they seem to have several). See [17]. It is likely this image was deleted due to no permission/author when in fact is self-authored by uploader. If this can be verified, it could be restored. Also, this user seems to have uploaded hundreds of images, mostly through Commonist, all of which could use some bot tagging them as own. For a number they used "Photo personnelle". I'll ping User:Green Giant who did some fixes on some of that user's images, adding own, and User:Jcb who recently tagged several images as missing permission (which they weren't, their description was just a bit messed up). Perhaps you can know of some tools to review that user's contribs and make sure no other of uploads cause more confusion down the line? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Those two files have been deleted by Jameslwoodward but many users believe he has miinterpertated our policy. See here for the current debate. Jim believes the files should stay deleted because personality rights prohibit commercial use and the others believe that this is not a reason to delete an image since the policy states: In this context "commercial use" is purely {{Personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletionNatuur12 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment It may well be true that the Austrian rule is that a personal image in a public place may be used commercially -- for example, in a textbook, but our current summary of the Austrian law at Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Austria very clearly contradicts that. It says:
"Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent".
Aha. The quote appears in the footnote to the summary table at Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements. I have two thoughts, first, that's a useless column, then, because nowhere can an image be used in advertising without the consent of the subject. Second, the specific always overrules the general. In this case, a footnote that applies to every country cannot overrule a specific statement that applies only to Austria. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify -- there are two very different meanings for "commercial use". The first is Coca-Cola showing a photo of me captioned "Jim likes Coke". That's true, but they can't do it without my explicit written consent. The subject's consent is required for advertising uses everywhere in the world.
The second use of the term describes printing a picture of me in a book, magazine article, or on a Web site. As long as the image was taken in public in the USA or another free-use country, and as long as the context does not reflect badly on me, I have no right to prevent it.
Because the first use of the term is true everywhere, it does not concern us. If we prohibited all images that could not be used in advertising, we would have no images of people and of many other things. Therefore, when we discuss "commercial use", we mean the second meaning of the term. That is what the last column in the summary should refer to -- never to the first use of the term. However, the last column at the moment is inconsistently applied and should not be trusted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per the current policy. I had seen the discussion in Jim's page and refer the policy page several times sine last week. I agree the wording are bit vague (eg: "Therefore it is strongly recommended[14][15] to obtain permission from the person depicted in the photograph, unless their appearance is merely accidental and not incriminating or it is a Person des öffentlichen Lebens (public figure).") This types of vagueness lead us to COM:PRP which advises a deletion. Jee13:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect but surely Prof. Mag. Ingomar Mattitsch is enough of a public figure and surely the same applies to Dr. Wilhelm Deuer. Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Striking off the oppose if subject is a public figure. But I'm not agreeing with the below arguments that we can neglect COM:CSCR. if true, then there is not a need for that page here as we're not giving legal advise to re-users. It's up to them to find applicable requirements. I'm not agreeing all uses in WM projects are non-commercial. We publish and sell books (?), we use them in blogs, in-house advertisements, to name a few. Jee12:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't see the images, but if they were deleted under the "commercial use" column of the identifiable person page, then Support. That column is "commercial use" in the publicity rights sense, not the copyright sense, and is not a reason for deletion. The column is only there as information for third-party re-users. Only the the first two columns are possible reasons for deletion, under privacy rights and not copyright. Nothing on that page refers to copyright, so "commercial use" should not be taken that way in that page. The phrase "commercial use" has very different meanings in copyright, trademark, and publicity rights context, and they should not be conflated. It is easy to do since we deal with copyright so much, but that page has nothing to do with copyright whatsoever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Carl, it's certainly true that the third column in the summary is a problem, but how do get past:
"Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent".
which I quoted above. If that is incorrect, it must be changed by consensus before we deal with this file -- DRs and UnDRs are not the place to discuss incorrect guidance summaries -- they must be discussed on their talk page.
Natuur12, I don't know whether they are public figures or not, but the sentence I have quote twice speaks of all images of identifiable persons, and does not exclude public figures. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We are not using the photos commercially on Commons or any Wikimedia sites. If someone wants to use such photos in an advertising context, they can obtain such rights on their own. Of course that requires "consent", but we don't need it. This is exactly like hosting a trademarked image -- we don't have permission to use that commercially either (i.e. indicating a relationship), but we can host them because commercial copyright use is fine. The rights on that page are separate from copyright, though the privacy portion of the page -- as opposed to publicity rights, which is the third column -- can be a non-copyright reason to delete. Privacy rights can affect the right to publish at all, whereas publicity rights (i.e. the "commercial use" on that page) are another aspect of photographing people in a public place, and thus were put on the page. We added the footnote a long time ago when some people confused it with the "commercial use" which makes a file non-free, but that does not. Once we get a list of per-country laws though, people feel bound to fill out all the details, even if they do not affect hosting status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Support If only for a deeper DR discussion rather than having it spread on user talk pages; as Carl I cannot see the images to form a firm opinion. Intrusion, personality rights, data protection rights and 'a picture of a person in a public space' are all different things and vary as to whether the subject is identified, identifiable or a public figure. Our current policies probably do not iron out these issues or the varied misinterpretations of our contributors. In particular "personality rights" seems frequently used incorrectly if we are sticking to discussions centered on intellectual property law, and hence commercial exploitation rights rather than muddying the discussion with legislation relating to "intrusion". --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Again -- third time -- I read the very explicit "Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent". to mean the same thing as an NC license -- that it cannot be used in any printed work unless the work is given away, nor on any web site that accepts advertising or money. If all the sentence means is that the image cannot be used as in my first example above, then it is very misleading and needs to be changed -- as I have said repeatedly, we ignore the prohibition on image use in advertising because there is no country or context in which it may be done without consent.
As must be clear by now, I feel strongly that it is time that we got the summary page sorted out -- making it clear that the only sense in which we mean "commercial use" is in the sense of an NC license, not in the sense of an adverting use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, that page has nothing to do with copyright nor the "free" status of the files -- including the first two columns. We ignore the advertising part because it is a Commons:Non-copyright restriction. The first two columns are more problematic, not because they affect the copyright (they do not) but because simply hosting the files on Commons can actually be an issue per those laws -- Commons itself could be running afoul of the law, not just potential uses by third parties. Hosting the files on Commons is not an issue for the third column, so that column is for information purposes only. Since we deal so much in copyright, it's hard to see the phrase "commercial use" and think of it in any way other than an NC license, but that is the phrase often used in trademark and publicity rights contexts, even though the meaning is dramatically different, so there really isn't an easy way to avoid it -- people are going to use that term, like it or not. It's used in court decisions, etc. You obviously need to obtain a trademark license for commercial use of a trademark, but that is not the same thing as a copyright, and is not an NC situation copyright-wise. Similarly, you need someone's permission (i.e. "consent") to use their likeness in an advertising context -- but that is not the same thing as an NC situation at all, despite the use of the same phrase. We could could change the column to read "advertising/commercial use" to make it a bit more clear, but in general there will be people who use that phrase in non-copyright contexts regardless of what we do, so really we should train ourselves to look at the context of that phrase and see if it pertains specifically to copyright (in which case there is a "free" problem) or some other kind of right, in which case there is not. I'm not sure there is an easy way around that. Here is one page which uses the term -- but purely in a trademark context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Hello, the mentioned file is from my own property, comes from the website eneventos.com , the owner of the site is "Luis Sanchez" and he gave me full rights for the picture that was uploaded, the website is from a local events page, I can provide further documentation if needed, thank you!! Herrkhor (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose that photograph has a copyright watermark crediting lastnightpartyutah.com ... their legal representative should confirm a free license by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: This photo was taken by me... so I quite can't understand what's going on at all. You're deleting the files without any sensible reason.
I took thousands of photos since 1960... I'm not gonna deceive anyone... U2.
Bye Romek88 (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Poland.
Support "Source=photographie d'album" is really not a satisfactory source, but the file description names the author and that he died in 1918, so I think this can be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In the "Author" field, the name of the album is given : "album de la guerre 1914-1919, l'illustration Paris 13 rue Saint-Georges année 1927" [18]. Bloody-libu (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This diagram does not appear in Lavidge et al's 1961 article. However, these authors first proposed a hierarchy of effects consisting of the stages itemised in the diagram. The image is based on their ideas or inspired by their ideas as the source correctly acknowledges. However, the diagram combines two different ideas from their article - one is the stages in the hierarchy of effects (awareness, knowledge, etc) and the other is the type of internal processing (cognitive, affective, actions). I believe that this diagram combines ideas from this article in novel ways. At the same time, the diagram attributes the original authors with the ideas. I do not understand how this breaches copyright and wish to request that it is reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BronHiggs (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) BronHiggs (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose OK, I will assume that we have a diagram which you made up yourself from ideas in the 1961 journal article. As you say, that is not a copyright violation, but it is out of scope. It cannot be used on WP because it is would violate the policy Wikipedia:No original research. It will not be used elsewhere because you are an anonymous contributor. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose That may be, but the image appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Since it has no EXIF and is very small, there is a question of whether you are actually the photographer. In order to restore the image to Commons you should either (a) upload it again with the same name at full camera resolution and full EXIF or (b) have the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: procedural close - these files are already part of an undeletion request at the top of this page (Files of Алый Король) - we don't need two requests for the same files. --lNeverCry08:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Khardiha.jpg
The image in question is my own property. It's unjustified use of admin rights who has initiated the deletion of mentioned image. Therefore I request you to kindly restore the image in wiki commons.
Thanks and regards,
--Michaellko (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Yavarai
Not done: per COM:NETCOPYVIO - this is a screenshot from Google Maps (it has Google's logo right on it at bottom) - these maps are the property of Google, not yours. --lNeverCry08:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
la photographie liée à l'article Henri Provost de la Fardinière 1936.png a été supprimée le 31 juillet 2016 à 2:55 par Commons Delinker I NeverCry pour la raison que l'image se trouvait déjà sur Google.
Il s'agit d'une photographie entrée dans le domaine public depuis 1936 (il y a 80 ans).
La photographie a été publiée dans le livre "Le Houx - Provost de la Fardinière, Sa Vie, Son Oeuvre" (édition Henry Mallez - Cambrai - 1937)
La photographie est celle de l'affiche officielle de la campagne électorale du candidat lors des élections législatives de 1936, elle a donc été largement publiée et distribuée à un grand public.
