Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-01

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

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

File:Momia roja chinchorro.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm sorry, i didn't know how to upload images in Wikipedia and I forgot some parts to publish it (with Copyright). I just want to improve a page that I'm currently edditing. Shrykos (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons before attempting to make further "improvements" in the form of non-free content uploads to our free content project. Thank you, —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per LX. Account blocked because he/she reuploaded a quite similar image from the obvious Flickr wash account 146245174@N07. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Atayero.jpg

the image Atayero.jpg is the official photograph of the vice chancellor covenant university Professor AAA. Atayero. I am the webmaster of the covenant university and I have been dully authorized to used the image. It is on this grounds that I request the undeletion of the file File:Atayero.jpg Wale0331 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, the copyright to the image and the right to freely license it belongs to the photographer, not the subject or the subject's employer. Second, we do not know who you are. We often get false claims from vandals or others in order to attempt to have images kept on Commons. Therefore, in order to restore this image either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS, or (b) the university or the subject must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer that allows the sender to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

 Not done: the copyright holder of the photo must send a permission. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Everton 1952.jpg

Deleted as part of a mass nomination, but this picture is in the PD in Chile as published in a chilean newspaper (pseudonym work) before September 16, 1962. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would this picture be pseudonomous work, just because it was published in a newspaper? Newspapers I know credit photographers. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Not in Chile. Usually, the photos published in newspapers in Chile are not credited to individuals (if the photographer taken the photo for the newspaper as a work for hire, unless explicit credit to a specific photographer or third party source), therefore, the copyright holder is the newspaper, therefore, it is considered as a pseudonymous work. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
How come that a photo of the English footboll club Everton FC was first published in a Chilean newspaper? Thuresson (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
These photos belong to the Everton de Viña del Mar, not the Everton F.C. from Liverpool. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
--Amitie 10g (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - no indication at all that this would be a pseudonymous work, not even that the author would be a newspaper employee. Such a picture could e.g. have been taken by a volunteer from the club and later sent to the newspaper. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Could an uninvoilved admin temporary restore the file for further research. And yes, PD-Chile requires the date of publication and where, in the cases of pseudonymous works published before September 16, 1962 (photos published in newspapers without explicit credit to someone alse, are considered as copyrighted by the Newspaper, therefore, a pseudonymous work). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Uploader wrote that this is a photo of Everton in 1952. The photo is available here. The photo can problably be found in one of the issues of Estadio 1941-1975 available here. I've looked through the first 5-6 issues from 1952 without luck. At this time only the magazine cover was in colour so it shouldn't be impossible to find it. Thuresson (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me do the research and I'll tell you if I found it (Estadio is not a newspaper but a magazine, but the rule of publication before September 16, 1962 still apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Amitie 10g: Please add source information to the image description page. Thuresson (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chantier Tour Granite mars 2006.JPG

Deleted out of process by Fastily, and it was kept in a previous DR. No architectural detail is visible here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not deleted out of process. DR was here. I have no clue how to judge construction sites concerning FOP, but would lean towards restoring it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support Compared to the finished building (see w:fr:Tour Granite) it seems that there's no original character shown. A utilitarian column doesn't seem to be protected. See (#13) @ archive copy at the Wayback Machine. I tend towards undelete as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per my colleague, just an utilitarian column of the building. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:World kickboxing network logo.png

The file is allowed by its copyright owner to be used in Wikidata regarding its free content policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parviziskender (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't: "You may not use, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, distribute, or modify the WKN trademarks in any way, including in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of materials on the websites, without the authorization given to you in advance by the WKN in writing.". Thuresson (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although one notes the above quote technically relates to trademarks, the language suggests they intended to include copyrights/all intellectual properties, and indeed the source website says "© 1994-2016 WORLD KICKBOXING NETWORK LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." Non-trival logo requiring COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted logo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2014 Greta Logo.jpg

Alvarado Street Bakery is a co-op, and I am one f the owners. I would request that the logo be replaced on the Alvarado Street Bakery page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greta-the-Cat (talk • contribs) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Greta-the-Cat: Please have a look at COM:OTRS for our process to assert copyright. The logo can be restored through that process. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires free license from authorized official of the organization via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jonathan Cohler.jpg I own the copyright on the image

I am the copyright owner of this image.

It has never been published anywhere else in this form. Another version of this photo BUT NOT THE SAME FILE, is on my personal website http://jonathancohler.com, that I created, and I own. As the metadata shows for all images on my website and in this file, I AM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, period, end of story. It is my picture, a picture of me, I own it 100%, it is published on my website, owned by me 100%! Why are you people always harassing those of us that are trying to make a contribution to society??!! --Cohler (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Information regarding OTRS has already been given at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JC 7.5x10 lighter.jpg and at your talk page. Please note that this account is indefinitely blocked at English Wikipedia. Thuresson (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The rationale and process was explained to you here. Even if the image had not been previously published, as you erroneously purport, the considerations remain the same. The author, not the subject, holds the copyright absent a formal written conveyance. As the subject, you would need to provide a copy of this conveyance. As something of an aside, if you, Cohler, continue to fail to assume good faith "Why are you people always harassing those of us that are trying to make a contribution to society" [1] and to reupload deleted content (File:Jonathan Cohler.jpg), you will be blocked from editing. Эlcobbola talk 19:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Per discussion .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:LOGO ASPTT VOLLEY Ancien.png and File:LOGO ASPTT VOLLEY Nouveau.png

I'm officially in charge of the wikipedia Page of the ASPTT LAVAL VOLLEY-BALL.

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASPTT LAVAL VOLLEY (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no you're not. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and doesn't have people "officially in charge" of pages. You may wish to read fr:Wikipédia:Appropriation d'un article. Unresolved copyright issues aside, given that fr:ASPTT LAVAL VOLLEY-BALL has been repeatedly deleted for being outside of the French Wikipedia's project scope, it's hard to see how this content would be educationally useful, so it's likely outside of our project scope as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose @ASPTT LAVAL VOLLEY: In reply to your mail, the logos exceeding the threshold of originality are artworks and are subject to copyright. Therefore such logos can be freely licensed only by their copyright holders who must send explicit permissions to OTRS where you can read how to do so. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pilvax.jpg

Please undelete, author (Gyula Háry) died in 1946, from 1-1-2017 under PD-licenc. --Pallerti (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please undelete, author (Gyula Háry) died in 1946, from 1-1-2017 under PD-licenc. --Pallerti (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please undelete, author (Gyula Háry) died in 1946, from 1-1-2017 under PD-licenc. --Pallerti (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please undelete, author (Edvi Illés Ödön) died in 1946, from 1-1-2017 under PD-licenc. --Pallerti (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:EKM55624 FK00914 Valdur Ohakas.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image file is from Estonian Museums Public Portal and it was re-used in accordance with their guidelines. Thus, there is no copyright violation associated with this file. On the source page (http://muis.ee/en_GB/museaalview/2887396) it is clearly stated: "When using a digital image of the museum object, please refer to the museum’s collection: Valdur Ohakas, EKM j 55624 FK 914, Eesti Kunstimuuseum SA, http://muis.ee/en_GB/museaalview/2887396", which I did. A more detailed page on licensing (unfortunately only in Estonian: http://muis.ee/et/help/Autorioigused) has some conflicting statements as they wish to contribute everything to public domain while restricting commercial use (sic!). Therefore I chose not to claim this image as part of the public domain. All in all, based on the instructions provided on the source page, it is allowed to re-use this digital image when reference to museum's collection is provided. WikedQ (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose You did not upload this image with a license; indeed, the museum does not offer one. The comments above suggest that a statement about how to attribute is being conflated to mean attribution is the only restriction. This is a nonsensical interpretation. The museum's copyright page clearly says "Digital images of museum objects cannot be used for commercial purposes or for the production of souvenirs souvenirs, etc." ("Museaalide digitaalseid kujutisi ei või kasutada ärilistel eesmärkidel suveniiride jms meenete tootmiseks"). As the museum allows images for personal use, teaching and research ("Museaalide digitaalseid kujutisi võib tasuta kasutada isiklikuks otstarbeks, õppe- ja teadustöös"), the attribution requirement is perfectly congruent with that case and thus does not contradict the copyright page (i.e. the "(sic!)" above is likewise nonsensical.) Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: The very page you are quoting also reads "Digital images of museum objects and meta data can be used under the principles of OpenData (www.opendata.ee). The data are released to the public under the following license: The Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0)" ("Museaalide digitaalseid kujutisi ja metaandmeid võib kasutada avaandmete (www.opendata.ee) põhimõtetel. Andmed tehakse üldsusele kättesaadavaks järgneva litsentsi alusel: The Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0)"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikedQ (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Data ≠ images. Only the metadata are being granted a CC0 license ("The data will be made available to the public under the following license: The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication Universal (CC0 1.0)" “Andmed tehakse üldsusele kättesaadavaks järgneva litsentsi alusel: The Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0)") Even if we were to adopt your premise that it applies to images as well, you have not addressed the non-commercial restriction I quoted. In the case of a contradiction (although there is none), we need to assume the more restrictive condition per COM:PRP. Эlcobbola talk 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree completely with elcobbola. However, there is an additional issue -- as a general rule, a museum does not have the right to freely license the works that it owns. That right remains with the creator (in this case, the photographer) of his heirs. In cases like this, in order for the work to remain on Commons, the museum must describe how the it acquired the right to license the work -- either on the source page or via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The museum doesn't autorise commercial use of its images. Ruthven (msg) 22:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nordmarkplakat.jpg File:Aschermittwoch.jpg

I am Dr. Julia Marxen and the daughter of Herbert Marxen and therefore, under German Law, the heir to his copyright. Please reverse the deletion of the two files. Julia Marxen (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Julia Marxen: Please have a look at COM:OTRS, which outlines a process to assert copyrights. The images can be restored through the process outlined there. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Julia Marxen, that is correct for the first image. However, the second image is a scan from Jugend. In order for Jugend to use the image, Herbert Marxen had to give them a license. If, as is often the case, the license was exclusive, then only the journal could license the free use of the image. Since Jugend closed in 1940, the work is an Orphan work unless you can provide a copy of his license agreement with Jugend to show that the license was non-exclusive. Unfortunately, we cannot keep orphan works on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:New-ang-wiki-logo.png

Contrary to claim "Dupe of Image:Wikipedia-logo-ang.png" it is not the same as file:Wikipedia-logo-ang.png. After restoring, the local version in angwiki (https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymele:New-ang-wiki-logo.png) can be deleted. FixFixer (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per User:FixFixer. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Simon Ifediora Nwakacha.pdf

Please remove the request to delete Simon ifediora Nwakacha.pdf. I don't understand why it is requested for deletion so I can correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallydate (talk • contribs)

The file has not been deleted yet, so there is nothing to undelete. The correct place to comment is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simon Ifediora Nwakacha.pdf. As instructed there, please read Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats, as it will hopefully help you understand. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Procedural closure. The deletion discussion is still ongoing so there is nothing to undelete. Any objections to a possible deletion should be raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simon Ifediora Nwakacha.pdf. --De728631 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BiopolarCoverNIHcrop.jpg

Asking for review of this deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:BiopolarCoverNIHcrop.jpg). Nomination was an invented "concern" (there is no evidence that this work was "licensed to US government agencies such as stock art.") and deletion is just "per nom" - there was only the nomination and my reply. We worked for a long time to find this image to use in a WP article; it was published by the NIH here with zero - no -- notice that there were third party rights involved and we have no reason not to trust the NIH to manage copyright appropriately when it publishes documents. So, poorly reasoned nomination and unjustified deletion. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. Obviously from the same series of stock images as https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-235077271/stock-photo-human-emotion-and-mood-disorder-as-a-tree-shaped-as-two-human-faces-with-one-half-empty-branches-and-the-opposite-side-full-of-leaves-as-a-medical-metaphor-for-psychological-contrast-in-fe.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. While I don't see an identical image, I see several that are so close as to make it extremely hard to believe that the subject image does not come from Lightspring and is, therefore, covered by very restrictive licensing terms.
Also, Jytdog should refrain from the sort of invective used both above and at the DR. It is perfectly possible that the NIH licensed the image from Lightspring on a basis that did not require attribution of any sort. It is also entirely possible that they simply ignored copyright issues in using the image. Experienced users here have seen far too many examples of government and private organizations mishandling copyright to make any assumption that the NIH or anyone else has dealt correctly with copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
True, found a good example earlier today. But as far as I can see, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/ makes no claim that all its content is the work of its own employees or that it should be in the public domain for any other reason. It should be obvious from just watching the slideshow at the home page that they make heavy use of third-party stock imagery without attribution (which may or may not be in accordance with the license they secured for their own use). Indeed, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/site-info/policies.shtml#Copyright-Policy states that "Some images on the NIMH site may be restricted and protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws and may not be copied or used for other purposes. Please contact NIMH for information and to request permission to use an image." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LX (talk • contribs)
withdrawn in light of comment above Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn by requester .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:JaymeRibeiro.jpg

There is an ongoing Deletion request, but some of these files has been speedied. This specific photo belongs to Jayme Ribeiro da Luz, who governed between 1932 and 1935, and is very likely to be first published in Brazil in these dates. Therefore, this file should be restored to follow the procedure of the DR and allow further research.

The deleted photos of recent mayors may also be temporary restored for further research, but them seems very likely to be copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support restoring for now and letting the DR sort it out. @Ronhjones: . Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
While the one linked here is indeed possibly PD due to age, the others deleted are far too recent. I've restored this one, so it can be considered at the DR, but I've left the ones from this century deleted - they are linked in the deletion log entries, though. - Reventtalk 00:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CW3 canon ending.png

I have no idea what the protocol for an undeletion is so please excuse any unprofessionalism. I am requesting an undeletion because people in the Creeper World 3 forums are asking to see it. All i want to do is save the image or whatever it is onto my computer and then paste onto the Creeper World 3 forum so that We can all view it. Seeing this chart would allow us to finally know the real canon ending, as there is a sequel to the game that might be set in an alternate reality. If you decide to undelete it, I will copy the flow chart(supposedly that is what the image is) and put it onto the forums, after which you can immediately delete it once again. The only problem is that I don't know how to contact you saying that I have copied the image if you decide to undelete it. This concludes my undeletion request. --2604:2000:51CC:8300:DC9A:951E:ACD1:E134 02:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have temporarily restored the file out of courtesy and will re-delete it in a few hours. Please let me know here when you have copied it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Srittau: {{temporarily undeleted |transfer=yes}} will re-speedy it after two days, FYI. - Reventtalk 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: deleted again. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:RTRKS Edit.jpg

ticket:2016110610000125 appears to contain valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion so I can clean up the description page and check for fringe concerns (FOP, etc.), as I haven't seen the image itself yet. ~ Rob13Talk 23:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: ✓ Done and tagged with the ticket, which looks good to me. - Reventtalk 00:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per OTRS. - Reventtalk 00:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bun-ei-za, Kusatsu, Shiga 1954.jpg

Requesting undeletion per Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ja. English text Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/en is out of sync with the Japanese text of the template, and fails to mention 1899 Japanese Copyright Law Article 23 paragraph 2, which states that photographs retain their copyright for ten years from publication, or if not published within ten years, ten years after creation (emphasis added). According to the source page, publication of this photograph was in "草津市史資料集5　ずっとKUSATSU" published by the City of Kusatsu in 1996-03. After my first comment, which I took back, we came to the conclusion that, in a nutshell, the photo is in public domain because it was not published within that timeframe. I could translate all of our discussion at the DR but that is going to take a while. Should I do that? Nevertheless, I believe Darklanlan and myself have reached consensus regarding this matter at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bun-ei-za, Kusatsu, Shiga 1954.jpg. (We were just talking about the need to revise Commons:Copyright rules by territory to take this into account. We probably should try harder to fix the discrepancy in the template text as well.) 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support I requested this file for deletion, but we could prove that it was clearly in the public domain in Japan. Let me explain it.

According to the source, it is clear that the photograph was taken in 1954 and owned by Kusatsu City government. The work is a pseudonymous (cooperative) photograph, so it was first affected by the older Japan Copyright law (1899 law) and later affected by the current Japan Copyright law (1970 law). By the 1899 law, photographs had been protected for 10 years since its publication date. In addition, there were twice provisional measures to extend the copyright term in 1967 and 1969. Therefore, it can apply one of following cases.

  • If the work was published by 1956, the copyright would be expired by 1966 in Japan.
  • If the work was published in 1957, it would have been protected until 1970 in Japan, but not affected by the 1970 law　(effected since Jan.1 1971).
  • If the work was published within 1958-1964, the term of copyright was extended to 50 years by the 1970 law and it would have been protected until 2014 in Japan. Now, it is in the public domain in Japan, but NOT in the United States because of the URAA restoration.
  • If the work was published in 1965 or later, the copyright had been already expired until 1964 in Japan.

As suggested above, the work should be in the public domain in Japan (source country). By the discussion in URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion, this file should be restored even if it was affected by the URAA. Darklanlan (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC) correct Darklanlan (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It would really help if the English translation of the template could be brought in line with the Japanese version so non-Japanese-speaking admins can evaluate this request better and keep the file from being deleted in the future. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've already submitted a request modifications on the template at Template talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto, but it's not practical to cover all cases. I wrote a chart on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan. It's a bit complex, but better than nothing. Darklanlan (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Files of Adam-Yourist

We have received OTRS permission for the following files uploaded by Adam-Yourist:

See Ticket:2017010310003092 and w:ru:Википедия:Запросы, связанные с OTRS#Письмо о разрешении.

Please restore these (and ping me for processing). --sasha (krassotkin) 06:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. @Krassotkin: --Yann (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Victor Ion Popa - Autoportret.png

Popa has died in 1946, and this file was uploaded under the assumption that PD70 applies from 2016, not from the consecutive year (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victor Ion Popa). It is now 2017. Please consider the same rationale for: File:Victor Ion Popa - Copertă Gândirea, 1 oct 1921.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Cronica dramatică, Sburătorul, 31 dec 1921.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Desen Gândirea, 1 oct 1921.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Desen Gândirea, 15 oct 1921.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Dimineața Copiilor, 30, 1924.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Fedor Mihailovici Dostoiewski, Gândirea, 15 oct 1921.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Purtase cofa grea cu râvna de om mare (A fost odată un război, 1936).png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Păpușa cu piciorul rupt, 1926.png, File:Victor Ion Popa - Însemnări literare, Sburătorul, 31 dec 1921.png. Thanks. Dahn (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Morten Kirkskov.jpg

The photographer has sent the permission email to the OTRS as requested - will the file be recovered automatically once processed/approved?--Stev11 (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2017 (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) 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jameslwoodward - is there any way to make the process faster? Would it be easier for the photographer to upload an entirely new image (or even the same image) instead - or would that be flagged too as it links to the same wiki page?--Stev11 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Since a user here can pick essentially any name he wants, the only way we have to verify a person's identity is through OTRS. The only way to speed OTRS is to recruit many more volunteers or to find a volunteer to jump the queue for you, which is unfair to all the others who are waiting. Uploading another copy of the same image is forbidden and, as you say, a new image would be deleted for the same reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait until the OTRS email has been processed. The file will be restored if the permission was found to be valid. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Windows Neptune login screen.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my own work and includes free components from Commons. I has been created to produce a free version of this file. Rezonansowy (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The icons used (alien, nautilus) don't appear to be free. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 Comment @Hedwig in Washington: Please read the file's description as these are derivatives of free files from Commons. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I restored File:Alien.png, because it originally was sourced properly, but that sourcing got lost during many edits. I also restored the subject file and added proper attribution where it was missing, since the DW issues seem solved now. (The tennis ball icon is the same as the one references, only the colors were tweaked slightly.). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Mp-shot.png File:MPmania-Logo.png

File:Mp-shot.png is a screenshot of the site mpmania.com

File:MPmania-Logo.png is the official logo and i designed the logo personally, i can send you the photoshop document, i stated my name when uploading, Akonedo Jeffrey Osayame..

Please if there is anything i should do, i need to know

--Jefak007 (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jefak007: File:Mp-shot.png is problematic, since it is a derivative work of several other images (the cover images, but also the advertisements). For the logo, you can assert your copyright through the process outlined at COM:OTRS. But please note that we will delete the logo if it turns out not be in scope here on Commons. And that is probably dependent on whether the page over at Wikipedia will stay around. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Please, what will happen to the screenshot, should i take it off? cos 3 of those images were designed by me and for the site.. Mixtape: Dj Kush – MPmania Trap Mix (vol. 1) |[@mp_maniac] Mixtape: Dj Baddo – MPmania Mix One |[@mp_maniac @djbaddo] Download: Dj Instinct – MPmania Reggae Mixtape | @mp_maniac @djinstinct

--Jefak007 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Jefak007: You can remove the other images not designed by you and - for example - replace them by your own artwork. But we would still need permission through COM:OTRS. But before you go through that hassle for both you and the notoriously overworked OTRS team, please wait and see whether your article on Wikipedia is kept, otherwise your images will be deleted here anyway. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

 Oppose File:Mp-shot.png clearly is a) derivative work and out of scope. The logo probably doesn't qualify for being in scope either. Music blog advertising IMHO. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


i edited the logo from scratch, and all images in the screenshot are free images, i designed 3 of the 4 there, i designed them personally and have data to show for them

--Jefak007 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


i have uploaded File:Mp-screenshot.png which has all images on it designed by myself, and they are all free images, kindly readd File:MPmania-Logo.png please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefak007 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 02 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jefak007: As said before, please have a look at COM:OTRS for a way to assert your copyrights. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Kendra Timmins Actress.jpg

Please undelete the photo. The permission was accepted by the author in her signature, as we sent in the email. --Mitosofire (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Brittany MacLeod

@Mitosofire: All such correspondence must go through our OTRS process. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2017 (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) 15:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Manuel Perez Garcia.jpg

Why did you delete the photo without any reason? I am owner of the photo and I took the photo. Please undelete the photo that I uploaded I hope to hear from you asap. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHN (talk • contribs) 04:17, 02 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the copyright of that image is assigned to "© Marisol VB Photography". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Also, the image is too small to be useful. The fact that it is so small casts doubt on your claim that you are the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Uploads by Carlos Diaz Sanchez

I am Carlos Díaz Sánchez. LinkedIn : https://nl.linkedin.com/in/carlos-diaz-sanchez-165292134 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009157779394&ref=ts&fref=ts

My artistic name is "Vérval" and I am the creator and owner (with Iria -Flavia- Rodríguez)of Xera project. For a mistake, I was not the creator of the official article of Xera in wikipedia. For this reason, I found a lot of problems along last years to edit it.

"Xera - Vérval Bouzouki 1.jpg" is an official photo that I capture from the video that we (Flavia and me) edited from "Arbore" show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XqSA7GCsXI The photos were uploaded to my own web page: http://xera.eu/images/gal/ before we uploaded the youtube complete video. The we

and I downloaded the photos again from the website to keep the website registry. It is not an illegal copy. It's a copy with the main source in his metadata. I don't know how I can get the permissions to work with my own material in my own history... I understand your care, but there must be an easy way to associate me to my own web (with my own material).

I copy this explanation to each photo.

Thanks

--Carlos Diaz Sanchez (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Carlos Diaz Sanchez: If you are indeed the copyright owner of the image in question, please have a look at COM:OTRS for a process to restore this image. But if you say that this is your band, I assume that you are depicted on that image and did not take the photo yourself. In that case at least the author attribution ("own work") is wrong. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please note that we need evidence of permission for previously published works. The usual procedure is to send an email as explained in COM:OTRS. You may send a collective permission explaining that you would like to release all of these files under a free licence. Another way would be to change the licence of your YouTube videos to Creative Commons. These steps are required because we cannot verify your identity just from your Commons account. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Note also that, if I understand correctly, you yourself appear in several of the images. For any images for which you were not the photographer, we will need either (a) a free license from the actual photographer or (b) a free license from you together with a copy of your written agreement with the actual photographer that gives you the right to freely license them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Zeno Alto

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Double authorization from the right owner and the photographs in OTRS ticket:2016122610006171.

Thank you ! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2 Deutsche Mark (West Germany).jpg

West Germany is NOT listed in Commons:Currency. In am not sure on what basis was this file deleted? Can you please undelete the file? Thanks,AKS.9955 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons:Currency#Germany is what you are looking for. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Deutsche Mark from West Germany is not even listed in Commons:Currency and nowhere does it say that this currency has a copyright problem. I am not sure on what basis was this file deleted? Please undelete this file. Thanks, AKS.9955 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There is not now and never was a country called "West Germany". The Federal Republic of Germany (short Germany) is still alive and kicking. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
You should really read the article you linked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)::::Taking another shot at it: "West Germany" is an informal English language name used for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) before reunification in 1990. Reunification was accomplished by adding the five states of the former East Germany to the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, so the country that was called "West Germany" is the same country as the current "Germany". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done First of all, "West Germany" was a colloquial name for the Federal Republic of Germany but it was never an official designation and its legal framework never ceased to exist either. When the separation into "West Germany" and "East Germany" was abolished in 1990, the Federal Republic simply absorbed East Germany (aka the German Democratic Republic). Copyright in this country lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. As can be seen at the Federal Bank of Germany's website, this 5th series coin was designed around 1979 by Hans-Joachim Dobler and Reinhard Heinsdorff. Therefore both sides of the coin are still copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Currencies not listed at COM:Currency

West African CFA Franc is not even listed in Commons:Currency and nowhere does it say that this currency has a copyright problem. I am not sure why was this file deleted. Please undelete this file. Thanks, AKS.9955 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The identical undeletion rationale was copy/pasted for all of the above, and a slightly different one for the following. I am combining into one request as the issues are similar enough to treat them as one. Storkk (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No policy states that picture of a Chinese coin cannot be uploaded. In Commons:Currency#China, nothing about a coin is mentioned. I am not sure on what basis was this file deleted? Please undelete this file. Thanks, AKS.9955 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose all. As a first approximation, you should presume everything is copyrighted unless there is specific reason to believe it is not. Specifically in these cases, since we have no information that the respective governments consider their currencies to be free from copyright restrictions, and since there is no claim that the designs are old enough to have fallen into the public domain, these should stay deleted. Storkk (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Per COM:PRP it is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image (and, in this case, the coin pictured) is free of copyright. When in doubt, deletion is required. No such proof has been provided. Coins have a copyright in most countries (52 of 84 listed at COM:Currency).
In particular, I looked at Kenyan law which, at section 25, calls out a copyright in government literary, musical and artistic works lasting for fifty years from first publication.
Sri Lanka has an exception for government works which is limited to "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof." Coins are therefore copyrighted as artistic works.
AKS.9955 is certainly welcome to do similar research and request undeletion of any of the above that come from countries where it can be shown that coins are not copyrighted, but without that we cannot restore these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Unless there is hard evidence that the design of a medal, coin or banknote is not copyrighted, we cannot host images of it without permission from the copyyright holder. So, as a rule of thumb, if any currency is not listed at COM:Currency we must assume it to be non-free. Pictures of such currency may not be uploaded to Commons unless there is proof that the design is really not copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:kennethseb.jpg

I had uploaded a photo of a celebrity, Kenny Sebastian, for non-commercial use. It's from India, so I have not committed any copyright vialations.--Kenny sebastian123 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Actual file name File:Kennyseb.jpg. The file in question had no license information. We do not allow files that restrict commercial use on Commons. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Sebari. Ruthven (msg) 20:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BiH_Olympic_Team_Barcelona_1992.jpeg

I would like to request for the following file to be undeleted/restored: BiH_Olympic_Team_Barcelona_1992.jpeg

I haven't been able to respond to message from "Smooth O" about action required from 22 Dec 2016 as I was abroad. Upon my return home I found that picture has been deleted.