Cette photographie est également utilisée comme photographie du député par l'Assemblée Nationale Française (réf. le lien sur Googlze images).
Compte tenu de tous ces éléments, il me semble que la photographie doit pouvoir être rétablie avec l'article sur Henri Provost de la Fardinière.
Oppose En France, une photographie n'entre dans la domaine public que 70 ans après la mort du photographe. Manquant de l'informations plus précis sur la date du décès du photographe, on ne peut pas garder cette image. Storkk (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Although this time you say it in French, this is the same request, with the same information, that you made on October 8. I will therefore quote my response then:
"There are two copyrights here. The first is for the photograph. Since it is signed, and therefore not anonymous, it does not become PD until 70 years after the death of the photographer. 1936 is far too recent to assume that the photographer died before 70 years ago. The second copyright is for the text at the bottom. If it can be shown that Henri Provost de la Fardinière wrote it, then it is PD, as he died in 1937, but that has not been proven either. In order to restore this, we therefore need both the death date of the photographer (or a license from his heirs) and knowledge of who wrote the text at the bottom and when he died."
Not done: As Jim says, you need to provide a valid reason for undeletion of the file. You haven't done that, so the file has to remain deleted. Please don't make a third request unless you have new copyright information that can be considered. --lNeverCry10:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is no copyrighted, I took this picture myself. My english is not good can someone explain what happened with this file?
I'd like to make an undeletion request.
183.88.249.6608:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)161019
Oppose This is cropped version of the photo from the page that INC mentioned. The label at the top and watermark at the bottom have been cropped. Also low resolution, no EXIF data – obvious copyright violation for me. --jdxRe:09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: They are promotional image freely available on the internet that have been released in the public domain by the authors of the tv series, Channel 4. MisterShiney (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I see nothing on the Channel4 site that suggests anything there is in the public domain. At http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/ts-and-cs it says, among other things:
"... you are not permitted to embed, upload or make any of the digital products and services within All 4 available via any third party platform, website or service without prior consent. You are not permitted to use any part of All 4 for commercial purposes." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We're not using it for commercial purposes and secondly it comes under their "embeddable content" criteria, which we do not violate. "When using our embeddable content you must not: copy, re-publish, edit, alter, add to or use the embeddable content, embed code or embeddable player in any other way; charge users for access to the embeddable content, or use the embeddable content as a means to secure advertising or other revenue in any other way; directly or indirectly suggest any endorsement or approval by us of your website or page or any non-Channel 4 entity, product or content or any views expressed; use the embeddable content in any way that could bring Channel 4 into disrepute or otherwise cause any loss or damage to Channel 4; and/oruse the embeddable content on any websites or pages that: contain pornography or sexually explicit content; contain offensive text or images; are hate sites (on grounds of race, religion, gender, disability, age or sexual orientation); contain gratuitous violence; and/or condone or encourage unlawful acts." --MisterShiney (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: non-commercial/non-derivative restrictions aren't allowed at Commons. Please review COM:L for our licensing guidelines. --lNeverCry10:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader raised a request at User_talk:Jcb#Fukuyama, but this was refused. The original DR is Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Алый_Король. The uploader became annoyed with Jcb, but as Jcb never gave any advice on what action to take, such as UNDEL, nor apparently took the time to look at the evidence, this is not surprising.
The files were deleted as DW of videos with unknown copyright status. Everybody can open contributions of Pink King (that's what Алый Король means in Russian) and look last contributions. There are a lot of photos from the same set, which are not DW-s. If somebody finds out license of video and confirms, that the video has free license, then I am happy to restore the files. Taivo (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Please examine the links given. What you ask for has been done. All the photographs are correctly licensed on the official Flickrstream as stated. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to have another crack at this. The video was released on YouTube by Fronteiras do Pensamento. The Flickrstream is the official stream of Fronteiras do Pensamento. The licences on the photographs in the Flickrstream are on a suitable CC license granted by Fronteiras do Pensamento. That the YouTube license is different does not stop Fronteiras do Pensamento from releasing stills from the video on whatever license they like, so the copyright status of the video on YouTube is irrelevant to determining the validity of the license on Flickr because they are all by the same copyright holder. --Fæ (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Taivo: The fact that changed my mind was that the entity licensing the photographs is also the copyright holder of the video. Does that change your mind? Storkk (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I found no license on source site of video But if copyright holder of photo and video is the same, then maybe separate license for video isn't needed at all? Taivo (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That is my reading, too... it is slightly similar to a sculptor photographing his own sculpture and releasing the photograph but not the full sculpture. Storkk (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose@Fæ: So that you can get a feeling for the deleted files, they are very similar in nature (obviously, only in a copyright sense) to the original of File:Inside_the_Hussainia_during_Muharram.jpg. I know you cannot see the original of that either, but I think it should still give you a good idea. Whereas that file still had encyclopedic value with the video blanked out, these probably would not given Category:Francis_Fukuyama, which as Taivo says, contains similar and better images of the speaker from the same event without the video feed. Storkk (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the point you are making is that the "video" in the background of the (correctly licensed) photo is in doubt. However these are real-time blow-ups of the figures speaking and form part of the released video, which has been produced by Fronteiras do Pensamento. There is nobody else to make a copyright claim. (ec) cocked up the timestamp here. Fæ (talk)
Fæ, the video stream is released under the Standard Youtube License... could you point the exact place you see it as released under a CC license? I grant that I may be missing it. Storkk (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I misunderstood your point, despite you stating it quite clearly. The only copyright holder has actually released the images correctly. Support. Storkk (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
None of of the above the points were made in the DR. I suggest the files are undeleted, and then everyone can make their points correctly in the DR rather than deleting for explicitly wrong reasons. --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The point was indeed raised in the DR that these were derivatives of a video that was not released under a free license. That that fact is superseded by the fact that the copyright holder has released the photograph including the video still and was also the copyright holder of the video was not presented at the DR or at Jcb's talk page before your edit. Storkk (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but I expect deletion to involve looking at the source. Frankly this stood out as an issue as soon as I looked at the DR. It seemed pretty obvious that this was an official Flickrstream, so there was no reason to presume the copyright was false. --Fæ (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Done I thought thoroughly and in my opinion the files can be restored. As actually nobody is against restoring now, the request can be closed. Taivo (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the file had deleted due to source issue, the user mistakenly write "the place name" in description instead of {{own}}, he fix it later but he can't remove tag, so the admin maybe not see the change --Ibrahim.ID✪08:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Actually it was deleted because the uploader did not specify any free license, not for the reason given above. That can be fixed only by the uploader, User:Mohammad hajeer, so he must make the undeletion request and specify the license in the request. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I want to deploy the image of public ownership, and the picture of my Personal work. Starters I didn't put the license due to a misunderstanding of the clause.--Mohammad hajeer (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Mohammad hajeer, the image can be restored, but you must specify a license here. Do you want:
Oppose This is the second time that Gl dili has accused colleagues here of lying. That is unacceptable and if he or she does so again, he or she will be blocked from editing.
I do not see a CC-BY-4.0 or any other free license at http://ulakbim.gov.tr. I do see an explicit copyright notice:
Just like any other copyright holder, the Turkish government can license different works in different ways. The fact that a journal article is CC does not imply everything is CC. Storkk (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, you were just warned to stop accusing people of lying, and did so again. You have been blocked for 3 days. Storkk (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done A single free CC article is no evidence that this particular image may also be used for commercial purposes when there is a general law that prohibits commercial use of such media. There is also no free licence at this site. User:Gl dili is advised to to not accuse other editors of lying again, or a longer block will be applied. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There were two DRs. The in scope files were in the first, the discussion in the second. I was misleaded by this confusing situation. I will restore the video game screen shots. Jcb (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose@Magera80: As stated in the DR, OTRS permission is needed from Rudi Ferder, which is the author/copyright holder of this file. You need to ask Rudi Ferder to release this file under a free license and send an email to the OTRS. --★Poké9506:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The photo is taken by me as a professional curator at the museum, where the object belongs to. The staff always give the right to the museum to publish object photos as CC. I also marked the photo as CC when uploading it.
The photo is taken by me as a professional curator at the museum, where the object belongs to. The staff always give the right to the museum to publish object photos as CC. I also marked the photo as CC when uploading it. Thank you in advance.
The photo is taken by Irene Peters, who worked as conservator at the museum, where the object belongs to. The staff always give the right to the museum to publish object photos as CC. I also marked the photo as CC when uploading it. Thank you in advance.
The photo is taken by a photographer at Ringve Music Museum, where the object belongs to. The staff always give the right to the museum to publish object photos as CC, also outside www.digitaltmuseum.no. I also marked the photo as CC when uploading it. Thank you in advance.
Each of the pages on which the images appear have the following specific information:
""License: Contact owner for more information"
Since all four of these appear on a web site with a clear copyright notice and no free license, policy requires that an authorized official of the museum must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
These are all covered by {{PD-CAGov}} as works of the State of California. COM:ABF is not a policy. Legal court precedent trumps copyright notices that the courts have found are invalid. --Elvey (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
As stated in the deletion request, there is no evidence that these images were actually obtained from the website of the Assembly. The original file descriptions at Commons did not contain weblinks to the alleged source pages, and the earliest archived gallery (January 2012) that comes close to the time of uploading at Commons shows different images of the assembly members (or no images at all).
support restoration of the following files that were in fact used on the Assembly website:
I Oppose the restoration of any of these. Just as the Federal rule covers only works made by a Federal employee, so the California rule covers only works of an employee of the State or its subdivisions made in the course of his duties. Simply putting a portrait on the web site does not somehow change its copyright status. In order to keep these, it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that the photographer was employed by the state as an official photographer. See the warning at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House for a similar situation. Note also that there is a copyright notice on the source pages -- while that would be an error if the photographer were an employee, it strongly suggests that he was not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Then we should perhaps update the text in {{PD-CAGov}} because it says that anything "used or retained by any state or local agency" of California is PD. Some of these images were evidently used by the California State Assembly. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed we should. It should be clear that if someone in California takes an image of yours or mine off Commons and posts it on a California web site, that does not, somehow, make the image PD. Equally, if an Assemblyman's wife takes a photo of him and he uses it on the web site, that does not make the image PD. While it is perfectly possible, even likely, that the Assembly has an official photographer that took some or all of these photos, "likely" is not our standard of proof. In order to restore any of them, it must be shown beyond a significant doubt that the image was taken by such a person and not by a private person who retained the rights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The licence tag says also that it applies to "a work of the State of California" so an official person would have to be involved in the making of these photographs to place them in the public domain. But this cannot be verified with the information provided so far. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts? User:Clindberg? Only the photographer and politician would know the terms of any contract, and they haven't asked for deletion. And the above verifiably false information (That {{PD-CAGov}} says 'that anything "used or retained by any state or local agency" of California is PD') provided by De728631 makes me trust the claim by User:Muhandes that "All the images are from respective bios in the California Assembly website." more than De728631's that "there is no evidence that these images were actually obtained from the website of the Assembly". Can another admin indicate whether "at no point" were there "weblinks to the alleged source pages", please? (If we want to be consistent WRT to proof required to keep staged photos of legislators and/or Jim's comment, then it looks to me like we should delete the files that are blue links at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Calwonk. Agreed?) --Elvey (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, De728631's comment is not hogwash. At Template:PD-CAGov under "when to use" it says "Applies to any works prepared, owned, used or retained by any California state or local agency or officer as part of the public record." Now that isn't correct, because a copyrighted image from a third party does not become PD just because someone puts it up on a California web site. All of the case law that supports this template is about works produced by state employees. The decisions say nothing about third party works that were copyrighted before they were incorporated into web sites or printed material. The template instructions need updating, but Elvey might like to retract the "hogwash" remark.