Picture is not violating any copyright laws as it's self published work - was personally taken with my father's camera. I may not have had correctly tagged copyright info and will address this once the file has been restored. This image has never been published anywhere and it's from our personal family photo album.

--WalterBiH (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 Comment It was deleted because Smooth O found it at http://www.okbih.ba/new/lista.php?id=6. It does not appear there now, so I can't tell whether that was accurate or not. It is often the case that when team photos like this are taken that there are several people taking pictures, so it is entirely possible that your image is very similar to an official image taken at the same time. Perhaps Smooth O can help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure now without photos, but maybe i made a mistake, so please undelete this file. It happens. --Smooth O (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Could it have been this image? It is very similar and was taken at the same spot, but the angle is slightly different, and the guy in the yellow shirt on the left is sitting as opposed to the image at Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The other photograph does show up, click the yellow + next to [...]Spain. Both photographs are different enough to assume that the claim of self published work is valid. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Google product display in Best Buy.jpg

I am not aware why this photo would have been a copyright violation as I took the photo. The photo shows Google products at a Best Buy store in British Columbia, Canada.

Thanks! Daylen (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Daylen: Your photo is a derivative work of the large poster in the background, which is copyrighted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:RV the boy from Mathura.jpg

this file was uploded after taking permission from concerning person. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2405:205:2503:BF60:696D:7D01:2AD1:C568 (talk) 04:56, 03 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal photo, out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Daulatpur Muhsin High School.jpg

This is a picture of a School (Education Institution). I have uploaded & like to request you to allow the picture as I have well described about the picture. My point for the picture are:

  • This picture taken from the school web page and they have open the open the picture to introduce the institution.
  • This picture has no additional background or person or item which could against privacy.
  • Through the picture any reader could able to get perfect idea of the article (School).

So for the institutional purpose if you consider a bit & allow to keep the picture will be obliged, thanks in advance Mahfooz (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Abu Sayeem Mahfooz Khan: You can not use an image from the web without explicit permission. Commons only allows files under a free license, see COM:L and there is no indication that the copyright owner of that image has given such. Just posting an image online is not a license. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Manuchar Machaidze of Dinamo Tbilisi. 1979.jpg

this is my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaitz1974 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 03 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you also the photographer of the contemporary 1970s photo used in your file? You have uploaded several files before as your own work where you evidently used press photographs that were not originally created by you. De728631 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence that we have a free license or that it is in the public domain. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bletchlyfc.png (misplaced entry from the top of the page)

This is my file and my creation. This is also my own football club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crkian (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Apart from posting your entry at the top next to where it says "PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE" in big, friendly letters, you skipped a few other steps in the instructions above: using a descriptive heading and signing your entry. I'm guessing this is about File:Bletchlyfc.png, since that's the only file you've uploaded. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 OpposeIn order to restore File:Bletchlyfc.png, an authorized official of the club must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bridget-recording.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was uploaded at the request of the person the entry was about. The image is copyright free & is available for free download from her own website to be used for promotional & illustrative purposes. All author attributes & CC Licences were completed at time of uploading. In other words, this is not a copyvio, please re-instate the image. GiantBanana (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a direct permission coming from the photographer Mr Hutton. This has to be sent by email as explained in COM:OTRS. On another note, if you are acting on behalf of Bridget Christie, you have a conflict of interest (COI) and should not be editing her Wikipedia article at all. "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content." De728631 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. With limited exceptions which are not applicable here, all created works have a copyright, including this image. Although the intention of the site's Webmaster may have been to freely license the image by saying,
"Here are some hi-res photos of Bridget for print or web. Click an image to download it."
that is far from the irrevocable license to use the images for any purpose that Commons, WP, and most other users require. In addition the page has a clear copyright notice:
"Copyright © Bridget Christie 2017."
Therefore, De728631 is correct -- Colin Hutton must send a free license using OTRS or someone else must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with Colin Hutton allowing the sender to freely license the image.
Alternately, you could modify http://www.bridgetchristie.co.uk/hi-res-photos/ by changing the line I quoted above to read
"All images on this page are licensed CC-BY-4.0".
That would accomplish what is apparently intended on the page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Still no free license. --Yann (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Oliver Kloss.jpg

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

File from Archiv der Initiative Frieden und Menschenrechte Sachsen e.V. / IFM-Archiv https://archive.org/details/@ifm-archiv Photograph: Annett Hopfe This organization accept it, to use the picture in wikipedia without rights. You can see it here actually: https://de.scribd.com/doc/283164491/Oliver-Kloss-Arbeitsgruppe-Menschenrechte Please for undeletion! Sincerely Philokomos (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Neither the archive nor the Scribd article provide any evidence that the original photographer agreed to publish this under said licence. In fact this article claims your upload as a source for the image which is no proof at all: "Datei:Oliver_Kloss.jpg Quelle: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Oliver_Kloss.jpg" We need a direct permission from Annett Hopfe sent by email (see COM:OTRS). De728631 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Someone keeps posting an old photo of Adam Haslett, deleting the official author photo.

I see that it is tagged as "possible copyright infringement" but Adam owns the author photo. It is not infringement. The last one I uploaded "AdamHaslett.png" needs to be on the page ASAP.

Kindly, Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpassell (talk • contribs) 18:04, 03 January 2017 (UTC)

Presumably this is in reference to File:Haslett credit Beowulf Sheehan.jpg. Adam Haslett does not own the copyright in this image unless it was transferred to him by the photographer (in writing)... he probably merely owns a copy, with the right to 'use' it. That would not allow him to license it for use here. COM:OTRS verification of the permission is needed. - Reventtalk 18:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You have uploaded four images of Haslett:

The one which has not been deleted is in use at Adam Haslett. The image that is in use is considerably better than File:Adam Haslett.png and will almost certainly be the one that WP:EN editors choose to keep there. Note, by the way, that since you apparently have a relationship of some sort with Haslett, any editing you do there, including changing the image, is in violation of WP:EN's strict rules on conflict of interest.

With that in mind, what do you want done here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request undeletion of File:KCTI Logo.jpg

Hello,

This file should be undeleted--I work for Texas Public Radio, and are the operators of KCTI-AM. Hence, we would like our logo on the page associated with the radio station. The Creative Commons license options didn't work for us, though. I did not see an option that lists "Free To Share" but *not* "Free To Adapt." What should I do?

Thanks, Wiki folk for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathancone (talk • contribs) 05:03, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nathancone: Files that are not free to adapt are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. You may want to explore the options over at the English Wikipedia, though, since they have a Fair Use policy. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Athanase.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016123110007294. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Kvardek du: . --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Elizabeth Crowley Maspeth Shelter Meeting and Rally.jpg

As a member of the Council Member's team, I am authorized to upload this photo that we own — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queens11377 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a physical copy of a photo does usually not make you the copyright holder. Unless it was a work for hire created by one of your employees, the copyright is held by the original photographer. Please note also that the licence tag {{PD-USGov}} you used is only valid for works created by the Federal US Government. Works created by employees of the City of NYC, however, are not automatically in the public domain. What we require here is either a free licence sent by email from the original photographer, or a statement sent by email from an official NYC email account that confirms that this photograph was made as a work for hire and a free commercial licence (e.g. Creative Commons 4.0) is granted for this image. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify a licence by email. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

This is teams logo. Not to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newgenerator (talk • contribs) 07:14, 05 January 2017 (UTC)

@Newgenerator: Please clarify which file you are talking about. The following of your files have been deleted:

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose All logos are way, way above Com:TOO. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by AmiraNasr

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All these images are owned my Al-Bairaq project, Qatar University. http://www.qu.edu.qa/offices/research/CAM/albairaq/about_us/index.php

Whether the image has metadata or not, still it's owned by Al-Bairaq project. We didn't copy any image from Television as you guys claim You also claimed that 2 photos were culled from websites, actually these websites where the ones who culled these images from our project, we totally 100% own them and we let websites to take our photos as long us they put our name "Al-Bairaq" on them Please check behind each of the "culled from websites" images and you will see that they all are talking about Al-Bairaq

The purpose of uploading these photos is to add them to Al-Bairaq page on Wikipedia.

Your kind cooperation is highly appreciated If you need any supporting information, please contact me at [email]. AmiraNasr (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi AmiraNasr,
For all document previously published elsewhere, and where you are not the creator, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed, see COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hans Künzi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the owner of this image copyrights. Timroh (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Question It's an old photograph retaken with an Iphone. You need to explain why you own the copyright of the original. The best way is by using OTRS.--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Centro Campos.png

minha imagem foi removida sem qualquer violação dos direitos autorais — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joavictornogueirasilva (talk • contribs) 09:38, 05 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No free license at source: http://www.robertomoraes.com.br/2013/04/imagens-aereas-de-campos.htm --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Vehicles and others in Disneyland

Hi, The following files should not have been deleted (DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disneyland Paris) @Jameslwoodward: . Yann (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose very likely not a vehicule, but a kind of original sculpure of vehicule made in purpose to make the decor (therefore not an utilitarian object) Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose very likely not a vehicule, but a kind of original sculpure of vehicule made in purpose to make the decor (therefore not an utilitarian object) Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose very likely not a vehicule, but a kind of original sculpure of vehicule made in purpose to make the decor (therefore not an utilitarian object) and a sculpted rock (wich alone is not DeMinimis) Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose For this one, all the background, rocks included, is very likely a decor, and such a decor is likely under copyright protection in France and is not De Minimis. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The first four images are all of a fake pirate ship. It is certainly not a vehicle in any sense, since it cannot possibly be an actual ship for several reasons:

First, ships are built in shipyards and cannot be transported over land. Building this creation as an actual ship in place would be very difficult because the park does not have the massive equipment necessary to actually build it as a ship.
Second, construction as an actual ship would be very much more expensive than constructing this as a pseudo-ship -- a large sculpture sitting on the land, with water around it.
Third, actual ships, even those permanently tied to land, are subject to regulation as ships. While I don't know the French rules in detail, in the USA this would require removing the ship from the water every five years for hull inspection, prominent safety signs, life rafts and life boats, life preservers, and other equipment entirely out of character for the pirate ship, strict limits on the number of people aboard at any one time, and so forth.
Fourth, they also must be under the supervision of a licensed Master (I happen to have a Master's license and therefore am very familiar with the rules).

It's impossible to believe that Disney would spend all the extra money required to have an actual ship there when it is completely unnecessary to its role in the park. Therefore the ship is a sculpture with a full copyright.

The remaining four are not so obvious.

The first has a castle square in the center, but a DM argument would not be silly.
The second shows two sculptures -- creations out of someone's imagination that probably have copyrights.
The third is covered with graffiti -- does the graffiti have a copyright?
The fourth shows a sculptured rock, clearly created out of someone's imagination. There is also a clearly identifiable woman -- the French law requires her consent to be on Commons.

Except for the last, I think there is legitimate room for discussion on the other three. I deleted them in good faith, but I would not object strenuously if the three were restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim and Christian. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Cérémonie de remise des diplômes 2014 d'archiviste paléographe.jpg

Hi, We have a free license from the copyright owner. This should not have been deleted (DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cérémonie de remise des diplômes 2014 d'archiviste paléographe.jpg). @INeverCry: . Yann (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Usually we require OTRS permission in cases like this. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. While it is very likely that User:École nationale des chartes is OK, we have no actual evidence of that. The account User:École des chartes - Utilisateur David has been confirmed by OTRS, but not User:École des chartes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We need either a confirmation for the role of User:École des chartes as an official account of said school, or we need an OTRS permission from the photographer. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Zak Standridge - Traveller - Mr Blue - Cover .jpg

Zak Standridge uploaded copyright permissions and requests undelete of file File:Zak Standridge - Traveller - Mr Blue - Cover .jpg

ZakStandridge (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2017 (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) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This needs a written permission as explained by Jim. It may take up to several weeks for such an email to be processed but if the permission was found to be valid, the file will then be restored. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Is a selfie of the author, here with her permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliselaure (talk • contribs) 15:17, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

Most likely referring to File:Marina Anca.jpg. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose If it is a selfie of Marina Anca, then why did you claim it was your own work?
More to the point, the image appears on Linkedin, so the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Even if it was a selfie, we would need a written permission from Marina Anca since the image had been published before without a free licence. If it is not a selfie, permission is required from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Reina Sofia

Refer to list in above DR. All those files which were dated 1936 or earlier are public domain under the Spanish 80 year rule.

The DR was marked for review in 2017, but this was removed and the DR indef protected as admin-only. Someone may wish to remove that pointless protection as it is against policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected. However, discussion of whether it shell be deleted shall go here, not back there, whether it is protected or not. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Sebari beat me to the unprotection just before I hit enter...
I agree with the sentiment that discussion should go here, though, otherwise I will restore the protection. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support undeletion. Article 6, par. 2 of the Spanish copyright law requires that the intellectual rights in anonymous works be actively claimed by the author: "When the work is divulged anonymously or under a pseudonym or sign, the exercise of intellectual property rights will correspond to the natural or legal person who brings it to light with the consent of the author, as long as the author does not reveal his identity" (Google Translator). I. e. unless the author claims the merits for his work or authorises anyone else to exploit the work, it will remain anonymous. So if even the catalogue provided by Google Art and the museum cannot provide the names of any particular author, the older copyright term of 80 years past creation for these works has now expired because in this case "unknown" does equal "anonymous". De728631 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think the 1987 Spanish law change actually made anonymous works 60 years from publication (or if not published, 60 years from creation). While there was a clause keeping the older 80pma terms for known authors who had died by 1987 (which thus would still be in effect after the EU copyright directives), I'm not sure there was anything similar for anonymous works -- so those may have been limited at 60 years in 1987, then extended to the normal EU {{PD-anon-70-EU}} term a few years later. There was a transitional clause for corporation-owned works which did get 80 years from publication / creation for works existing in 1987, but it doesn't sound like these would fall under that. That may help URAA status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - no evidence at all that these files would have been 'anonymous' works. 'Anonymous' is different from 'the Wikimedia Commons community does not know who the author is'. No indication that the authors would have died before 1936, they are probably not yet PD - Jcb (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    This comment is not just factually wrong, it is disruptive for this project and offensive for the Museum archivists. Jcb, there is a huge difference between discussing copyright status of images and deliberately ignoring historical fact. The facts were made clear in the DR, if you believe these are wrong, first do some reading of the sources to back up your opinions before foolishly making disruptive false statements about the history of journalism and the importance of anonymized photojournalism during the Spanish Civil War. This is extremely well documented and discussed by academics, so it is easy to find sources, visit a library and dig out On Photography. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see why we should require more than what the museum says. In addition, as Carl points out, the URAA status is uncertain. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted the files from 1936 and I mentioned the date regarding the files that are not restored. The restored files are PD in Spain. We don't know what the URAA did and a URAA-hunch/guess/etc is not e reason to delete a file. @Fæ: please don't forget to come back next year if someone removes the undel cats again. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Microsoft Office 2013 start screen tiles lineup.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: If every part of these line-up is below TOO in the US and survived DR then it should be restored. There's no such thing like "composite work". Sample DRs:

I agree that either all files should be kept or all should be deleted. I'll try to summon @Clindberg: Could you give an opinion on whether these logos are above or below the threshold of originality in the US? (The deleted files are just composite images of all the logos.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support: Everything seems too simple for me. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The argument was made at one of the DRs that these would be eligible for a copyright based on the 'arrangement'. I don't think so, they are simply in a row. Nothing creative about that. Reventtalk 09:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment Just a comment, not a vote. I agree with User:Revent and Sebari, the 2 deleted files are only simple row of the icons (or similar icons) mentioned above, therefore if we keep the icons alone I think we can keep the rows too. Because everybody can make a similar DW, by making a simple row with the icons, there is nothing really artistic in that. The only question is if the icons are above or below TOO. If yes I support the undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think there is any creative aspect in the arrangement and the particular icons are below TOO imho. De728631 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rodrigues PortMathurinMosquee.jpg

I think the deletion was abusive and excessively swift without any actual discussion. This mosque is a humble and public building in Port Mathurin, build by the faithful without obviously any architectural scheme and intellectual property. Why this one in particular ? There are thousands of pictures of churches, townhalls, schools in the same situation of banality. --B.navez (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@B.navez: The problem is the copyright law of Mauritius. Do you happen to know when the mosque was built? See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Mauritius for more info. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: It seems the first mosque in Port Mathurin (the one I Took a picture) was built in 1907 [2], so more than 50 years ago. --B.navez (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)--B.navez (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose. The Masjid Noor was built in 2005.[3] It is obviously a work of architecture eligible for copyright protection. There are no freedom of panorama provisions in the Copyright Act 2014. The deletion discussion was open for one month – four times the normal duration – so it was hardly "excessively swift." —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@LX: The mosque of Port Mathurin was not erected in 2005 but probably in 1907[4]. I was there in 2006 and it was clearly already an old building. Check and compare different sources. The one you quote is not reliable on that point. My picture was approximatively the same as this one located in the center of the town and it is clearly not the one displayed on your source. May be yours could be another one at this adress : rue Père Gandy. Sincerely, --B.navez (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
So it seems there are actually two mosques in Port Mathurin with the rather confusingly unoriginal names Masjid Noor (on Rue Père Gandy, built in 2005, as noted above) and Masjid Noor-ud-Deen (on Rue de la Solidarité), both in white and green. The latter is the one depicted in your Getty Images link and in this photo. In this photo, you can see a sign that says the mosque was rebuilt in 1979. According to this page, it was actually rebuilt from 1979 to 1981. There probably was a mosque in town in 1907, but it's neither of these two buildings. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per the Mauritius Copyright Act of 2014, "Every work shall be protected where it is fixed in some material form and irrespective of its mode or form of expression." If the building exists, it has the potential to hold a copyright (the implication of "build (sic) by the faithful without obviously any architectural scheme" is that there were no architectural plans before construction started; even if true, that would have no bearing on the copyrightablity of the completed structure.) That "There are thousands of pictures" is an OTHERSTUFF argument; the Mauritius Copyright Act of 2014 clearly includes architecture and has no known FoP consideration. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Your argument about the completion of a structure seems to be a weak one. Maurtius Copyright Act applies to works of architecture (ix) (B), not to any buildings. Otherwise, it would have been mentioned "any buildings". In this very case, who could be the author, the owner of the copy rights?--B.navez (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)--B.navez (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Part IV(2)(a) of the Mauritius Copyright Act elaborates: "a work of architecture in the form of building or other construction." To argue that a building somehow is not architecture is utter nonsense, contradicted explicitly by the Copyright Act and any reasonable usage of the language. Who owns the copyright is simply not relevant, see COM:PRP#4; that we may not know does not mean no one knows. Эlcobbola talk 20:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

other sources that let think the old mosque located near the "rue de la Solidarité" in the center is really an old building [5], [6] --B.navez (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I restored the file temporarily to determine whether or not this is the building mentioned in the google book. I asked an active user from Mauritius for some input as well. Hopefully we can shed some light on the issue in a few days. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info According to Rjay Rishi on EN-wiki, (quote) the picture in question is mosque Masjid Noor ud Deen located at Rue De La Solidarite, Port Mathurin R5126, Mauritius --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment It does seem as though there is no FOP in Mauritius. Copyright should last 50 years after the death of the architect -- the date of construction is just a hint in that direction, unless the architect is anonymous. If this was "rebuilt" in 1979, the question there is if it was rebuilt to essentially the original design (in which case no new copyright was created), or if it was a substantially different design. As far as I can tell, the original was built in 1912, but can't find much else about it. I guess the main question is how similar is the 1979 version to the original. Not sure their website http://www.noor-ud-deen.com/ has that info. There is a contact page; maybe that question could be asked (and if there are photos of the earlier version, and if there are records of who the architects are). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Insufficient information for restoration, see comment by Carl Lindberg. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Aymeric Rouillac - La Quotidienne.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: User:Scoopfinder/undel Scoopfinder(d) 17:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scoopfinder: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: (by Hedwig). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bandyfrimärke.jpeg

This was deleted without any discussion at all, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandyfrimärke.jpeg. Only the person requesting deletion had something to say about it. The only reason for deletion was obviously that a year had been written wrongly in the file's description. If noone supports a deletion, shouldn't it be left alone? Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The vast majority of deletion requests only have a rationale and no discussion. In that case the closing admin will evaluate the only argument presented. In this case the reason for deletion was not the wrong date, but the fact that stamps in Sweden are protected by copyright and this stamp is clearly not old enough to qualify for being in the Public Domain. Therefore the deletion was correct. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
No, copyright was not an issue. It was never mentioned by the person requesting deletion or in any following discussion. If it was, I would understand the deletion, but you can't just make this agument up retroactively, Sebari. You have to base your argument on the discussion which were. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Please read the comment of the closing admin. It clearly references Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Sweden. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Bandy Hoppsan, Actually, since it is obvious that a recent Swedish stamp is a copyright violation, this could have been deleted on sight -- see {COM:CV]]. But given that the nominator had opened a DR, the Admin closing it must make a judgement based on all the facts -- whether they are mentioned in the discussion or not. If this were not so plainly a copyvio, the closing Admin might instead have made a comment rather than closing it, but that would just have been a waste of time here. Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new files every day and must delete around 1,500. Ten Admins do most of that work and we don't waste time with long discussions of clear copyright violations. By referencing the Case Book on stamps, Christian did more than I might have done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per original DR, stamps in Sweden are not in the PD. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Colombian Troops 1935.jpg

The file is public domain under Colombian law. The law explicitly defines an "Anonymous" author as identical to "Unknown" author. For photographs with unknown creators, they are public domain after 80 years by default.

Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colombian Troops 1935.jpg where the closure presumes that "Anonymous" means something different to "Unknown", presumably because the closing admin had in mind law other than that which applies in Colombia. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Fæ, you are correct that I misread Colombian law -- it does include unknown authors. However you are perhaps disingenuous in not pointing out that my closing comment also said that the copyright term starts at publication and there is no evidence of publication. Evidence of publication is particularly important in cases like this, because the only way to prove that the publication was "anonymous" as defined in the law is to show that the author was unnamed at publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes Jim, you are asking for chocolate teapots in this case, or at least presuming that Santa Claus must exist as nobody has provided records showing he was never born. There is no requirement on Commons contributors to prove a negative under UK law, US law or Spanish especially Colombian law. The fact that nobody in the last 80 years has produced records of publication, and no publisher has anything to say about it, is sufficient evidence. By the way, even in your reply here you are still confusing unknown with anonymous. The file can be undeleted as it is over 80 years old and the author is unknown. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No, although copyright begins upon creation, the copyright term starts with publication. As you say, no one has proven that the image was published until its appearance on the Web, so the Colombian 80 years did not start until recently:
"Article 9. The protection granted to the author by this Law originates in the fact of intellectual creation, without any registration being necessary."
"Article 25. Anonymous works shall be protected for a term of 80 years from the date of publication, in favor of the publisher; should the author reveal his identity, the term of protection shall accrue to him."
Therefore, copyright begins on creation and, for a work that qualifies as "anonymous" ends 80 years after publication. As far as I can see, there is no provision for the ending of copyright for unpublished works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we often make assumptions on publication, unless there was reason to believe something was only recently published. And if their terms include "unknown" as equivalent to anonymous, it's not as important to know of the initial publication to show anonymity. However... for a 1935-published photo, that was guaranteed to be under copyright in Colombia in 1996, and therefore would be under U.S. copyright until 2031 due to the URAA. It could theoretically be PD in the US if it was PD-old-70 and it was not published until 2003 or later, but it sounds like that situation would make it still under copyright in Colombia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Carl, let's get real. This is a case of photo journalism, not a private holiday album. The point of the photo would be to publish it, not keep it secret. The photographer is unknown, if you disagree then name them. I assert there is no significant doubt that the photo can be considered published in 1935. If you disagree name the date of publication and tell us in which future year this will be public domain. I still say that legally it already is, as we are never required to prove a negative. --Fæ (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree. It was published in 1935 in Colombia -- I'm fine with assuming that. It was still under copyright in Colombia in 1996. It was restored in the U.S. by the URAA, and is under copyright there for 95 years from publication, which would be 2031. It expired in Colombia in 2016, but not the U.S., which has a term 15 years longer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
How ghastly, deletion boils down to a URAA argument (which was absent from the DR, you will note, so this feels like fishing around for a reason to keep deleted files deleted). Frankly I'd rather gloss over the URAA thing as I just don't believe in it for a 81 years old image like this, it's too arbitrary. Pointy URAA deletions make a case for hosting Commons images somewhere other than the USA, which would make it irrelevant. As the WMF wishes to remain in San Francisco because the employees that are already there like to have Silicon Valley on their CVs, that's never going to happen regardless of the views of volunteers. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The URAA sucks, but it is the law. I'm not fishing, but just mentioning an inconvenient fact which was overlooked in the earlier discussions, as I just came across this discussion now. There are some who look the other way -- we do have the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, which should be used if an admin does restore this. The URAA is infuriating no doubt, but I really can't see a way it could be PD in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Could you please add the source?. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Capture-NX2-logo.png

This file has been tagged for speedy by Krdbot as «external source, no license, no permission», then, I, converted to a normal DR for input about the TOO. Then, Jcb deleted this file with «per original nomination», following the lack of licensing placed by a bot (or at least by my nomination) without providing a valid deletion summary (if the file is actually above the TOO) (if an admin is unsure if a logo is bellow or above the TOO, another admin should decide instead). If the file is actually bellow the TOO in japan, please restore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - the files is obviously not below TOO - Jcb (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I too must say that this logo is not below TOO by any stretch of the imagination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:poster1999.jpg

Poster produced by director Bruno de Almeida for his movie The Art of Amalia The Page about The Art of Amalia movie is lacking of image so as director of the movie I would like to add the original film poster, free of rights. Thank you --Arco films (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Bruno de Almeida Jan 07 2017

Also: File:poster_the_debt.jpg

Poster produced by director Bruno de Almeida for his award winning short The Debt. The Page about the short film The Debt is lacking of image so as director of the movie I would like to add the original film poster, free of rights. Thank you --Arco films (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Bruno de Almeida Jan 07 2017

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Indus Tribune.jpg

Terms and Conditions of Indus Tribune clearly state that “All Data and media published by this website is free to use for any purpose except legal purposes, mention Indus Tribune while copying material from this website.” That means we can use their data and we are mentioning Indus tribune as a source of the image. --Cuterajoo (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here:
First, "except legal purposes" is unacceptable -- Commons images must be free for any use by anybody. While it is unlikely that this would ever be a problem it, nonetheless, does not meet Commons requirements.
Second, and much more important, Commons requires that licenses be irrevocable. This license explicitly reserves the right to change it at any time:
"We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Muscicapa sodhii.jpg

The source given for this file is given as [7], and the pages states " © 2014 Harris et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." It is unclear to me if this also applies to the image, so posting here (on behalf of the OTRS customer in ticket:2016111710001891) for another opinion. --Krd 17:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krd: [8] states:
“ Articles and accompanying materials published by PLOS on the PLOS Sites, unless otherwise indicated, are licensed by the respective authors of such articles for use and distribution by you subject to citation of the original source in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. ”
Seems to be fine.--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Seems fine per discussion. @Krd: Please add permission to the file. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Drapé

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per OTRS 2016122910013497 . Thanks! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 20:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Kvardek du: please add permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vestbygdaskole.jpg

Is it possible to undelete this file? it was possibly unedleted long ago. I now have the required information about the file Regards, Bjørn Kvisli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkv (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bkv: I have temporarily restored the file. Please add the necessary information. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkv (talk • contribs) 12:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Osirv

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per OTRS 2016122910005755. Two files are still dubious, but I need to see them to check. Thanks! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Kvardek du: --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Not quite done yet. I noticed the uploads are CC-4 licensed, the ticket says CC-2.0-by-FR (as far as I could find) Did I miss anything? Do we have any information about the creator? We should categorize the files after you are done and add a creator template. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: asked him by e-mail, he agrees with CC BY SA 4. I'll try to take a look for the Creator template. Thanks! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
AnytimeC(_). Can we close this here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure! Thanks again. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 17:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:WBA Team 2015-05-24.jpg

Please undelete this file as it is in the public domain. It is licensed under the Public Domain Mark which 'grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.' The author of this work is Barry Marsh and Mr. Marsh states on his own Flickr page: "Should anyone wish to use any of my photographs, please feel free to do so. I would be flattered and somewhat surprised."