Note that it shouldn't matter to us whether these came off the Assembly's web site or not -- as I said above, "if an Assemblyman's wife takes a photo of him and he uses it on the web site, that does not make the image PD".
With that understood, I looked at five of these and their descriptions all say:
"Source = California Assembly Website
Author = California Assembly"
Since our rules require a link to the page on which the images occur, that's a "no source" description.
Washing? I think Jim clarified which works should only be tagged with PD-CAGov. And yes, the blue links in the deletion request were reuploaded by other users and should be deleted again if there is no evidence that they were taken by some government official as part of their work. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The files are obviously not own work. There was a claim of reserved rights and the pictures belonging to someone else [20] at the Village pump, but no comment on the deletion request itself. Subsequently uploader added File:Radomir_Mudric.jpg back to Commons despite it having been deleted. And then, the uploader left a message on my talk page [21] and here at UNDEL. Some of the images deleted will not be able to be restored except via the COM:OTRS system and even then, I doubt that most/all of them can be restored due to the unattributed sources from which they were taken, but all credited to own work.Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done Not "own work" as claimed in the file description, but "from a private collection" as stated at VP. We need a license from the actual photographer via OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The institution owning all artworks depicted gave a perfectly regular authorization to Wikimedia Italia. All photos were shot according to the rules of Wiki Loves Monuments Italia and according to Italian laws. It's not acceptable to ask for any further authorization, as per Italian laws the artwork owner has the full rights also on images (and no one here is entitled to doubt about it without any factual proof of the contrary, also AGF should be mandatory). All GLAM projects (galleries and museums) were always based on this very basic principle. --Marcok (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose owning an artwork doesn't make you the copyright holder. It's sad but Wikimedia Italy screwed this one up. Natuur12 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Italian law seems to be:
Art. 109. In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the transfer of one or more copies of the work shall not imply transfer of the exploitation rights afforded by this Law.
However, the transfer of a mold, an engraved plate or any similar medium used to reproduce a work of art shall be deemed, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to include the right to reproduce the work, provided such right belongs to the transferor.
It's possible Italian law is different in this regard, but which law in particular (or ruling) makes the artwork owner have full rights on images? They often are allowed to publish pictures of the work (to advertise or whatever) but that is usually not the same thing as the right to license it to others. The above law seems to say that transfers of works does not imply transfers of copyright, unless a mold or something was transferred as well. But laws may also have been different when a transfer was made in the past, or there may have been an agreement we are not privy to. If a careful copyright examination was done beforehand, I'm not entirely sure we should assume we know better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Although the request above uses the word "institution", the response to the DR used the word "municipality". I think this is simply another case of one or more municipal officials believing that owning the physical work gives them the right to license it. As Article 109 quoted above makes clear, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, that's not the case in Italy or in any other country that I know of. The copyright remains with the creator.
In any case, Commons does not accept unsupported statements from the uploader that the copyright holder said it is OK. No matter who owns the copyright, we still need a written license from the copyright holder via OTRS. So, as I said in closing the DR, in order to restore these we will need either (a) free licenses from the creators or (b) licenses from the towns including copies of their written agreement with the creators which allow the towns to freely license the works. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Wikimedia Italy obtained written authorisation from institutions (municipalities, museums, sopraintendenze ai beni culturali, whatever...) granting rights to take and use the pictures of selected works of art "under [their] own jurisdiction" in agreement with Italian law. Sorry if I'm a bit too upfront, but I find it ridiculous that users like us (even more so if not familiar with Italian laws and procedures) argue on the validity of an authorisation issued by the relevant authorities. Commons is not a right management company, and if an institution authorises the use of a work, and certifies that it has the right to do so, we must not argue with that. In my opinion, these pictures must be immediately undeleted and, at most, a copy of the authorisations obtained by WMI should be archived in the OTRS. It is the institution's duty to keep the documents of the agreements with the authors, not ours. Full disclosure: I'm Italian, member of Wikimedia Italy and involved in WLM.--Japs 88 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what Wikimedia Commons does. When we would process such a release via OTRS the better agents ask for further details regarding the arrangement made between the institution and the artist. Even multinationals with huge legal departments often confuse being granted a license with being able to sublicense a work for example. Not because their legal department is incompetent or something similar but merely because someone not familiar with copyright law deals with the situation. This is one of the most Common scenario's when dealing with releases from company's, institutions etc. Follow up questions are always required.
You don't have to be familiar with all the details of Italian copyright law to make a valid assessment of this situation since copyright law is pretty much the same everywhere in the European Union. Some details differ like when dealing with the definition of anonymous works or copyright durations in some countries for older works but not when it comes to the basics as only the copyright holder can license a work and this is always the creator in the EU unless the copyright was explicitly transferred or the employer of the employee owns the copyright.
Carl has a point when he states that If a careful copyright examination was done beforehand, I'm not entirely sure we should assume we know better. but WMI should have asked details and provided documentation via OTRS. And I have to say that the huge amount of fallacy used by the persons who want to keep the files is clouding the discussion.
Sorry, Japs 88, but it is not at all ridiculous. I would guess that nine times out ten when an organization that does not deal with copyright law every day, including almost all municipalities and most museums, claims that it has the right to freely license images of works that it owns, it turns out to be incorrect.
I am going to guess that the permissions "granting rights to take and use the pictures of selected works of art "under [their] own jurisdiction" in agreement with Italian law" actually speak only to the actual photography and not to the question of licensing of the copyrights. I will further guess that they do not speak at all about copyright and do not state that they are irrevocable. I'll give three to one odds on the first being correct and even money on the second.
As I said above, the appropriate thing to do here is to forward the permissions to OTRS and have our experts examine them. That's required anyway -- as I also said above, we never accept assertions from the uploader that the use on Commons was authorized. If an image is not "own work" or does not come from a source clearly marked with a free license, we always require that copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The deleted image Mangla_Rai2.jpg has no copyright violation at all. This from my personal family collection and very first time it is uploaded by. If you have any doubt about my claim, I can provide you the desired document or affidavit. Therefore kindly accept my request of undeletion.
The deleted photograph titled Mangla_Rai.jpg is my personal property. This image is not published any where till date. It is only the wikipedia where I uploaded this image. If desired I can provide proofs or provide affidavit. So, please accept my request for undeletion.
Thanks and Regards,
Yavarai (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Yavarai
Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you that right. These both say that Mangla Rai (1916-1976) was 38 when they were taken, so they were taken in 1954. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/India, these will be under copyright until 60 years after first publication. If, as you claim, they have never been published, then that will be until 1/1/2078. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I created an SVG file to represent the logo of the North Korean radio station Voice of Korea. I thought it was necessary because the only instance of the logo found on Wikipedia was this. So far, Commons did not have any of it. So I decided to create it from scratch but it was considered as a derivative work which might be true but I would like to ask you to review the deletion of this file because even if it is considered as a derivative work, according to the Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea we can use it without their permission. “Article 32 (Use of copyrighted work without permission) A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright holder in the following cases: (...) 2. when a copyrighted work is reproduced for the purposes of preserving, displaying, reading or lending in such places as a library, an archives, a museum or a memorial hall; 5. when a copyrighted work is broadcast or carried in newspapers or periodicals for the purpose of its introduction; (...) 7. when a copyrighted work is performed free of charge;” Oppashitalk00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose If it is close enough to the original to be useful, then it is clearly a derivative work. The three cited paragraphs are not helpful.