I request that File:Chris Brunt (crop).png be undeleted also as it is a cropped version of the aforementioned file.

I have seen other files on Commons such as File:Olivier and Jean-Baptiste Franc, Boulevard Saint Germain, Paris, France.jpg which are Mr. Marsh's work also.

Thank you. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv and Herbythyme: The source image is marked as public domain on Flickr. Can you elaborate why this is not sufficient? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing it I'd be inclined to undelete personally. Leoboudv's point was about licensing compatibility which appeared valid to me (equally an awful lot of football images that arrive here are pro ones and Flickr is often used to wash said images though that is not the case here). --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

if there is a copy right violation we want you to prove it is copy righted ,if can't prove don't delete .this was taken from the place they produce this you guys just delete everything because you have a conflict of interest from the places who funds you so except people who funds you you delete others saying various reasons wikipedia admins should look in to this if they can see this message .please remove the editors who has conflicts of interests — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 112.95.72.34 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no way we can help you if you don't tell us which file you are talking about. As for proof that something is copyrighted - everything is copyrighted by default, the interesting part lies usually in showing that it isn't. --rimshottalk 09:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 Not done per Rimshot. Thuresson (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chris Brunt (crop).png

The above-named file was apparently an extract from File:WBA Team 2015-05-24.jpg, which was restored above, so presumably that should also be restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Whoops, thank you. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Al Mawarid International School Logo.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm writing this letter to request to you to undelete the picture that I uploaded on my school's Wikipedia page. I have not copied it without permission

As I said, I used this picture with the school's permission. The school also, didn't mention anything about copyright rules and was given free to use it. I'm sure that, I have not done any copyright violations. Please do understand me. I'm trying my best as possible to be a good wikipedia user, not a violator.

This is my request. So, please, undelete that picture.Thank you for your concern.

Your's Sincerely,

--Arj322 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because copyright can last 100 years or more, long after we are all dead, copyright law requires that all licenses be in writing. Since we do not know who User:Arj322 actually is, policy requires that an authorized official of the school must send a free license using OTRS. When that is received and approved the image will be restored automatically. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, an authorized official of the school must send a free license using OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:radiobubble bubble ad A5

i am the owner of this image, anyway everything we publish in radiobubble (even the news- http://international.radiobubble.gr/ ) is under Creative Commons attributions. I hope you 'll find interesting for example our code of ethics and our Declaration of Principles at the following link http://international.radiobubble.gr/p/p1.html --Αποστόλης Καπαρουδάκης (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We can't accept content licensed Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) See Com:L for more info. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Hedwig, we don't accept works published under NC-ND licenses, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hans Adler playing two harpsichord JC Bach duet.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_G._Adler

File:Hans Adler playing two harpsichord JC Bach duet.png This is part of the Hans G Adler, musician page. Contains information on playing career and instrument. Photograph made personally during recital which was recorded and paid for by H Adler, now deceased. Therefor no copyright breach. Aldercraft (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to explain why the author of the photograph doesn't own the copyright anymore? It seems this photograph has been published before, therefore our rules require that the copyright owner sends permission. Please see OTRS for more information. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Хайруллин Айрат Ринатович.jpg

Writing one more time: please confirm permission for this file. Ive sent the permision from the official e-mail of the person, who is described on the pic. The Head of Almetyevsk district of Tatarstan, Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almet (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a ticket number? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose It's ticket:2016093010009086 which is inconclusive -- after 12 entries, it still does not have a license from the photographer. In order to restore the image, we need a license from the photographer, sent directly from him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The file hasn't been deleted (at least not after it was recreated outside of process), so there is nothing to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above; the file 1) does not yet have appropriate evidence of permission and 2) is not currently deleted or even nominated for deletion. --Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Yellanki cheruvu.jpg

please restore this photo. i have taken this photo with my camera. the copy rights belongs to me only. --Dhananjaya.karre (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You took a satellite picture of earth with your own camera? I think I got the wrong xmas present.... HiW Space Bot... xmas --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose There is no copyright for photographing your computer screen. The copyright here clearly belongs to Google, as is shown by the watermarks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Another Instagram error

This photo was uploaded by @namjihyun_at in Instagram. As far as I know, any photos uploaded in Instagram are free to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djla.21 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on Instagram is automatically free. The author has to release the photograph. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vbros logo.jpg

I made this photo, it is not in violation of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimnator (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You shouldn't oppose your own request :-) The logo seems out of project scope to me, your article about Vbros company was declined on EN-wiki. Why is this logo in scope? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "In scope", are any images not allowed on here? Also, I am refering to all my images, not just this one. Do I need to makea un-delete request for each one? --Elimnator (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Images are allowed. BUT they have to be useful. See 3.4 @ Commons:Project_scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean the game screenshots? Those aren't allowed unless it is allowed and freely licensed by the game owner. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Uploader questions scope as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Amesbury and Military Route Light Railway.png

I do not understand why this image has been deleted. In accordance with Google's Attribution for Google Maps and Google Earth (shown below and extracted from: https://www.google.co.uk/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html) I have clearly shown the Google logo and names of the aerial image providers (Bluesky & Infoterra) both in the actual image and in the required attirbute categories. I feel I have met Google's requirement for reproduction of their material (arguably under a 'Fair Use' clause anyway). Please explain why Wikicommons does not approve of following the image owners guidelines/where I have gone wrong. Thanks. (Stingray Trainer (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC))


Attribution Guidelines for Google Maps and Google Earth

All uses of Google Maps and Google Earth Content must provide attribution to both Google and our data providers. We do not approve of any use of content without proper attribution, in any circumstance. We require attribution when the Content is shown. Requests for exceptions will not be answered or granted.

Only including “Google” or the Google logo is not proper attribution when there are third-party data providers cited with the imagery. Attribution information will appear automatically on the Content if you:

Embed an interactive map using the HTML provided on Google Maps Use one of our Geo APIs to create and embed a custom map in your website or application Export a high-res image or .mov file from Google Earth

The most likely case is that Bluesky and/or Infoterra does not allow reuse according to our policies. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are, as you say, essentially guidelines for attribution when using their content under fair use provisions, which aren't applicable to Commons. They do not constitute the actual terms of use for the content. The actual terms can be found at https://www.google.com/intl/en-US_US/help/terms_maps.html. As you can see, they are completely non-free. Also, even their attribution guidelines contain restrictions that are clearly incompatible with Commons:Licensing, e.g. "Please note that in order to use Google Maps and Google Earth imagery in film or on television, you must apply for our free broadcast licence." Content on Commons must be free for any use without having to apply for special permission. Please use one of the several free resources at Commons:Free media resources/Map instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Attribution requirements are not to be conflated as a free license. This is unambiguously unfree. --Эlcobbola talk 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

This logo should not be deleted—instead, it should be restored and the Template:Non-free use rationale logo specified on its Wikimedia Commons page. (I didn't know about this template when I originally added it.)

The organization that owns this logo is supportive of having it displayed on the org's Wikipedia page for brand recognition and is happy to do whatever is required to see that it remain posted for visitors to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srose~commonswiki (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a fair use template which redirects to a speedy deletion template. Please read Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose In order to restore this, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. Note that "is supportive of having it displayed on the org's Wikipedia page" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere so the license must not be limited to the WP page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Restoration request explicity requests a fair use license, which is unambiguously unacceptable. See COM:FU. --Эlcobbola talk 03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sharath.jpg

This is my own creation and I have not voilated copy right. So I request to undelete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohithKumarPatali (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Uploaded to Commons July 31, 2016. Nominated for deletion here with the reason: "Size & FBMD in metadata show this was previously uploaded to Facebook and not own work". A few minutes of googling show that this is a photo from the subjects Facebook page uploaded July 15, 2015. Thuresson (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Previously published images require additional evidence of permission per COM:OTRS. --Эlcobbola talk 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Snow man.jpg

Pretty sure this is fine, but since I cannot see it, IDK for sure. 95% sure it is my original art. --Elimnator (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: 95% sure isn't good enough. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:PRSarawak MY logo.png

This is the logo for Parti Rakyat Sarawak from Sarawak, Malaysia. The logo itself described in Malay language and does not related to any organisation in US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasrolhashim (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC) --Hasrolhashim (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hasrolhashim: Please explain why you think that this file is not copyrighted in Malaysia. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: no evidence for permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bandeira de Santo Expedito do Sul.jpg

Bom dia,

Solicito reparação deste ficheiro, pois é de domínio público, instituído por Leis Municipais que foram citadas no momento do carregamento deste ficheiro, não infringindo portanto, nenhum direito autoral. Bruna Belusso, 09:56, 10/01/2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruna Belusso (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The file is not deleted, has never been deleted and has never been nominated for deletion. That said, given that Santo Expedito do Sul was incorporated in 1992, it seems unlikely that its flag was published or commissioned prior to 1983, meaning the {{PD-BrazilGov}} is wrong. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandeira de Santo Expedito do Sul.jpg. Any further discussion should take place there, not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do. --Yann (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Slubnew.png

I am working on this page it is not a hoax dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielebbert (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Vandalism, nothing to do here. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Centauro logo.jpg

Archive = File:Centauro logo.jpg The image is copyrighted to be shared because the image is hosted on pages like http://es.doblaje.wikia.com/wiki/Centauro_Comunicaciones?file=Centaurologo.jpg

--Lina quintana (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. That's not at all how copyright works. Please read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images and the boldfaced part of User talk:Lina quintana#File:Centauro logo.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above and COM:PRP#5. --Эlcobbola talk 19:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Junior Bandsmen Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-1963

This document could also be known as "Lancastrian Brigade Junior Bandsmen 1961-1963" Has all associated documents been misplaced or deleted ? Yours faithfully Charles DobsonCD0060576 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, this is either about en:Draft:Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63 over at English Wikipedia or about File:Isle of Man First Recruit joining the Loyals Regiment 1961.jpg and File:Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1963.jpg. The reason the files here on Commons were deleted is explained at User talk:CD0060576#File:Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1963.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Unintelligible request. Apparently related to an en.wiki draft article, not a file. Uploader has deleted files, but has not identified which, if any, this request is meant to address and has, accordingly, not provided a rationale for restoration. --Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Brasão Municipal de Santo Expedito do Sul.png

Bom dia,

Peço a restauração deste ficheiro, pois é de domínio público, instituído por leis municipais, que foram citadas no momento de seu carregamento, não infringindo, portanto, nenhum direito autoral. Bruna Belusso, 09:58, 10/01/2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruna Belusso (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The file by that name was just uploaded by the user who made this undeletion request, before the undeletion request. It should probably be deleted, given that the authorship claims are obviously false and given that it appears to be a second out-of-process recreation of File:Brasão Municipal de Santo Expedito do Sul.jpg, made after the user was warned to stop doing that. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted it as a clear copyright violation and out of process recreation of a previously deleted file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Эlcobbola talk 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Cheeseman shot2.png

This is a screenshot if MY mod that I created within a free game. --Elimnator (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Which game? Why is the screenshot allowed? Link? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This comes from my game Cheeseman: http://jacobvejvoda.wixsite.com/cheeseman --Elimnator (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose CC BY-NC-SA - Creative Commons licence. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not beeing sold here, what's wrong with that licence? --Elimnator (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Elimnator: Content restricted to {{noncommercial}} use only is not free. Commons only hosts free content. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be freely licensed or public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Explicit NC license. --Эlcobbola talk 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:1 wiki myra.png

This photo was taken by me of the singer and we would like it to be uploaded to her Wikipedia. It is on otherwebsites yes but it is mine and the artists work and we have given written permission time and time again. Please reupload the photo asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NxGallegos (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the filename and file description do not name the subject and there are no useful categories, so the image is not useful and will be not kept unless that is fixed. Second, as you say, it has appeared elsewhere without a free license, so policy requires that the photographer send a free license using OTRS.
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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above, previously published works require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. --Эlcobbola talk 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file consist of two files which are considered below COM:TOO in the US. Derivative files:

--Rezonansowy (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Could someone take a look at this request? Thanks in advance! --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

This picture is taken at the US Embassy in Tokyo lodging in Japan, taken with my camera and its copyright is in me. There is no copyright vio. --さかきばらたいら (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at the deletion request, it has appeared with an explicit copyright notice at http://taira.poohmie.jp/sites/default/files/images/019.preview.JPG. Policy threfore requires that the actual photographer must send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I am the administrator of the website http://taira.poohmie.jp/. I also posted "This image is also hosted on Wikimedia Commons." at http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/224 .--さかきばらたいら (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed with Jim. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Please look at http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/224. --さかきばらたいら (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@さかきばらたいら: copyvioの出典として指摘されているサイトはあなたが管理するサイトとお見受けします。もしそうであれば、その画像が置かれているページに「この画像はWikimedia Commonsにも掲載されています。(This image is also hosted on Wikimedia Commons.)」などと一文書いてそのリンクをここに貼れば、OTRSの手続きを踏まずとも復元されるでしょう。 Darklanlan (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Darklanlan: ご指導ありがとうございます。そのように掲載してみました。http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/224 --さかきばらたいら (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@さかきばらたいら: すみません。先ほどの説明はコモンズに投稿するという文だけでは不十分で、自由なライセンスで公表したことを明示する必要があるようです。「この画像はクリエイティブ・コモンズ 表示 - 継承 4.0 国際 ライセンスの下に提供されています。 (This image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)」と記載したほうがいいようです。このような文はクリエイティブ・コモンズのサイトにあるChoose a Licenseからも得ることができます。ただし、ウィキメディア・コモンズで受け入れられるのはcc-byとcc-by-saのみで、商用利用禁止は受け入れることができませんのでご注意下さい。 Darklanlan (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Darklanlan: ありがとうございます。理解して、管理するウェブサイトに CCBY の記述をいれました。 Http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/224 --さかきばらたいら (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that Darklanlan has misled you -- that posting proves nothing. You can, however, post on the site "This image is licensed under CC-BY" or another permitted free license. That would allow us to restore the image at once. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'll ask him to correct it. Darklanlan (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I understood and fixed adding CCBY to the description of my site. Http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/224 --さかきばらたいら (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored basing on license at the original site; fixed license and data. @さかきばらたいら: Please, check if it is OK.

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

File:CRLOGO.png

HI,

I belong to this organisation and the image provided belongs to Logicserve Technologies. I have requested a subsequent article about our firm to wikipedia as well.

Regards Amruta Shelar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruta Shelar (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In this case, since we know nothing about you, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. The e-mail address from which the message comes must be traceable to the firm. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rizal Monument.jpg

Please request the undeletion of:

File:Rizal Monument.jpg

Reason: Rizal Monument no longer in copyright in the Philippines. This is deleted for the reason of "no FOP in the Philippines" by a overzealous user, but looking at the real monument's age, this is already PD. Too bad that users are too serious with the no FOP issue in the Philippines, and they consider photos of buildings and artwork, including those with simple design or architecture (ineligible for copyright), or public domain or very old buildings and artworks, in the Philippines as not appropriate here for that reason.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 13:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support The age of the monument is irrelevant. The law in the Philippines is that copyright lasts for fifty years after the death of the author. Carlo Nicoli died in 1915, so this has been PD for more than fifty years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done The architect was not entirely Carlo Nicoli but also the Swiss Richard Kissling (dead in 1919) who built the most part of it. Whatever, the monument is in public domain. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Many files of FructidorAn3

Les fichiers ci-dessus ont été supprimés car une licence non-valide à été transmise. J'ai ajouté l'avis légal du Congrès des députés mais cela n'a pas été considéré comme suffisant. Les fichiers ont été supprimés. J'ai envoyé un mail au service de l'Information du Congrès pour leur demander s'il était d'accord pour que les images apparaissent sur Commons. Il m'ont répondu exactement le message suivant : 

Estimado Sr,

La licencia que nos comenta es compatible con Creative Commons siempre que se cumplan los requisitos contemplados en el Aviso Legal de nuestra página web, que le habíamos comentado:
La reutilización de los contenidos debe cumplir los siguientes criterios:

a) Que el contenido de la información no sea alterado. 
b) Que no se desnaturalice el sentido de la información.
c) Que se cite la fuente.
d) Que se mencione la fecha de la última actualización. 
e) Que siga un principio de acceso público y de no exclusividad

Gracias por su interés, reciba un cordial saludo, 
Información Congreso de los Diputados

Je souhaite donc la récupération des fichiers précités dont le débat de suppression se trouve ici. Merci. --FructidorAn3 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This is also written in their legal notice [9]. The lines a and b are a problem, that don't allow derivative works, we don't accept such restictions; (fr: les lignes a et b sont un problème car ils n'autorisent pas de travaux dérivés, et nous n'acceptons pas les oeuvres avec de telles restrictions). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "a) Que el contenido de la información no sea alterado" ("That the content of the information is not altered") is a clear prohibition/limitation of derivative works. This was explained at the DR, including with links to other files deleted for that reason (1, 2) That you have additional correspondence (which would need to be submitted to OTRS anyway) that merely adds "La licencia que nos comenta es compatible con Creative Commons siempre que se cumplan los requisitos contemplados" ("The license you reference is compatible with Creative Commons provided that [it meets the following requirements]") tells us, at best, this would be CC-by-SA-ND, which is not acceptable. Эlcobbola talk 19:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PaRappa The Rapper Logo 1997.svg

It will not fair use. This is a joke. --BOMBA (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Question This is clearly not your own work as claimed in the upload. Making an incorrect claim of "own work" is a violation of Commons rule.

This is all text and less than a full sentence, so it could not have a copyright in the USA. It may however, have a copyright in Japan. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Or even have no notability. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's probably not the case, see PaRappa the Rapper -- sold more than a million copies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per COM:TOO Japan, "Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general." I don't think this rises to the threshold of "worth[y of] artistic appreciation." Presuming COM:TOO presents an accurate summation of the underlying rulings (I cannot read the decisions), it seems Japan's treatment of this would be more or less the same as the United States' (i.e., not sufficiently original). Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mirosław Patalon.jpg

ticket:2016102710005459 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 21:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Some files uploaded by Ruislip Gardens

Hi, I wanted to undeleted the following files because, following Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ruislip Gardens, because the guidelines in Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012_in_Italy/MiBAC should allow us to keep these files under the condition of using the template {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}.

Thanks, Ruthven (msg) 13:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc and INeverCry: Could you, please, comment why do you think {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is not satisfactory here while it is satisfactory on thousands of other images? I can't find anything specific for theese particular images in the DR. Moreover. this discussion suggests that the DR rationale cannot be considered copyright-related restriction (like eg. trademark restrictions) and, maybe, it is irrelevant for Wikimedia Commons. Deleting image by image basing on very subjective rationale is not the right way, IMO. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ankry: Honestly, it's been a little while, so I don't remember exactly. I'm presuming, based on User talk:Ruthven, there was a copyright violation that ended up in Category:Flickr images needing human review. Sometimes, I then check the uploader's other images and I probably saw that they were in Italy and nominated them. I only saw those images, so I only nominated them. Based on how I understand the Italian Freedom of Panorama rules, the images are not allowed on Commons. If {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} overrules that, then Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Italy should reflect that. Elisfkc (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: AFAIK, FoP/NoFoP rules applies to copyrighted works placed in public places. (The first Note in Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Italy expresses this clearly IMO.) Do you suggest the fountain sculptures to be modern, or that the author or some other work visible here died less than 70 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ankry: Like I said, that's how I understood it. I don't remember if I'd seen/understood the first note at the time or not. If I was wrong, I am fine with it being undeleted. Elisfkc (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. The suggested Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Italy changes may require more general discussion and definitely not here. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Giacomond.jpg

I am the copyright owner of the file for which I am filing a request for undeletion. I am also the copyright owner of all the other pictures used on the Wikipedia entry about Quint Buchholz. A declaration of my copyright ownership has already been sent to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quibu (talk • contribs) 11:18, 13 January 2017 (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) 12:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored by Steinsplitter per OTRS. Ankry (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Final-Full-NoNumber.jpg

The copyright holder of the pictures is Afraz Cultural Association. It could be easily checked by asking the association Pleas undelete the pictures. the website of the association is http://anjomanafraz.com

Hamidreza Afshari Managing Director 

Afraz Cultural Association

--حمیدرضاافشاری (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited web site is marked:

"کپی‌رایت © 2012 - انجمن افراز تمامی حقوق محفوظ است
Copyright © 2012 - Powered by partitioning All rights reserved."

Policy requires that an authorized official of the organizations must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my colleagues above, a permission is needed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:GrdPeter.png

This is my picture, why do you want to delete it? i don"t want it to be deleted --Grdpeter (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a personal image and not used on any page in any Wikimedia project so there's no reason for us to host it on Commons. Why didn't you contribute here? Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. This image is Grdpeter's only contribution to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unused image of non-notable person. Other than this deleted image, the user's only contributions are the creation of a vanity article in en.wiki user space (which, curiously, uses a locally hosted variant of this image) which does not appropriately satisfy the "active participant" requirement of COM:INUSE. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of our project scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2013.10-tfr-digital-cover-final-01a-cap1-small.jpg

Please, undelete this file.

Reason: I am the author of the image which is also a book cover.

Please, check the copyright of the book, including cover in the publisher website: Copyright © João Máximo e Luís Chainho, 2014, 2015, Todos os direitos reservados. http://www.indexebooks.com/dicionario.html

Also, you can check at APEL (the Portuguese ISBN agency) that the prefix of the book's ISBN (ISBN: 978-989-8575) belongs to me (João Luís Coelho Máximo). http://www.apel.pt/pageview.aspx?pageid=207&langid=1

Best regards, João Máximo

Jmx (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As you say, the book and its cover are copyrighted by the publisher. Since we don't know who User:Jmx is, policy requires that an authorized official of the publisher must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose As a previously published image with a verifiable source (the publisher) claiming all rights reserved ("Todos os direitos reservados"), we require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: sa per my colleagues, a permission is needed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Бабушка и мужчины.jpg

Пожалуйста, прошу воостановить мой файл. Собстенная работа. Спасибо! ALDOR46 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The background image is copyrighted. The file has no categories and it is not clear that the people in the foreground are notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: copyvios of the background. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Katie Bender.jpg

This image is owned by Katie Bender herself, so there is no copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidmun (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description you say that you were the photographer. Claiming "own work" when the image is not your work is a serious violation of Commons rules. Now you say that Bender owns the copyright. In fact, neither is correct. The photographer was Tina Smigielski. It is possible that she licensed the image to Bender.

In order for the image to be restored to Commons, either (a) Tina Smigielski must send a free license to OTRS or (b) Bender must send a free license together with a copy of her written agreement with Smigielski that allows Bender to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: As per Jim, a permission is needed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Steve Jobs with Wendell Brown at the launch of Brown's Hippo-C software for Macintosh, January 1984.jpg

I request this file be undeleted. Reason for undeletion: It is my own work. The file is: File:Steve Jobs with Wendell Brown at the launch of Brown's Hippo-C software for Macintosh, January 1984.jpg

Zamacophile (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears larger at http://platinumbusinessmagazine.com/the-big-story-steve-jobs/ with "Copyright Platinum Business Magazine 2016". Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I added this image to Wikimedia Commons in early 2014. The website you noted called "Platinum Business" took their images from the Wikipedia article on Steve Jobs. Just because people have copied my image from Wikipedia to their own websites years after I posted it to Wikimedia Commons doesn't give them any copyright. Zamacophile (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support Obviously the website Platinum Business, which is apparently a tiny regionally-focused website in the Southeast, took their images from Wikipedia's material on Steve Jobs. So that issue is irrelevant. I find no other source that predates the file that Zamacophile uploaded and if they wish to grant a free license it should be undeleted. Koralimi (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Koralimi is a Confirmed sock of Zamacophile. Vote stricken accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 21:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I request this file be undeleted: File:Steve Jobs with Wendell Brown at the launch of Brown's Hippo-C software for Macintosh, January 1984.jpg Source: {{Own}} Licensing template: {{Cc-zero}} Zamacophile (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Low res, no EXIF, "intimate" image of notable person. Use of sockpuppetry above further suggests uploader is not sufficiently credible/reliable (e.g., one with a legitimate right to license the image would not have to resort to underhanded tactics to support its restoration.) Remain deleted per COM:PRP. Эlcobbola talk 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, there's no explanation of how the magazine got an image that's 50% larger -- it doesn't look like a simple upscale. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by untrustworthy user. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Devraj Anbu NC.jpg

The file is released by the Indian Army under this license[10]. The copyright policy marks the content as free to be used without prior permission. Other images from the same source have been previously allowed but for some reason this file was marked for deletion for copyright violations. Examples File:Gen Bikram Singh.jpg, File:General Deepak Kapoor.jpg, File:General JJ Singh.png. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. Unless 1989 can show where http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=E9d1ZBFPlP+TuXvqgtLAUw==&ParentID=QWRYMKYE9uH04Lni8aQOvA== says anything about derivative works and commercial use being allowed, those license reviews should not have gone through. Quoting from Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: "All copyrighted material on Commons ... must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose; simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: ... Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed." —LX (talk, contribs) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a definitive opinion, but we need to be consistent. So far this kind of images have been accepted on Commons. There is even a template and a permission for these. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a template for images from http://indianarmy.gov.in . The small handful of existing images from indianarmy.gov.in on Commons are using the generic {{Attribution}} license template. I don't think the generic {{Attribution}} template matches the copyright policy at indianarmy.nic.in (in particular, the requirement of "subject to the material being reproduced accurately" appears to conflict with COM:L as well as the statement on {{Attribution}} that derivative works are permitted). However, we've been more lenient regarding non-standardized licenses in the past, and all of the existing files were explicitly evaluated in license review by either 1989 or Magog the Ogre, both experienced Commons editors familiar with Commons licensing policy. —RP88 (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
IIRC, Carl Lindberg said that these are non copyright restrictions. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
That would be the case if we think the requirement that the works be reproduced accurately is simply an awkwardly phrased statement of their intent to enforce their moral rights, and not a condition of the copyright license. Somewhat unrelated, but the deleted file claimed the photo was {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, which is clearly incorrect. If the file is undeleted it's license should be updated to match the others (namely {{Attribution|nolink=http://indianarmy.gov.in}}. —RP88 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is the last discussion. And {{Indian navy}}.
Several previous DRs were closed as delete, such as Commons:Deletion requests/files from the Press Information Bureau, Government of India and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chanakyathegreat. Whatever we decide, we need to be coherent. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if we were to consider the prohibition against "derogatory use" an assertion of moral rights, there is still nothing that actually grants the right to modify the content in any way. The only thing explicitly permitted is reproduction. That's not enough to meet our requirements.
{{Indian navy}} is a separate matter, as that is supposedly a separately obtained CC license from that specific branch. I say supposedly because of the concerns you raised at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2015#Template:Indian navy. I do not understand why they were archived without as much as being dignified with a response. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, derivative works are a form of reproduction -- particularly in India's copyright law. Their law deals with translations in particular specially (possibly because they don't directly reproduce the original), but otherwise I think other derivative works are "reproductions" in their law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any basis for that interpretation of the word in the Copyright Act. Ch III §14 specifically lists reproduction separately from adaptation. Furthermore, even if it were to be true, there is no indication that such a definition should be the one intended by the Indian Army in their statement, as opposed to the common meaning of the word. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that we certainly need to be consistent. I am less concerned with the lack of mention of commercial use than I am about

"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context."