Commons requires that all works here be free for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use, and does not permit restrictions to specific uses such as those listed at (2) and (3). For example, a Commons image must be free to be put on tee shirts or posters, neither of which are included in (2) and (3). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We delete several hundred images a day because they are derivative works. The many derivative works we do keep are either PD or are properly licensed by the creator of the original. Since we do not know the threshold of originality in North Korea, {{PD-textlogo}} would not pass the test of significant doubt. The logo would probably not be eligible for copyright in the USA, but probably would in the UK. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasons I gave on my talk page (they are along the same lines as Jim gives above). Since Oppashi has uploaded a number of similar derivative works, I advise that they (or someone else) looks at them from the same perspective. Finnusertop (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess my other works are simple text logos or are made of simple shapes so they don't enjoy any copyright. Or some derivative works are made from free images. I want to ask someone to patrol them though. Oppashitalk17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I have gone through Oppashi's contributions as requested and posted three DRs:
Oppose@JackieJohnson: This file was deleted since it is a copyright violation and it has an extended detail saying "this picture is not to be shared", which violates COM:L. If you are the copyright holder and you want to release this file under a free license, please read the procedure on OTRS. This is done to protect your copyright and Commons. Thanks, ★Poké9510:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Question I do not understand the original deletion request. Where does it say "Bilder sind nicht freigegeben"? --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The first of these is a journal article, which includes a B&W photo of a painting. The painting is not one of the four shown on the OTRS ticket, so, while we apparently have permission for the article's text, we do not have a license for the painting. The second is a 1978 letter addressed to M. Visson. The OTRS ticket includes a permission document that purports to be from the sender of the letter, but it came from a third party, is not on letterhead, and has no manual signature. Since the uploader here has shown a significant disregard for copyright (30 deleted files), I am not inclined to Assume Good Faith. I think we need an e-mail or letter directly from the man who sent the 1978 letter. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hola que tal, yo soy el autor de la fotografía, y es una imagen de un personaje célebre de internet que se caracteriza por su humor obsceno, humor negro o humor verde. El fin de la foto es ilustrar su biografía, la cual estoy trabajando, y no con la intención de ofender o por ocio, pues todas las imágenes que he subido son con el fin de ilustrar artículos acorde al tema. Así como existen artículos sexuales que contienen fotografías con esa tonalidad cruda. Aquí les dejo algunas fuentes sobre el futuro biografiado del que estoy trabajando:
Oppose - out of scope, even if the depicted person would be in scope, which is not supported by an existing Wikipedia article - Jcb (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Lo que quieres decir es que si tuviera el artículo ya creado no se borrabas la imagen? qué sentido tiene? aunque tenga o no artículo propio, puede estar mencionado en un anexo o en una lista de celebridades de internet como ya existen, solo es de agregarlo con las referencias correspondientes, la foto seguiría ilustrando a la celebridad de internet, además que ya de por si fue parte de la producción de Once Tiros, entonces no le veo la lógica del porqué borrar la fotografía? además que soy yo quien la está donando pues soy el autor.--LocoWiki (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: no COM:EDUSE - a picture of a band member with a stub article standing with his pants down flipping the camera off with both hands is somewhat amusing, but the Once Tiros article is already illustrated by a high-quality band photo - if the person had his own stand-alone article, this might be useful, but not at this time. --lNeverCry07:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Annuler la suppression du fichier portrait Alphonse TARIDE
Bonjour,
Pouvez-vous restaurer le fichier portrait "Alphonse TARIDE" ? Celui-ci est un tableau famille qui m'appartient.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a book gives you that right with respect to the book. This file has no listed source and is probably not actually "own work" as you claimed. The copyright is almost certainly held by the photographer or his heirs. If we knew when and where it was taken, and if published, when and where, it might be possible to restore the file, but it is not likely. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Eric Aho Images Deleted - Artist send an email to wikipedia giving permission!
Hello,
I was told to have Eric Aho email wikipedia himself to give me permission to use the photos (I took) on his wikipedia page.
This is the email that was sent to the wikimedia commons:
<email redacted>
The images should not have been deleted, based on your guidelines all necessary steps were followed. Please re-publish both images that I previously uploaded. They were both installation shots.
Oppose Please do not post emails, they are considered private and I have redacted the one above. This is Ticket:2016101710021085, which is in the queue. It has not yet been dealt with... there are a couple problems right off the bat, but they may not be insurmountable. It will require at least another back-and-forth, and once the ticket is validated, and agent will request the files' undeletion. Storkk (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict × 2) Oppose@Apalizzolo: permission to upload any necessary images for her addition to my Wikipedia page (from email that has been recently redacted, I am not an OTRS volunteer) Sorry, but Eric Aho must not only give permission Wikipedia to use their images but also give everyone permission to reuse their images for any purpose including commercially and derivative works (they may add conditions like giving credit to Eric Aho and copyleft, as long as it is not too restrictive like non-commercial). You should ask Eric Aho to release their images under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0) to restore these images. Thanks, ★Poké9513:07, 21 October 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) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This photo was took from mobile camera and it is cover page of tamil vedha magazine and same was mentioned in the description. Since it has god and goddess image it will be similar to many and more over the image represents the sentence in the periyapuranam (epic/vedha/bible of shiva ethnicities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaravels (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
OpposeOut of scope: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.". Thuresson (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The low quality of this suggests COM:DW to me (a photo of a photo perhaps), but along w/ copyright concerns, Thuresson's questioning of COM:EDUSE value is another valid concern. lNeverCry07:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This file/image is not copyrighted, and I maintain ownership/rights to the image and its use. I believe it was mistakenly marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taallen92 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, every created work has a copyright from the moment of creation. This image is clearly marked "NC State University (c) 2015", so your statement is plainly incorrect. In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of the University must send a free license to OTRS from an address at ncsu.edu. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I note that you have uploaded the same file, with the copyright notice cropped off as File:Cell Undergoing Angiopellosis .tif (note the space before the dot). One of Commons cardinal principals is that we Assume Good Faith -- assume that the uploader's statements about his own work are accurate. However, once we see bad faith, the assumption goes away. Playing that sort of game with Commons rules will simply mean that everything you do and say here will be examined very carefully. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: Please restore my photographs. These pictures have been clicked by me and have also been uploaded to my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/piconnie.inc/
I did not have the time to put in description for each image in detail and that's why random file names and sloppy descriptions were used but the images are mine! Piconnie (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose Even if the copyright issue is fixed, these are useless without categories and descriptions, including telling what is photographed and where. I am not inclined to restore these at all unless Piconnie agrees to spend the necessary time to do that immediately after they are restored.
I sent an email on Company letterhead to (Permissions) on 10/23/2016. I own Innovate Ent, which is the sole creator an copyright owner of all media created and licensed under the girl group: DAME.
I assumed it was because Jusjih was being very careful not to use Admin powers for a personal reason. I probably would not have done the same thing myself, but it's not unreasonable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the two images above were deleted in a deletion request, after User:Hard acknowledged he did not take them, but they were provided by the University of Navarre Archive in a verbal fashion (along many others...). Hard has managed personally this stuff, and the University of Navarre uploaded these two in its Flickr account with a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. I hope it's enough to grant the permission. Probably they would not be the only ones requering undeletion. Thanks in advance. Strakhov (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The permission email from the owner (Julian Karikalan <juvinitha@gmail.com) has already been sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 24 Oct 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit Kalia (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
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) 09:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the admin Ellin Beltz requested to delete this file because it's written CLITORIS on it, and she probably considered this word offensive (cf. the reason of the deletion in her comment, talking about deviant art, as if there was noble and minor art). Perhaps she wants to remove my files from the Commons Project as she fears I am a vandal ?
But she certainly missed the main point of the subject : this design is an original and creative ambigram.
Please visit this nomination page for the deletion where I laboriously try to contest the decision, and also visit my own personal page from my signature.
Oppose First, please note that re-uploading an image out of process after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. Please do not do it again or you will be blocked from editing here.
The file description tells me that the subject of the image is you, the uploader. That raise the question of who is the photographer?
Hello! When another version of the poster of my movie "Be My Cat: A Film for Anne" was deleted some months ago, I sent an email to OTRS confirming that I am the filmmaker Adrian Țofei, they undeleted the poster and also added the Verified Account tag to my account so that I will be able to upload any new posters of mine without going to OTRS again. But I see that the last version I uploaded was again deleted... What's happening? The Verified Account tag is not enough? Please undelete the poster. Thank you very much! --Adrian Tofei (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Please remember that we get 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. You need to add something to the image description to show that you are authorized to license the image, or it will simply get swept away. I have added an appropriate line to this one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose I'm not sure these are actually photographs, but it doesn't matter. All of them infringe on copyrighted logos of Xcentric Ripper International, S.L., see http://www.xcentricripper.com/en/. They cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from an authorized official of the owner via OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: These files were deleted on the basis of possible copyright violations. Ignite Social Media currently works for Procter and Gamble and thus owns the copyrights to these images provided from said client. We would like to request these images be reinstated or explanation of a possible appeal process to prove the licensing permissions. IgniteSMA (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I doubt very much that ISM "owns the copyrights to these images". The copyrights are almost certainly owned by P&G and I also doubt that ISM has a license which allows them to be freely licensed to others. In order to restore these to Commons, a corporate officer of P&G must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this is exactly why we have the procedure outlined at COM:OTRS... we cannot verify on this forum that you are indeed "Ignite Social Media", or that P&G have transferred copyright to you. You can, however, provide evidence confidentially via COM:OTRS, and we will need that in order to restore the files. Note that if you only possess "publicity rights", you almost certainly do not have the authority to license the files freely, so it is likely the OTRS agent will need either to see the relevant portion of the contract transferring you the rights, or a legal representative of P&G will need to confirm. Storkk (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am a representative of the band Sgt. Pepper. I don't understand why the image was deleted. This Logo was created for the band in 1990 and it has been modified for the band's new name. The Sgt. Pepper Logo can be used anywhere and does not infringe any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtpeppersband (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The logo probably has a copyright. Because we do not know who you actually are and we get both fans and vandals freely licensing logos that they do not own, policy requires that an authorized official of the band send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose We get both fans and vandals who try to license works that do not belong to them. The words you linked to may well be authentic, but they could also easily be a forgery. In order to restore this, an authorized official of Wargaming Group Limited, the owners of World of Tanks, must send a free license directly to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and we get both fans and vandals attempting to freely license logos that they do not own, policy requires that an authorized official of the team send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The Picture is about an open Public Place (Old Orchard) which shows some orchard trees and a path going through them. The Picture is taken from the internet but I believe that it is an open source pic. as it is a pic of Public place on the internet to show the Park / Orchard from inside, it holds no strict copyright issues. Plus, It is taken by a friend of my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammadahmad79 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no law that photos of public places are public domain. Please do not upload copyrighted photos tagged with "All rights reserved" from Panoramio. See Commons:Licensing for information about licensing. Thuresson (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
We like to create a wiki page about csi church so that everyone can know about our church pls kindly dont remove any photos belong to the csi immanuel church salem wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjssuthakar (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As a courtesy, please sign all your posts with four tildes (~~~~)
Oppose@De Mazid Islam: It is not free from copyright. There's no permission from the Omar Al Zabir blog to release this file under a free license. If you want this file be restored, please ask the blog to send an email (from their address) to the OTRS. Thanks, ★Poké9505:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
OTRS erhielt eine Genehmigungs-Mail am 11. Oktober. Da ich mit dem Umgang mit OTRS|Pending nicht vertraut war und auch keine Hilfe erhielt, wurde die Datei gelöscht. Ich bitte, diese wiederherzustellen. Die Mail müsste jetzt bei OTRS verarbeitet sein. Danke + mfg --Wacken! (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
"With respect to use of photographs and videos maintained on this website pertaining to the MacArthur Fellows by the media, the applicable Creative Commons License will be Attribution: CC- BY. This permits non- commercial and commercial use by media as long as there is attribution." [22]
Right. "Media" implies the press -- magazines, newspapers, television, internet news sources. It does not include tee shirts, posters, and most web sites. We can argue whether text books and history books are included in "the media" -- I would say not, but it's irrelevant. (Note that I was the deleting Admin.) . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that this is a valid license restriction. If a media outlet used the file and noted that it was CC-BY, would we accept the photo from them? Storkk (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The rule of law in the US is that the particular overrides the general. So, the fact that the Foundation put a particular restriction on the generality of the CC-BY license means that the restriction rules. Now, it is certainly possible that the attempt to restrict the license to media invalidates the license altogether, but that doesn't matter to us -- a court would find that either there is no CC-BY license for anyone or that there is a CC-BY license, but only for the media. It could not find that there is a CC-BY license for everyone because that is clearly not what the Foundation intends. Note that this limited license applies only to images and videos of MacArthur Fellows. Everything else on the site is CC-BY-NC which reinforces the Foundation's intention to be very careful with its copyrighted material. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
wow, so CC-BY can be restricted but saying "for use by media"? do you have any case law for that? you realize that this is a site where you cannot amend your flickr license to put NC on it, the original CC rules forever? what is commons if not media? a playground for amateur lawyers? so now we need to email every GLAM on earth to wiki'splain: "please do not add explanatory material to your rights statement, or it will get deleted from commons". you realize how many NC's on PD-art we ignore; and we told the Prado to "bring it on"? the intent was very clear when they said "CC- BY. This permits non- commercial and commercial use" the fact that they have a media distribution mindset, does not amend the license. you missed about 200 others like this - let the mass deletions commence. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge15:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I said. What the Foundation is saying is clear -- if you are media, then you have a CC-BY license, If you are not media, then you must live within the Foundation's general CC-BY-NC license. That is a perfectly legitimate use of the license. They could just as legitimately say that they will give the license only to people over fifty -- it does not change the license, but does restrict who may use it.