That is a clear condition to the use of the images under the license. That means that the images cannot be used for parody, which is, of course, a legitimate use under a CC-BY license. It also probably means that the image cannot be cropped. Therefore I think we should not restore this and should open a DR for all the others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support To me, that is clearly a reference to moral rights and not derivative works. The CC 3.0 license has a clause You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation, which is basically the same thing to me -- although there is an additional clause which attempts to waive those moral rights in case they conflict with normal derivative works, but in some jurisdictions that is not possible. At any rate, I don't think we should be deleting otherwise free works where there are basically just moral rights restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Carl, I think you are conflating the photographer's moral rights and the Indian Army's desire to prevent its images from being used in a way that is derogatory to the Indian Army. If someone were to publish one of the Indian Army images with the caption "This man is a coward and traitor", it would be perfectly legal under a CC 3.0 license because it did not affect the photographer's rights. However, since it was used in a way that was derogatory to the Indian Army, it would not be permitted under the Indian Army license. That is an unacceptable restriction. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The license is given by the copyright owner, not the photographer (necessarily). In this case, the copyright owner is the Indian Army. They could give a CC 3.0 license instead of their custom worded one and it would be just about the same situation. I continue to believe they are just invoking their moral rights, which exist independent of the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Moral rights are not the copyright owner's to waive or assert under the Indian Copyright Act, unless they also happen to be the author. Ch XII § 57 specifically allocates moral rights to the author, as opposed to the copyright owner (or even the first copyright owner as defined in Ch IV § 17). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, Carl, the CC-BY-3.0 license says:
"You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
If as I suggested above, you printed an image of a man with the caption "This man is a coward and a traitor", you would not breach the CC-BY license, but you would breach the Indian Army license
"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context."
The CC-BY license provisions reach only to the image itself; the Indian Army license reaches to the entire use and context of the image. That is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@LX, Jameslwoodward, RP88, and 1989: If you oppose this restoration, you need to be consistent, and ask for deletion of Template:Indian navy and all files in Category:Photos from indiannavy.nic.in (3,745 files today). I think the Indian Army/Navy intend is to share their files as widely as possible, while trying to restrict use too much contrary to Indian nationalist polical views. Without this restriction, I can imagine people attacking the Indian military media policy as too lenient. It is safeguard against some radical political opinions, and it is in fact similar to asserting moral rights. Can we accept the intend, or do we need more?
More background discussions: OTRS noticeboard, UDR, Administrators' noticeboard. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with accepting the Indian military's protecting themselves from derogatory comment. While my example above, calling a man "a coward and a traitor" is perhaps far-fetched, given the widespread corruption in India, I think it is entirely possible that an an Indian journalist might want to use one of these photographs with a caption describing corruption. Even if true, that would not be permitted by this license.
And yes, I understand that refusing to restore this says that we must delete others. So be it. They are not free and therefore do not belong here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The Navy and the Army are two different branches of the military. This is about files from the Army. Template:Indian navy supposedly has OTRS permission from the Navy for a Creative Commons license. If there is a problem with that permission, it should be dealt with, and again, the apparent fact that questions to our OTRS volunteers get swept under the rug is very troubling. But it remains a separate matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
LX: The permission for the Navy comes from the webmaster, and further inquiries got the answer: See the permission on the website, which is the same as for the Army. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from indiannavy.nic.in. Yann (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Jim, "reproduced accurately" mean clearly no derivative. I'm not sure to care about the fact they want the images should be used in a "good way" wich is not really enough precise to have a true legal restriction, however I'm sorry but "reproduced accurately" is very clear. And it is clearly explained that this condition is paramount / preponderant to the fact they allow the reproduction. This is explicit. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: There are too many doubts raised about the license in this discussion. COM:PRP. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Curt Bentzin 1862–1932.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was created by myself. It is based on a foto in a newspaper article from 1939, more than 70 years ago. The newspaper does not exist anymore. Gorilla (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If you were not the photographer of the newspaper photo, then you are not the author -- we need a license from the copyright owner (not the person who simply copies it) if the copyright still exists. It may be anonymous, but copyright has a nasty habit of lasting a really long time -- the U.S. will last 95 years from publication, so a 1939 photo could easily be under copyright until 2035. And some copyrights can last much longer still. Now... it is possible that it has become public domain, but we'd have to show why, and add a copyright tag. Looking at the cache, it was a German newspaper photo from 1939, with no photographer listed. If the person died in 1932, the photo was obviously from earlier. But, if it was first published in 1939, it became PD in Germany at some point, then was restored to 70 years from publication in 1995, then expired again in 2010. For the U.S., it was likely PD immediately on publication, then would have been restored to 95 years from publication in 1996, and would still be copyrighted. That would qualify for {{PD-anon-70-EU}} tag, but it would also be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. If it was first published before 1926 though, it would likely be OK in both countries. Do we know when the photo was from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Few thoughts:
  • Age of the photograph: Carl Bentzin 1862 - 1932. The photograph of him seems to be ~ 50-60 years old. Seems, not IS.
  • Date of publication: Bentzin was a camera manufacturer who worked with Zeiss, Busch, Voigtländer. It seems one can safely assume that the photograph was published right around the date of creation.
I restored the photo temporarily after notifiying the DE-wiki and EN-wiki photo portals. Maybe we can keep the photograph. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
little thoughts
Benzin died 1932, in the photo he seems to be rather old, say at least 60. By that the unknown photographer took the portrait in about 1922. If the photographer was at that time about 30, he died after a "normal" life of 70 years about 1960, if 40 than 1950.
make the unknown known, or explain why the unknown was born before 1947-70=1877.
my 2 cents. --Goesseln (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I won't close this, because I originally deleted the file, but just from this discussion, I'd say that we can't restore this. A photo potentially from the 1920s is too new to assume to be PD. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't have enough information to confirm that the original photo is PD. Undeletion denied (and file deleted) per Commons:PRP. Ruthven (msg) 22:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:The Old Rectory Little Bookham 2001 (2).jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwoodham (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This request was started with the following edit comment: I think the explanation for removal was that this was an old photograph, and not a modern one as labelled, but I did in fact take this photo on the stated date. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This image is so small (218 x 134px) that it is not useful for any purpose. I assume this is a scan of a paper photograph. The easiest way to have it restored is to scan it again and upload it again using the same file name in a much larger size. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Portraits Gallerists Philomene Magers 2013 Copyright.jpg

Hello, The following file Portraits Gallerists Philomene Magers 2013 Copyright.jpg was deleted stating that it does not have permissions from the author but the photograph is a personal photograph from person whose the wiki page Philomene Magers has requested use of. Is it possible to have the picture undeleted because there is no need for permissions? Thank you so much!

Portraits_Gallerists_Philomene_Magers_2013_Copyright.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fork and spoon (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes, David Hanes Fork and spoon (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a photo of de:Philomene Magers by photographer Graeme Vaughan published here. The photographer should use the process outlined at Commons:OTRS to verify that he wish to CC license the photo. Thuresson (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Satoshi Shima 2015-12-14.jpg

This image is my work which I photographed Japanese former House of Representatives member Shima Satoshi in 14 December 2015. There is the same image on the homepage I manage, but I added CCBY there. http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/619 --さかきばらたいら (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: License tag present in the website. Image restored, please provide a category for the image, thank you. Ruthven (msg) 22:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dr. Marcel Gerds bei einer Veranstaltung.jpg

The picture is indeed my own work. I can provide the original if needed. Please undelete. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaesch (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Aerial Herzogenaurach Adidas Headquarters.jpg

I see no point why aerial pictures are not covered by german panoramic freedom. The only given point would be if it would violate the private sphere of somebody, what was clearly not given in that photo. We would have to delete every german aerial picture in the Wikimedia Commons then. I have a few dozen Aerial Pictures up at the Wikimedia Commons and if i don't get a clear position whether to keep or delete i might better delete all of them. Nicohofmann (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As it says at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany:

"It is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG.

Unless you can provide good evidence to the contrary, that will remain the basis for Commons understanding of the issue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion,. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:TWTF POSTER-RGB-small v003.jpg

Copyright for this file is owned by the uploader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidmun (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim: we have no way to verify that the user is the copyright holder, we need OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 22:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ted climbing Lhotse.jpg

Ted Atkins supplied me with this image for the Wikipedia page. --Lewisalleghe (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Lewis Atkins, 12.01.17

 Oppose There are several problems with this image. First, Atkins is obviously not the photographer, so it is unlikely that he has the right to freely license it. Second, "for the Wikipedia page" is insufficient permission. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use anywhere. In order to restore this, the actual photographer must send a free lciense using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as Jim said. Ruthven (msg) 22:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An aggressive interpretation of copyright policies has led to this file to be twice deleted though the deletion grounds on wrong basis. It's erroneusly assumed that the work is copyrightable in the USA whereas it has never been granted any copyright protection in its home country, Switzerland. It goes beyond the URAA where the USA extended on their jurisdiction the duration of an author's rights that in the country of origin had expired - yet had existed, i.e. non artistic Italian photographs which were copyrighted all over the world for the first 20 years since their publishing that the USA still protect though in Italy and in the rest of the world they are in Public Domain. In this case there's nothing to extend because the photograph was declared inelegible for any protection in the country of its origin thus ipso facto free of any burden. One cannot protect a right that has never existed. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This has been deleted and undeleted several times in the past, because of differing views. This alone should be reason enough not to restore this image on COM:PRP grounds. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me but this is not an explanation but a tautology. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that it is clear that a variety of editors disagreed about the image suggests strongly that COM:PRP must apply.
 OpposeI don't think your reasoning is sound. The fact that the image does not have a copyright in Switzerland is relevant only if it was not published elsewhere. The situation is similar to Afghan images before Afghanistan enacted its copyright law -- publication outside of Afghanistan created a copyright and made that country the country of origin for Commons purposes. We may not know where this was first published outside of Switzerland, but since it is on the Web, we know that it has been published somewhere, and since it is a 1997 image, we know that it cannot be PD in whatever country that was. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes Jim but in the case of the Swiss photograph, a law already existed and a court ruled that the photograph didn't meet the mininum criteria stated by law to be copyrightable. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
<post-script rant>Anyway this matter is becoming lesser and lesser sustainable.
The USA have unilateraly decided that their laws must protect something that is no longer protected even in its country of origin. That's a dangerous - not to mention frustrating, too - interference with foreign copyright acts especially in times where a media can be hosted virtually everywhere.
There are lots of photos in public domain according to the Italian law (that is, any non artistic photo without copyright notice produced and released in Italy before 31 December 1996 to date) that the U.S. law and them only don't recognize as such. Because of this, a whole ocean of possible knowledge is discarded.</rant>
US courts should be ruling on US law, because US law schools teach US law and US courts are familiar with US law. Having US courts rule on a law foreign to them in a language foreign to them is a recipe for unpredictable rulings and requiring lawyers in multiple nations even for simple questions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not a URAA issue. Per the UCC, "Published works of nationals of any Contracting State and works first published in that State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to works of its nationals first published in its own territory, as well as the protection specially granted by this Convention." The Swiss court case, therefore, simply doesn't matter; the United States affords the photo copyright protection as if it had been first published in the United States (where it would only be expected to be eligible for copyright protection). This is a concept adjudicated in Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. (toy first published in Japan by Japanese national copyrightable in United States despite being considered a useful article, and therefore ineligible for copyright, in Japan). This was explained in both DRs [11] [12], ignored in the request here but, bizarrely, acknowledged in the rant ("the USA have unilateraly (sic) decided that their laws must protect something that is no longer protected even in its country of origin" [13]) That is, of course, nonsense; in addition to ignoring the UCC and Hasbro case: 1) Switzerland is a signatory to the UCC (both Geneva and Paris) - this is not unilateral action; 2) The United States' position does not impact Swiss treatment - this is not "interference with foreign copyright acts" (it is, if anything, respecting one - again, Switzerland is a party to the UCC); and 3) We cannot host the image based on our own voluntary restrictions, which do not preclude hosting, publication, or usage anywhere but WMF servers - nothing, let alone "a whole ocean of possible knowledge," is discarded. Эlcobbola talk 19:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    the same protection as that other State accords to works of its nationals first published in its own territory. Indeed. But Switzerland DOES NOT protect it. Am I missing something? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes. "Other State" refers to the United States in this instance. Substitute actual nations if the English is confusing. For example: "Published works of [Swiss nationals] and works first published in [Switzerland] shall enjoy in [The United States] the same protection as [the United States] accords to works of its nationals first published in its own territory." Эlcobbola talk 19:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)*
    What Elcobbola try to explain is that, Italy accept (in the UCC) that USA protect the work in the same way as if it was first published in USA. The work has a copyright statut in Italy (PD), a puplication there is indeed in PD, but as soon it is published in USA, it has the same copyright protection that if it was another works from USA. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: no consensus for undeletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ph seal rizal.png

and

belong to Category:PD-PhilippinesGov {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} 77.180.65.223 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It is well established that while blazons (text descriptions) of seals do not generally have copyrights, individual representations of seals drawn from those blazons do have copyrights. These do not have an source, author, or date and therefore it is impossible to determine their copyright status. These are probably under copyright belonging to the artist who drew them. It is up to you to prove that they are actually PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lepo.jpg