Commons may or may not be media -- I would say not, but others disagree. But that doesn't matter. Images on Commons must be free for any use, even tee shirts, and tee shirts are certainly not "the media". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
that is not what the foundation said, that is your interpretation. an alternate interpretation is both commercial and non-commercial use of media by media, and words are NC. and again you have no legal precedent for your interpretation of a CC-BY license. there is policy precedent here to ignore NC restrictions upon a license, when the community agrees it has no standing. where is your community consensus for your interpretation? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, I am not interpreting the license, I am simply stating something out of thirty years experience in the IP world dealing with copyrights. It is very common for copyright holders of important works to grant different licenses for the same work to different licensees. An author of a novel may grant first serial rights to a magazine, US publication rights to publisher A, UK rights to publisher B, and movie rights to a studio. Same work, four different licenses. So it is perfectly straightforward and not uncommon for the Foundation to have granted the media a CC-BY license and everyone else a CC-BY-NC license. That doesn't change the license, just the persons to whom it is granted. (I use the term "persons" in the sense of "legal persons", including actual people as well as organizations, corporations, and governments.) . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
again, you are interpreting the clear statement of the foundation to mean that they can restrict use of their CC-BY license to only media. if they wanted to restrict the CC-BY to only media, and CC-BY-NC to everyone else, they could have said that, but they did not. they did not define what they meant "by media", they did not say "the media" they did not say "mainstream media" , they did not say "media outlet A": there is no evidence they meant to exclude commons. they very well could have, but did not. "A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted work." that was their intent, and i do not see any reason to subvert their intent. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge00:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Slowking4, I agree that something should be done, and I have sent a message to the Foundation asking them to clarify their license. Please hold off for a week or so to see if they respond and how. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Our goal is to provide content that can be used by anyone, media or otherwise, both in commerical product or otherwise, and make adoptations of said content. Restricting the "free for commerical purposes" but only for media, but not for others, is not serving our goal, and not premitted per our policies. THis has not been undeleted, since the nominator has failed to show community consensus (or case law) that we can allow restrictions on Creative Commons licenses to accept non-commercial media as long as only some people can use it for that purpose. Their intent may be one thing, but it is an invalid release, if they put restictions on said release. (t) Josve05a (c)06:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not done@De Mazid Islam: Same as above similar requests, OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. If you are the copyright holder, you send the email to the OTRS. If not, ask the real one to send an email. Thanks, --★Poké9510:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Its my image and I want to share it with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
Not sure why Jose deleted the image and says its from the web. Iam the owner, photographer and person on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonkberlin (talk • contribs)
Oppose Note also that since you are the person in the image and if it is not a selfie, you do not own the copyright -- that belongs to the actual photographer. If that is the case, he or she must send the license to OTRS or you must send a copy of your written license agreement with him or her. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Andrew Rona owns his headshot and though he has provided it to magazines and websites in the past, he retains ownership of the image. I have sent a handwritten letter of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - please undelete his photo.
Oppose If a free 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 it 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 and the image is restored. --★Poké9500:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ultimateagenta: Also, are you an authorised representative of Andrew Rona? Only the copyright holder (which is Andrew Rona) may send an email to the OTRS. Thanks, ★Poké9500:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This photo file belongs to me, David Dann (UN: Bloomsdisco). I created it, it was and is my concept from start to finish, and belongs to no one else. The image of Friedrich Nietzsche used in it is in the public domain. This file has been deleted through some misunderstanding on the part of Wiki's overseers. I request that it be reinstated in full, with its information intact.
Oppose The works pictured are credited to Alexander Melamid and David Dann. Unfortunately, User:Bloomsdisco could be either of them or a fan, so policy requires that the magazine's publisher send a free license to OTRS.
More important, however, is the question of whether these are out of scope. Mockups for possible covers of a brand new magazine seem like a stretch to me. I doubt that the magazine will qualify for a WP article until it has been around for a year or two, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artenol. I suggest that you reopen the issue then. Please read WP:COI. You are in serious violation of policy and may be blocked from editing here and on WP:EN. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Question Can a link to the Flickr image be provided? I just want to look whether the license is relicensed under a free license and I want look at the EXIF to see if the Flickr user is the copyright holder of the file. Thanks! ★Poké9503:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Logo looks simple to me, but either cc-by-2.0 and PD works for me. Also in scope, since there is an article on enwiki about Duncan Channon. --★Poké9504:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The fact that it is on public display after 1978 does not necessarily mean it was published -- see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. That is the difficulty. The fact it is one of six versions may help that case though -- if he offered copies for sale. And it sounds like that copy was commissioned by a third party, so someone else did gain an ownership interest -- so the work itself should be published it sounds like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point, I presume the statue would need to have a copyright mark visible somewhere, even if on a separate plaque, in order to be considered under copyright with the above dates in mind. --Fæ (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Since, as Slowking has pointed out, there is no registration of the copyright, it is PD unless there is a copyright notice on it. Since the SIRIS record calls out an inscription that is not a copyright notice ("(On proper left leg, vertically:) 2947538 signed"), I am inclined to believe that there is no notice. (For the record, many SIRIS files do not show an inscription -- since it could have simply been overlooked, I don't like to accept those as evidence of no-notice.)
Slowking4, as Carl has pointed out, "published" in the technical copyright sense of the word does not necessarily happen when the sculpture is put up, so SIRIS does not actually speak to the point. My understanding of the rule is that if a sculpture is in a public place and photography is permitted, then it is published. If it were in museum where photography was forbidden, then publication might not ever happen. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
when a sculpture is erected in a public place, it is published. SIRIS establishes the date, and location. the sculpture was then later photographed in the public place. by the case law, photography cannot be prohibited in a public place. what is your process to establish facts of publication here? when you have an edition, then first publication rules, not subsequent editions that may even be in private collections. you can view the various editions in the SIRIS and they are the same, no creative difference. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge15:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Borofsky has done numerous Hammering Man statues. The one in Seattle was installed in 1991.
If this is OK, then there are a lot of other photos of Hammering Man in Seattle that should be undeleted, if there is any way to find them. And once we undelete, the category for the statue should explain the basis on which it is OK. - Jmabel ! talk16:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Since 1978, erecting a sculpture in a public place does *NOT* publish it. That is what the link I gave above talks about, at length. The simple public display of a work -- even permanently -- no longer constitutes publication, so lack of copyright notice on a public copy does not mean it is PD. The work must be published by other means, per the definition in the 1978 law. That typically happens upon distribution of copies -- or the offering for sale -- but it sounds like this one was. Although if any copy was put up after March 1 1989, it would have to be close to an exact copy of the previous (established PD) works for it to be OK. If it was separately copyrightable (new expression in that version) there would be no way to lose that copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
your court case says: The court noted, however, "We do not mean to say that the public exhibition of a painting or statue, where all might see and freely copy it, might not amount to publication within the statute, regardless of the artist's purpose or notice of reservation of rights which he takes no measure to protect. But such is not the present case," you have now rejected that possibility. do you have a precedent rejecting these facts?
well, when public sculptures are erected, there tends to be press coverage, and gallery catalogs, i.e. "A Century of Modern Sculpture: The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection," Dallas Museum of Art, 1987, pg.100. [26]; and [27]; [28]; [29] do you want a book scan to prove the point, or is a reference enough? do you want me to research clippings of gallery openings at Paula Cooper Gallery NYC? [30] the work was apparently offered for sale there, do you imagine it was offered for sale with no derivative marketing given out?
"This work is one of a total of six larger-than-life-size versions of "Hammering Man." This twenty-foot version was commissioned by the Nashers and is the only version in this scale. All are signed with sequential numbers rather than a signature." is it the artist's intent to have an edition? will commons honor the artist's intent? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge22:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
That court case was under the 1909 Copyright Act (actually the one even earlier, but the court ruled similarly under the 1909 Act). However, the 1976 Act included a definition of "publication" which the previous laws did not, so the definition changed in some aspects, this being one. That ended the concept of "general publication" and "limited publication" which had existed. Earlier court cases therefore are no help in determining the status from 1978 onwards. Please read Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#After 1978 -- if you are quoting that court case for anything 1978 or later, it is no help. That does remain valid before 1978 though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
sale is publication, and the work was sold from Paula Cooper Gallery to Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection in 1987, as the SIRIS indicates. your table has a blanket statement without a reference to the 1976 act or case law which is inadequate. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge23:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The image was not deleted because of notability concerns but it was thought to be a copyright violation. @Didym: can you show us a link where you found a non-free version of this photograph? De728631 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: This photo is both a photo of and property of the Author Bob Truluck. It was his request for the photo to be uploaded, so that it could be used on his Wikipedia page. I uploaded it based on those instructions. Pinknolegirl (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Owning a copy of the photo does not make Mr. Truluck the copyright holder. Copyright is almost always held by the photographer and only they can grant a free licence. The original photographer would have to send an email as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
argument is that the uncensored version is all we need, as WP is not censored, and thus this file has no educational value. i disagree. i had placed this deleted file next to the original, File:Futanari.png, at the Pornography portal, Portal:Pornography/Featured picture/73, to illustrate the effect of censor bars. This technique could, and probably should, be used at an article on censorship or pornography. thus, it does have educational value as a censored work of art.
Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Support The censored version can be used to illustrate censorship, therefore the image is in the project scope of Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done This is the second (or third?) undeletion request above this file, with the same rationale. Copyright issues must be solved first before restoring this file. ★Poké9501:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
HUBO UN ERROR AL BORRAR LOS ARCHIVOS QUE SON DE MI PROPIEDAD FREDDY CANAVIRI APAZA, EN OTROS SITIOS WEB ESTAN MIS ARCHIVOS CON MI MISMO NOMBRE FREDDY CANAVIRI APAZA, SOLICITO LA RESTAURACION DE ESTOS ARCHIVOS, QUE ES MUY BUEN APORTE PARA LA HUMANIDAD Y LA HISTORIA DAR A CONOCER LA INFORMACION QUE CONTENIA ESTOS ARCHIVOS, MAS ADELANTE DARE UNA EXPLICACION MAS DETALLADA EN LA ENCICLOPEDIA WIKIPEDIA Y NECESITO ESTOS ARCHIVOS, ESTE ES MI SITIO WEB http://freddycanaviriapaza.wixsite.com/elfinviene
These are huge text files -- tables -- around 12,000 by 9,000 pixels, 20 megabytes for example. They are completely illegible at full screen size and don't render at all if you hit the magnify button. If they are in scope at all, which I doubt, such information as may be contained in them must be set in Wikitables so that it can be read on all size screens and so that it loads in a reasonable time. Tables like this are not permitted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Translate. "There was a mistake to delete the files are from my property Freddy Canaviri Apaza, i other web sites are my files with myself name Freddy Canaviri Apaza, applying the restoration of these files that is very good contribution for humanity and history dar to know the information contained in these files later dare further explanation in the encyclopedia Wikipedia and need these files, this is my website http://freddycanaviriapaza.wixsite.com".
Not done per Jameslwoodward and Thuresson. Copyright is not the issue here but no valid reason was presented to keep these illegible tables that were found to be out of project scope. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Freddycanaviri777's images, redux
ENTONCES ELIMINE TODA NOTA DE BORRADO, PORQUE EN LOS DIFERENTES BUSCADORES DE INTERNET, ESTAN LAS IMAGENES Y APARECE NOTAS DE BORRADO, PENSARAN QUE NO SON DE MI PROPIEDAD Y HABRA GENTE QUE QUERRA ROBARME EL DERECHO DE PROPIETARIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddycanaviri777 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Las imágenes no fueron borradas por problemas de derechos de autor. Se las borró porque son imágenes con puro texto, y en wikipedia se puede generar texto directamente. Y además, son ilegibles a primera vista y son tan pesadas que son difíciles de cargar bien para verlas a tamaño normal. Cambalachero (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
No hecho This is their second undeletion request. Two administrators above already explained why their files are not in scope. Please note that repeatedly making undeletion requests with the same rationale may result in removing your editing privileges due to disruption. You must explain why these files are in scope for these files to be restored. Alternatively, you may use wikicode instead for your data (recommended). Thanks, ★Poké9501:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bonjour, je demande de bien vouloir annuler la suppression de l'image "Parasiliti di Para.jpg.
J'ai pris cette photo moi-même en 2014 et je l'ai publié sur le site araucanie.com dont je suis le propriétaire. Je ne comprends donc pas pourquoi cette image a été supprimée. (Kppcom (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC))
For images that have already been published elsewhere we usually require a permission sent by email. The easiest way in this case. however, would be if you could put a note on your website that this photograph was taken by you and has been released under a Creative Commons-by-sa-4.0 licence. Then we can restore the file over here. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Procedural closure. As long as the deletion discussion is still ongoing, there is nothing that can be restored. Any objections to a possible deletion should be raised at the discussion page. De728631 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Je vois en ce jour que les photos ajoutées la page "Stéphane Richelmi" ont été supprimées. Je viens vers vous afin de demander plus un éclaircissement qu'un réel retour de celles-ci si vous jugez réellement d'une contradiction à vos règles.
Ces photos n'ont pas été prises sur le web mais bien achetées à l'agence photographique qui lui a ainsi donné l'accord de les utiliser sur le web. De plus, nous avons bien spécifié leur copyright sur chaque photo. C
Devons-nous obtenir du média un certificat nous permettant la publication de ces photos, nous sera t'il permit de les ajouter à nouveau ?
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
"The customer agrees to include the copyright notice, and the name of the photographer, as indicated by DPPI Media on each photograph. When using photographs on digital media, such as website, CD-ROM or Intranet, the customer agrees to include in legible form (either on each page, either in a tab called CREDITS or LEGAL INFORMATION) the following:
Not done Copyrighted media uploaded at Commons must have a free licence that allows for the creation of derivatives and commercial re-use. This is not the case for this image. De728631 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Lauf Aussage der Fotografin hat sie die Freigabe bereits an euch geschickt. Nebenbei finde ich es seltsam das das Foto sofort gelöscht wurde und nicht wie angegeben nach 7 Tagen
Oppose It was immediately deleted because it met the requirements for {{Speedy}} -- namely that it had an author who was not the uploader, no license, and no indication of permission from the author.
If a free 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 it 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 or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
ich kann erahnen was die Antwort bedeutet, Netz Übersetzer helfen da nicht viel weiter. OTRS ist schwer zu handhaben und fürchterlich umständlich und unlogisch. da muss ne andere Lösung her die besser zu handhaben ist. Gruß aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Caronna, Das Bild wurde sofort gelöscht, weil es keine genauen Angaben zur Lizenz hatte: welche CC Lizenz genau?. Solche Angaben musst Du immer mitliefern. Grundsätzlich sind derartige Dateien zur sofortigen Löschung freigegeben (Kriterien für die Schnelllöschung), darum wurde die Datei später automatisch zur sofortigen Löschung markiert. OTRS ist eigentlich auch nicht unlogisch, aber das Team dort ist chronisch unterbesetzt. Eine kleine handvoll Freiwillige arbeitet den gesamten E-Mail-Verkehr ab, und das dauert eben seine Zeit, so dass nicht sofort nach dem Hochladen einer Datei die entsprechende Genehmigung freigeschaltet wird. Dazu kommt, dass aus Datenschutzgründen die E-Mails nur zwischen dem Rechteinhaber und OTRS hin und her laufen dürfen, also hat ggf. der "Lieferant" auf den Prozess gar keinen Einfluss. Sobald die Freigabenachricht hier abgearbeitet wurde, wird das Bild aber umgehend wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ich hatte der Fotografin eigentlich das Formular geschickt was vorgeschlagen ist. DIe Scheint das halt nicht verstanden zu haben. Das ist wohl immer das Problem mit "Fremden" DIe hat sich auch nicht bei mir gemeldet, so was ich das abklären konnte. In Zukunft werde ich das anders machen, das "Fremde" das Formulöar erst an mich schicken und dann im Firefox die Mail weiterleite an euch.
Ich werde in Zukunft noch andere Bilder bekommen, welche sind aus dem örtlichen Stadtarchiv, die anderen von dem Heimatverein dem Fotos vererbt wurden. Sollte doch auch auf dem üblichen Wege gehen? Gruß aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Das Problem ist, dass wir halt bei Uploads, die nicht vom Dateilieferanten erstellt wurden, immer eine Bestätigung brauchen. Bei dem OTRS-Formular ist aber immer hilfreich, wenn in der E-Mail dann tatsächlich auch der Name der Bilddatei auf Commons genannt wird. Das heisst, dass die Freigabe tatsächlich per E-Mail gesendet werden muss, und soweit ich weiß, akzeptiert OTRS keine weitergeleiteten Mails. Für die zukünftigen Gebrauch solltest Du also die Rechteinhaber wirklich bitten, den folgenden Text zu verwenden, nachdem du das Bild auf Commons hochgeladen hast:
Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild DATEINAME AUF COMMONS, dass ich
a) dessen Fotograf/in bin oder
b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder
c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.
Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).
Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.
Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.
Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.
DATUM, NAME
Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass bei der eigentlichen Vorlage die geschweiften Klammern für Verwirrung sorgen, aber wenn einmal weiss, wie es geht, kann man es den Fotografen und/oder Bilderben ja erklären. Wichtig ist eben auch, dass Du nach dem Hochladen solcher Bilder von Anfang an sowohl die gewünschte Lizenz, als auch den Baustein {{OTRS pending}} auf die Dateiseite setzt, damit das Bild nicht gleich wieder gelöscht wird. De728631 (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Our experience has been that a significant number -- maybe half, maybe more -- of such claims never materialize. Therefore we delete the file and restore it when and if an acceptable free license comes in from the actual copyright holder. My note above (which comes from {{Odelay}}) is based on the theory that a user should not be able to jump the long OTRS queue by coming here. If we allowed users to do that it would both be unfair to the bulk of users who don't know UnDR is here and add to the load of those of us who work here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean File:Just kidding!.jpg? Even if you combined the final image, we need to know the source and copyright status of the photographs of the face and the sunglasses. Mixing other people's images to a new file is called a derivative work and requires permission from the original photographers. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is an unused personal file from a contributor whose only other contribution was a copyvio. I think it is out of scope even if the copyright problem is addressed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose as the nominator of this file (for deletion). I nominated this file for deletion because there's no EXIF data in the file, and the resolutions are small. The Flickr user there is also not trusted, and I doubt that they took this image (but I believe that they took this image, from the web). Also, the uploader here is known to upload copyright violations, and has been blocked before for 1 week because of that. I now reported them to COM:AN/U because of their suspicious actions (Flickrwashing, back here from 1 week block to upload copyright violations again). Thanks, --★Poké9505:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Looks OK now to me. Note that the author should be credited: "Juan Perez Leon;Oficina de Información Opus Dei", not "own work" as Hard claimed. It also will need Flickrreview. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Many were nominated because the original ticket ticket:2012041910003628 was deemed insufficient. I agree. The new ticket ticket:2016080110008624 does clarify things and I'm inclined to accept the coporate ownership of the majority of the copyrights above (with further clarification needed for a couple e.g. File:Andi Siebenhofer at Dashni Morad Show, Kurdistan.jpg and the first one listed)... Most have been stripped of EXIF, but e.g. this one has "Copyright - (c) 2012 Wolf-Dieter Grabner, Andi Siebenhofer & The 7 Group". I would, however, like a second opinion. Some may need to be looked at on scope-grounds, but if so, they should probably be restored and have a new DR. Ping also billinghurst, who discovered the inadequacy of the first ticket.Storkk (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember the circumstance that you mention, and I have not retained OTRS access, so my opinion is neutral on the permissions scope. — billinghurstsDrewth11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry... that was a mistake on my part. You converted some copyvio templates to DRs (1, 2). They were initially nominated under the rationale that subject cannot be copyright holder regardless of OTRS ticket, but that came from Ariadacapo, not you. Apologies. Storkk (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
OTRS erhielt eine Genehmigungs-Mail am 11. Oktober. Da ich mit dem Umgang mit OTRS|Pending nicht vertraut war und auch keine Hilfe erhielt, wurde die Datei gelöscht. Ich bitte, diese wiederherzustellen. Die Mail müsste jetzt bei OTRS verarbeitet sein. Danke + mfg --Wacken! (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
In dem Ticket gab es eine Rückfrage an den Einsender der Freigabe, die nicht beantwortet wurde. Bisher ist das keine gültige Freigabe. --Krd05:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done OTRS-Ticket wird noch bearbeitet und ist bislang ungültig. Die Datei wird wieder hergestellt, sobald eine gültige Freigabe vorliegt. De728631 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Done Hmm. This is a minor mess. The image file cites a Flickr user who claimed CC-BY. The image there is a blank form. The image in the deleted file is a sample, not a blank. It was deleted because the Flickrreview failed, but that is OK now, and in any event is irrelevant -- as noted above, it is clearly {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose That is almost impossible. Even if you were age 10 when you took the picture, you would have to be 106 years old now. "Own work" means that you were the actual photographer, not simply someone who scanned an old photograph. In order to restore the image, we need to know when, where, and by whom it was photographed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Die Löschanweisung für ein Duplikat wurde auch auf das Original angewandt. nach mehreren Korrekturbitten habe ich die Datei erneut hochgeladen. Die Grafik ist mein eigenes Produkt und meine Löschanweisung habe ich mehrfach widerrufen. Auch aus dem log-Protokoll kann ich keinen triftigen Löschgrund erkennen.
Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung oder Aufforderung eines erneuten Hochladens, aber ohne anschließende Löschung.
Dracula CB (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The image was deleted as out of scope. Nothing said above speaks to that issue. We do not keep personal art from artists who are not notable. We do not keep satiric images from people who are not notable satirists. I see no reason to restore this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Siehe Commons:Projektumfang: wir behalten hier nur Dateien, die wirklich nützlich für Bildungszwecke sind. Selbst entworfene Satire gehört dabei eben nicht zum Programm, solange sie kein Werk eines relevanten Künstlers ist. Dieser Ausschluss "out of project scope" (nicht im Umfang des Commons-Projekts) war bisher der Löschgrund, also benötigen wir einen guten Grund, warum diese Witzgrafik tatsächlich für die Wikimedia-Projekte brauchbar sein sollte. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: restored. @Slowking4: Can you please make sure these are properly tagged and categorized as needed? I left two of the Seoul images deleted as they pictured works of modern architecture rather than the Hammering Man. --lNeverCry09:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Assuming that you are requesting File:WDJ-POSTER-ONLINE.png to be restored, let me explain the issue here. The same poster can be found online at this website without an obvious free license. It is original enough to be copyrighted, so unless you are the original designer (not just the owner of a copy of this poster) we cannot keep the file. If this is your website, please put a note on the page that this particular image has been released under a Creative Commons-by-sa-4.0 license. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Free use by the press does not mean free use as required for Wikimedia Commons. Media at Commons need an explicit free licence that allows anyone to use the work for any purpose. This includes adapting the original image plus having the opportunity for commercial exploit. This is not the case with a run-of-the-mill press kit like this. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: An acceptable free license (see COM:L) must be provided by the copyright holder, either at the source or through the process detailed at OTRS. --lNeverCry09:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author and date of these three pictures were included in their respective descriptions, proving they were in the public domain (two of them were paintings by 19th century Spanish artist Luis de Madrazo). However, this information was completely ignored and the pictures were arbitrarily deleted altogether with the other files uploaded by the same user, without further discussion and without taking the provided information into consideration. --179.7.66.5605:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Support This is silly:
"However, this information was completely ignored and the pictures were arbitrarily deleted altogether with the other files uploaded by the same user, without further discussion and without taking the provided information into consideration"
These were all subject, with others, to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CanBea87. Each case is different, but at the time the DR was opened, all of these had either "own work" or Luis de Madrazo (not a name most of us know) as the author, no date, and CC-BY-SA. After the DR was started, User:179.7.68.94 (Maybe the same person as 179.7.66.56? It's the same ISP.) added some information, but not consistently. You cannot reasonably expect the closing Admin to look at every image in a large DR, so I think that the comment is way out of line. I find it particularly strange that you accuse the community of closing the DR "without further discussion" when it's clear that 179.7.68.94 could have stopped the deletion of these three if he had bothered to make a simple comment at the DR. Discussion doesn't happen by magic -- it happens when editors who have useful information about a file add that information to the DR.
Oppose I agree that they are the same image, and that the one on the web may well be an upscale of the one here. However, there is a more fundamental problem. The listed source is WP:EN and the license is {{PD}}. Given the vehicles barely visible in the lower left corner and the general quality of the color image, I think that it is probably from the last twenty years, but certainly post-war. The uploader did not claim "own work", but simply stated, "This image is in the public domain" without giving a reason. Since we have no valid source and an image that obviously has a copyright, the license tag {{PD}} cannot be valid. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Reason: This is a representation of a city armorial entirely drawn using the official description on how the armories look. On FrWiki (and maybe in other projects), armories are drawn using free elements and assemble together to represent what the official description states.
Obviously, this makes the armories looks very much alike the official armories, but this is not a derivative of the art work, since the art work is not used.
The picture itself is made of "meubles" and other free licensed pictures. I notify Spax89 that could bring more information about it (if he wants). If you start to delete armories/blazons this way, you could directly delete all his creations because they will all look similar to their original... it is armories/blazons! I will also notify the appropriate project that might be able to give more information on this. --Scoopfinder(d)07:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
A large number of images which I have used to support and inform articles have recently been removed due to alleged copyright issues. In this case OVIKpangolin.jpg was deleted alog with: pangolin hand over.jpg andPangolin 6x6 fire tender.jpg
I am the owner of that image. I was the photographer. I have the original RAW files. The same applies to all the recent images recently deleted. This causes me to lose faith in Wikipedia.. sometimes it seems like nothing other than a witch hunt against genuine Wikipedia contributors. Please re-instate these images to support the various articles - or I shall simply stop contributing my specialist knowledge.
@Landroverfan: Hello, please follow the procedure at OTRS and send the original RAW files there. I don't know why they were deleted as copyvios, but it may be probably because they were previously published on other websites. To protect your copyright and Commons, we do this kind of procedure. We apologize for the inconvenience and we don't want you to leave Wikipedia and Commons. Thank you. ★Poké9505:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
File:OVIKpangolin.jpg -- This was deleted because it appears on http://www.ovik-crossway.com/ovik-vehicle8.php without a free license. Commons policy requires that when an image appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license that the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS.
File:Pangolin Hand Over.jpg -- This was deleted because in the file description you said, "I am in this image - it was taken with my own camera." In that case the actual photographer holds the copyright and must send a free license to OTRS.
Before starting that DR, I've checked about a third of the user's uploads, and found every single image published before, so even the rest is unlikely to be own work. --Didym (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Didym, I agree that many of the images have been used elsewhere, but I think it is entirely possible that they are in fact own work. Note that in the case of File:CROSSWAY 6x6 Armoured Logistics.jpg, the image here is larger and the one on the Web is cropped from it. Appearing elsewhere on the Web does not always mean that our uploader has lifted them from the Web -- it may mean that the Web instance came from our uploader, with or without permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Buenos días, las siguientes fotos fueron borradas porque me atribuí indebidamente su autoría. Corresponden al Archivo Fotográfico de la Universidad de Navarra, que las ha colgado en Flickr, con las licencias pertinentes para ser utilizadas en Wikipedia. Rogaría que se procediera a la cancelación de su borrado. Muchas gracias.--Hard (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
OpposeI think this is all license laundering. The Flickr account gives no reason why it has the rights to freely license all of these images. Since they appear to be people from the mid to late twentieth century, all of the photographs are still under copyright and it seems very unlikely that one photographer took them all. The Flickr user account may or may not actually belong to the University of Navarra, but we do not know that for certain. It is also possible that the University owns paper copies of these photos, but that does not give it the right to freely license them unless they have a formal written license from each of the photographers.
I think that in order to restore these, we will need a license from an authorized official of the University via OTRS. That must come with a full explanation of why the University thinks it has the right to license these images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The flickr account belongs to the University of Navarre and the people managing it would be kind of authorized. Yeah ...there's an assumption/leap of good faith taking its claims of owned copyright. But, well, I always believe in people (or institutions) here, at least until they prove themselves liars. Not the case for now. The idea of photographers working for the University, taking photos for the University and giving them their rights seems... plausible. Anyways, if there's license laundering, it would be done by the University of Navarra itself and not by User:Hard, who has worked this with best faith possible. Strakhov (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have seen much more of the bad side of Commons than you. First, how do we know the Flickr page is owned by the University? http://www.unav.edu/en does not have a link to it. I agree that it is likely that the University owns the page, but "likely" is not our standard of proof.
Second, the assumption that employees working on a Web site are authorized to give away potentially valuable University property is not good. We have seen too many cases of unauthorized licensing -- we have one open now with more than 700 images and the organization demanding the take down of images that its people posted with CC-BY when only CC-BY-NC was authorized.
Third, even if the employees were authorized, I would be surprised if someone who understands Spanish copyright law has actually looked at each of the images on the site and made a determination. Perhaps the photographers of all the modern images were employees with work for hire agreements, but that gets to be harder to accept when the images are older.
So, I think we need a formal statement from someone senior enough in the University to take it seriously that is actually owns the copyright to these images or at least has written agreements giving it the right to freely license them. Not unreasonable, I think. And, by the way, some Flickrwashing cases directly involve our uploader, but most are the work of the Flickr account owner and our uploader is not involved in the washing, although in some cases might have used better judgement. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are right about seeing the bad side of Commons often than me. As the flickr account is involved, it's linked here (http://www.unav.edu/web/vida-universitaria/redes-sociales/) (their official page). "Síguenos" (follow us), including their twitter account (@unav), facebook page (unav), linkedin (universidad-de-navarra), youtube (universidaddenavarra) and finally flickr account (unav). So, "license laundering university" or not, the "officiality" of that Flickr account is IMHO out of question. And about that last one I just did wanna support User:Hard's reputation, after many of his uploads been deleted and he acknowledging what he had done wrong, he did his best (I really admire his patience) and I fully believe in his words. And I consider that important since he claimed four or five deleted pics were actually his, despite EXIF information. If you meant the license launderer was the Institution, ok. It could actually be that way. If you meant to be ambiguous, then I'm not ok. Not big deal though. With the OTRS, yeah, it would be cool, for sure, the University stating they very own these pics' copyright by legal contract in an email rather than uploading them to their official flickr account, but I see always OTRS as a last resort, as it's pretty overbooked and resource-consuming, I've been said. Strakhov (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your continuing efforts in following up on this problem. I looked only at the University's main page, so did not see the Flickr link. I withdraw the accusation of License Laundering, which certainly implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't at all think Hard is the bad guy here and while I do think the University is wrong, I don't think it was deliberate.
I still think we need confirmation from someone at the University who understands copyright and i prepared to say that these are OK and why -- as I said above, large institutions frequently make the mistake of thinking that owning a photo gives them the right to license it.
I see your point, Jim, but if we follow your approach, we should delete any flickr stream pictures with no additional OTRS authorization. I do see the mistakes made by Hard but they were made in good faith and can't see how they apply to this case. Looking it from the other way around: if Hard hadn't made several mistakes would you have decided to delete the files coming from a legitimate (see Strakhov's argumentation above) flickr stream? I don't think so. Therefore, I can't understand why we are using argumentation that could be applied to almost any flickr stream only to this case.
And, if we go back to your argument, yes, the usual contractual way of working in Spain is to establish that all the results of your work belongs to your employee and therefore we can assume that pictures are OK for sure. Again, if Commons policy is distrusting any institutional flickr account provided that no aside OTRS has been submitted, we should apply such a new policy to all the cases (and possibly discussing it in a wider board). Until such a policy is established, I can't see any valid reason to delete this files (that is, not to restore them). Best regards --Discastotalk18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"if we follow your approach, we should delete any flickr stream pictures with no additional OTRS authorization" -- No. We Assume Good Faith when a Commons editor with a clean record uploads images that look like they could, in fact, be his or her own work. We draw the line (as I did below) if the uploader claims "own work" on an image from 1920, and look a little harder if the image has no EXIF or is small, or both. When we look at Flickr images, we are one step removed -- except for known bad actors, the Flickr user has no record here, so we are a little more careful, but, fundamentally we AGF there as well. However, these are all images that we would question even if the University brought them directly to Commons itself. They are spread over time, have a lot of different people in them and are all still under copyright. Since we have had poor experience with blanket claims from institutions that should know better, it is only prudent to require OTRS confirmation from the University. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
File:Petros George 4Wiki01.JPG was deleted for lack of permission. On October 19, 2016 I submitted by email a request for undeletion along with a template-based declaration of my rights to the file. Please undelete the file and restore it to its place in the article "George Petros," or please inform me of any further problems. Thank you.
Not done: If you've sent permission to OTRS, all you can do now is wait for them to process and confirm the permission. If everything checks out, the image will automatically be restored. You can check progress by posting at COM:OTRS/N. OTRS is very busy and has a large backlog of emails, so restorations can often take a month or more. --lNeverCry01:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't see why this image was deleted. It was freely licensed and contained unique information which was more up to date than the other two images which were listed as justification for its removal. It was also deleted without any discussion before I had a chance to contest its deletion. --Ljgua124 (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Legality of cannabis by country.PNG seems to have been decided on scope grounds -- we had two additional files which were essentially duplicates but "better". I can't see this file, but if it's different, I would tend to keep -- "better" is a subjective judgement and may depend on context of where it is used. Even if most editors feel the others are usually better, it is still presumably useful in an educational context, and I would keep to give other editors the choice. I would err on the side of keeping people's contributions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: My deletion was based on Beland's statment that better alternatives were available, and because the DR was uncontested. Seeing, however that there is contestation and no copyright issues, I have no problem restoring this. I would note, though, Ljgua124, that you were informed about this deletion request 1 week ago on your user talk page, and failed to comment at the request and contest it, so your comment about not having a chance to contest it just isn't true. --lNeverCry03:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi,
The file was removed because it was missing information about where it comes from or who created it but I can verify that I created the content myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyt91 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Permission for use on Wikimedia is not sufficient -- we require a free license to use the image anywhere by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Also, since we have no way of knowing who you actually are, in order to restore the file, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done: per Jim, once a valid license is processed by COM:OTRS, an OTRS agent will request its undeletion. --Storkk (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Support I can confirm that there is nothing original in there. These are excerpts from a list of handwritten names in a registry with later annotations where these entries come from. {{PD-text}}. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Done: per De728631 and Jim. --Storkk (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment You have not named a file that you want restored. You yourself have not uploaded any files that have been deleted. Therefore there is nothing we can do here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose Category:Screenshots of Notepad++ on Windows 10, specifically File:Notepad++ v6.9.2 on Windows 10, with MediaWiki 1.27.1 source code, with split window view.png is meant to replace this file and supersedes the cropped file too. 80.221.159.67 02:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Info And again superseded by File:Notepad++ v7 on Windows 10, with MediaWiki 1.27.1 source code, with split window view and autocompletion.png over disagreements about the previous superseding screenshot. 80.221.159.67 18:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Neutral on File:Aldi empty leer.jpg. The Aldi and Zip images were added to fa.wiki articles by the uploader ([11] [12]), so their use ceteris paribus is not supportive of scope. The Zip image is terrible quality, including with poorly censored number plates, and is from a vantage that doesn't really illustrate the zipper merge; thus I don't think it's in Scope. For the other "self" image, if we need a image of Aldi shelves that need restocking, so be it. As for File:Zip trafic 1.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg, we require a source. "He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends" (emphasis mine - !!!) is not acceptable. COM:L requires source "information sufficient for others to verify the license status"; we cannot say to re-users of our content "you will need to find a friend of a friend of Xerxessenior to verify the PD claim." The images are not of the full publication, so there is no way to verify date or jurisdiction (for example, Persian is also spoken in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere.) Certainly the aforementioned claim is believed and not meant to deceive, but people can misremember and make honest mistakes which is precisely why COM:L and COM:EVID require verifiable sourcing. Эlcobbola talk 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
![2 File:Kristine Sandøy "Balanseklang".JPG](#File:Kristine_Sandøy_"Balanseklang".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
:_File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg;_File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg;_File:Amdinov_family2.jpg;_File:High_School_was_established_in_1936.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![13:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-10#c-89.10.152.183-2016-09-30T13:31:00.000Z-File:Kristine_Sandøy_"Balanseklang".JPG){kind=link}
![17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-10#c-Storkk-2016-09-30T17:02:00.000Z-File:Kristine_Sandøy_"Balanseklang".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
:_File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg;_File:Khu){kind=link}
_Khudoer_Yusufbekov_his_sons_Khurshed_%26_Isfandiyor_(left_side)_Khorog1974_%D0%9E%D0%BA%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%86(%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0)_%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%80-%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8F_%D0%98%D1%81%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%91%D1%80,%D0%A5%D1%83%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B4_%D0%AE%D1%81%D1%83%D1%84%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B(%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
_his_son_Khurshed,_Okmir_Agakhanyanc_%26_Isfandiyor_(left_side)Khorog1974_%D0%A5.%D0%AE._%D0%AE%D1%81%D1%83%D1%84%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_(%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0)_%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%BD_%D0%A5%D1%83%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B4,_%D0%9E.%D0%95.%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%86_%D0%B8_%D0%98._%D0%AE%D1%81%D1%83%D1%84%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2(%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0)_%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE.jpg){kind=link}
:_File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg;_File:Khu){kind=link}
:_File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg;_File:Khu){kind=link}
:_File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg;_File:Khu){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb&oldid=208003226#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:DEU_Rothenstadt_COA.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_c4b6w9uR6E/maxresdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=knAvFVInO1Y&list=PLhw524K81WJeLbzzNYjElII7Q2T2R1joA&mweb=1&h=720&w=1280&tbnid=0tOp14mLjAF_jM&tbnh=168&tbnw=300&usg=__DKwQ_vpedl5UCvXidlkafFetiH0=&docid=vG1CNuvl7KT4GM){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASaint-Cyprien-sur-Dourdou%2C_monuments_aux_morts.jpg&type=revision&diff=210067991&oldid=209922872){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
_i_Oratorium_Kosmiczne_(1975_r.).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&oldid=210203837#File:Khong_Mon.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
talk 00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
talk 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Question I do not understand the original deletion request. Where does it say "Bilder sind nicht freigegeben"? --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
lNeverCry 02:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose as the nominator of this file (for deletion). I nominated this file for deletion because there's no EXIF data in the file, and the resolutions are small. The Flickr user there is also not trusted, and I doubt that they took this image (but I believe that they took this image, from the web). Also, the uploader here is known to upload copyright violations, and has been blocked before for 1 week because of that. I now reported them to COM:AN/U because of their suspicious actions (Flickrwashing, back here from 1 week block to upload copyright violations again). Thanks, --★ Poké95 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
_in_Erbil,_Kurdistan,_Iraq.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit){kind=link}
.png&diff=0){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png&action=watch){kind=link}
.png&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=purge){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
.svg&diff=0){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg&action=watch){kind=link}
.svg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=purge){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