This is my original art. --Elimnator (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me see the image, so I can tell you. --Elimnator (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If this is your original art, then it is out of scope, as we don;t keep original art from non-notable artists. If not, then it is a copyvio, which we also don;t keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

File was moved to File:Liopleurodon (CGI).jpg before deletion.  Oppose, out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I think "my original art" was merely an unfortunate phrasing for "I am the author." Indeed, this is not art in a "decorative" sense (which is what we don't host when by non-notable authors), but a CGI render of a Liopleurodon, an extinct reptile. I actually think this is unambiguously in scope, in precisely the same way as File:Liopleurodon BW.jpg is in scope. The question at issue here is one of copyright - whether Elimnator is the author of the render. Эlcobbola talk 19:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider this low-quality, non-scientific rendering is in scope. If this was created by or with the help of reputable sources, this would be different. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: nothing more to be said. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CSDB logo.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I don't understand why this image was deleted. I am the author who created this image and I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. In the deletion log, it is said: global usage. I don;'t understand what it means. The page "Global usage for "File:CSDB logo.gif"" does not list anything. The image (logo) is used on the website of the project described by the Wikipedia article. The project is NOT an organization, and media used on its webpage do not belong to it. All these media were created by myself. By uploading to Wikimedia Commons I transfered my copyright (which might or might not exist). Toux (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything unclear about the instructions at your talk page that you received from the administrator who deleted the file? Thuresson (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is indeed your own image, the files can be restored through the process outlined at COM:OTRS. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: everything said. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Panamericana 97.png

Buenos días, te pido que no borres este archivo, fue creado por mí para cumplir los derechos de autor, gracias. --Mañu Martinez (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Mañu Martinez--Mañu Martinez (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Do not upload this file again. Uploading a deleted file a second time is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked.
This is the logo of a television station. In order to restore it to Commons, an authorized official of the station must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Janna_QX_Gay_Gaalassa_2014.jpg

This is not a copyright violation as I as a producer of the event have the permission of the photographer to use the picture.

 Not done: see other UDR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Krista_Kosonen_juontamassa_2014_QX_Gay_Gaalaa.jpg

This is not a copyright violation as I as a producer of the event have the permission of the photographer to use the picture.

 Not done: see other UDR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Elias_Koskimies.jpg

This is not a copyright violation as I as a producer of the event have the permission of the photographer to use the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smontell (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose- You may have the permission to use the image but I am not sure you have the permission to release the image under a free license. Wikicology (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: see other UDR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Krista_Kosonen_ja_Jenni_Vartiainen_ja_Kansallisbaletin_miestanssijat_QX_Gay_Gaalan_avausnumerossa_2014.jpg

This is not a copyright violation as I as a producer of the event have the permission of the photographer to use the picture.

 Oppose- You may have the permission to use the image but I am not sure you have the permission to release the image under a free license. Wikicology (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: see other UDR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CHRISTIAN.jpg

I'm Christian Spaggiari, the photo is mine and portrays me . The copyright is mine. Please publish the picture.

--Arzilabab (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Christian Spaggiari 14/01/2017--Arzilabab (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The photographer should verify the copyright status by following the procedure outlined at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: the image can be found previously published, now the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Cover of the european single of Michael Jackson's song "Smooth Criminal".jpg

The image was taken from the Discogs site, there when placing an image for a CD or product, you have to accept that the image will be under the license of not being copyrighted, in any case my request can be canceled if I am not in it right.--Adrián Castañeda (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Adrián Castañeda

At discogs.com anybody who register with the web site can upload any record cover. Did Sony Records upload this cover? Thuresson (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose As far as I can see, Discogs is happy to accept copyrighted material from anyone. Eleven contributors are named for this title, none of which look like they hold the copyright. We cannot keep it without a license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: As stated abouve, we would require COM:EVIDENCE that Sony (if copyright holders) has released it. This COM:PERMISSION is not avalible at the discogs' site. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Joe Goldman Headshot.jpg

 Oppose Goldman is, apparently, notable, see Maple Match. However, owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph and having the right to freely license it are two very different things. The latter right almost always belongs to the photographer. In order to restore this to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.
The remarks above tell me that User:Maplejoe is, in fact, Joe Goldman. IF that is correct, Goldman is in violation of WMF policy on Conflict of Interest. At a bare minimum he must declare his conflict on his user page both here and at WP:EN and stop making edits to his article at WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We need a written permission from the copyright holder as explained in COM:OTRS. Copyright is most likely held by the original photographer. Otherwise we need a copy of the agreement that transfered the copyright to Joe Goldman. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Vuoden_elokuvan_I%27ve_Only_Just_Begun_näyttelijöitä..jpg

This is not a copyright violation as I as a producer of the event have the permission of the photographer to use the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smontell (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose- You may have the permission to use the image but I am not sure you have the permission to release the image under a free license. Wikicology (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Same for all your other undeletion requests. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The right of use does not automatically equal copyright which is required to grant free licenses. De728631 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Files coming from USA politicians official Facebook accounts

Yesterday, I deleted some images uploaded Pvmoutside, those files were tagged by Secondarywaltz for speedy deletion with the rationale "Marking as possible copyvio because Source given is Facebook © 2017", I also deleted a few images uploaded by the user but not tagged by Secondarywaltz.


Then the user wrote a message on my talk page, giving me the links of similar files [14], therefore, in the same way that above, I speedy deleted the files linked + also the other similar files of the concerned users. Those files are :


Deleted files uploaded by Dominik1509
  • I think this is all the files deleted in this way by me (only by me, I've not linked files deleted by someone else), and all yesterday, I don't think I forgot a file but if yes then I'm sorry. I ask the opinion of other experimented users on how to deal exaclty with this content. And for who will said that a DR was more appropriate, in the absolute yes but I tend to disagree, I hesitate a bit before to delete, but I chose voluntarily to speedy delete to put the discussion on the front of the stage, or on the table if you prefer, because I think this kind of content will multiply. And a DR would have maybe closed without even a begining of discussion. And as you can see in this talk page we don't have yet a proper closure appeal. If there is a consensus to not delete such "official photos" even when coming from non free social media, then an explanatory template have to be created and must be placed on the files page ("Although this file comes from Facebook, it have been decided in this discussion that the files are considered in PD because this, that, ect, ect...."). A link alone to facebook is not enough for an administrator to judge on his own if the file is in PD. This have to be a clear comunity consensus in a way or in another and I will follow with pleasure this consensus.


I did not hear from near or far about a Commons policy nor about a USA law that say "The content published in an official account of an American politician is considered to be wholly produced by government employees, and therefore is totally in Public Domain", nor I did not hear about a Commons policy nor about a USA law that say "All photos of USA politicians taken with a USA flag in background are mandatory taken by a photographer who is also a government employee, therefore sush photos are in Public Domain".
A user on my talk page said to me that the metadata of the deleted files could contains, the name of the photographer and/or a statment about the origin of the photo, i'm of course not opposed that the files be temporary undeleted to check this or for other reasons. Nor I'm opposed to a restoration if there is a consensus to do so. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If there was no source there should be a DR for likely PD USA federal media, this is no different. If I mass imported 200 years old illuminated manuscripts from Facebook, it was be crazy to see speedies 'because Facebook'. Engage commonsense and remove finger from the speedy trigger. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For non administrators, as exemple, this file is a survivor, as I only deleted the redirect. What is the evidence the photographer is a government employee and not a proffessional chosen by the politician? The link to facebook is not enough to determine that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you Fæ regarding the 200 years old files, they can be considered obviously in PD, however, in the exemple above I see nothing obvious. If an excepetion have to be done by administrators regarding files coming from official accounts of USA politicians that should be written somewhere, to help the administrators. The consensus that hangs in the air are not consensus but habits, and some habits are not necessarily good. The administors are not ultra-visioning to guess. Hence my suggestion to create a kind of template for such content, if this content is indeed accepted here. This could help the next administrators not aware of the old habits to to not do the same thing as me, this could help to point relevant the discussion/consensus, to categorize all the file in this kind of categories e.g. Category:PD US Government coming from non-free social-media, and to allow, for the potential next discussion/deletion request to discuss around the template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
quick exemple of template

User:Christian Ferrer/templatePDFacebook


Note I don't necessarily support the creation of such template, nor to restore the files, I just try to explore solutions on how to to deal generally with this kind of content. Another solution could be to write a note there on how to deal with such content, whatever is the result of this discussion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note also that, although I will follow the flow of this discussion with interest, I will try now to stand back from this discussion. I'm not opposed, nor I support, a temporary undeletion, a full undeletion, an undeltion + nomination for regular deletion, or that the files stay deleted. I put it in the hands of my colleagues and I will respect the decision(s). And I will try, as far as possible, to adapt my future administrative actions/decisions according to the result. I will be available for any questions. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The proper course of action should not have been to immediately delete the photos. As such, they should be un-deleted, and where there is a source from house.gov available it should be added, where there is metadata that provides evidence that can be used as well. My guess is that the bioguide.congress.gov, provided by the Congress, may also have some lower resolution versions of the same portraits which could be used as a source. But the immense disruption caused by the premature deletion of very obvious official government images is very negatively effecting the English Wikipedia, and needs to be overturned as soon as possible. Gage (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      • In regards to the photo that User Christian Ferrer "spared," it literally took me about three clicks on roberts.senate.gov to find the official photo that was originally sourced to Facebook, and then change the link. That's what should have been done, not mass deletion with no discussion. Gage (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I strongly agree with Gage. Most, if not all, of the affected files can be found on the official Congressional website, or on dems.gov or gop.gov. It was highly inconvenient to delete such a large amount of files which were being used on a high number of pages, the vast majority of which could have been found on the Representative's homepage and easily proven to be in the public domain. MB298 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support Christian and I had an e-mail discussion about this issue before these deletions. I agree with him that we cannot assume that "official" portrait photographs are actually taken by government employees. Most politicians are sufficiently vain so that they want the best possible photograph for their official use and, with all due respect to government photographers, really good portrait photographers work privately and charge accordingly. While these are oil paintings, not photographs, the same issue arises and there are five presidents whose "official" portrait we cannot keep on Commons. President Obama's portrait will probably join the list when it comes out.

MB298's comment:

"...the vast majority of which could have been found on the Representative's homepage and easily proven to be in the public domain."

is off base. The fact that an image appears on a politician's "official" page, even if that page is on a Federal web site, does not prove that it was taken by a Federal employee. All of the paintings cited above appear on "official" web pages.

With that said, when Christian told me that he speedied a group of these, I knew at once that it was a problem. Although it is going to be a royal nuisance, I think these probably ought to be taken one at a time, hence my "support" flag above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Files have been restored, closing this here. (Thanks to everyone involved!). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:HelenWilsonMaths cornwallphoto.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Not a copyright violation. I am the owner of this file (which is a photo of me taken on my camera) and I am granting all permissions. HelenJWilson (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Beside the fact that you should not edit an article about yourself, this is a very small photo and the article en:Helen Wilson (mathematician) has a much larger photo of better quality. Thuresson (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Also, unless this is a selfie, you do not own the right to freely license the image -- that right belongs to the photographer even if the image was taken with your camera. Also, I suggest you read and comply with WP:COI both here and on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for reasons explained by Thuresson and Jim. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:La Miranda-Proyecto.png

Ticket#2017010410016237

Ticket#2017010410016344

Ticket#2017010410016344

Ticket#2017010410016344

Ticket#2017010410016344

Ticket#2017010410016344

Dear Wikimedia Commons collaborators: I've sent the permssion form and received the Ticket#2017010310014213 about this file. So I beg you please restore it. Yours sincerely --M.andruet (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait for the OTRS emails to be processed. Once these permissions have been found to be valid, the files will be restored but this may take several weeks. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tranvía eléctrico de Guadalajara 1905-1940.jpg Undeletion request

Dear Sir or Madam

I uploaded the fileTranvía eléctrico de Guadalajara 1905-1940.jpg for the wikipedia in Spanish, because I believe it is an ancient material of public domain. The author of this graphic was the company Luz y Fuerza de Guadalajara, S.A. that does not exist anymore, and the current publisher of this bitmap does not state ownership nor privatization of it; and therefore I uploaded it with the option "I'm not sure" in wikimedia commons. I would like you to reconsider allow the visualization of such image in the corresponding wiki.

Thank you. Carmanpaco (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose 1940 is nothing like "ancient" for copyright. In fact, the Spanish law at the time called for a copyright lasting 80 years after the death of the author or for 80 years after publication in the case of an anonymous work. If it was drawn by a young person, it could be under copyright until 2100, and is clearly under copyright now.

The fact that the company no longer exists is irrelevant. It is possible that its copyrights are now owned by a successor, but even if that is not the case, we do not keep orphan works that are still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

    • Good point, but Mexico appear to have even stricter laws in this area. Thuresson (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      •  Support The currently very strict rules in Mexico are not retroactive. In Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico it can also be seen that the first major copyright extension in Mexico was introduced in 1928. Before that, i. e. in 1905 when this map was published, the copyright term was "the time it takes for the work to be published and for one additional year" if published by an individual, and "works published by corporations shall be of their property for ten years, once this period expires, anyone shall have the right to publish them." [15]. So even if the 1928 extension had been retroactive, copyright for this image would have expired in 1935. De728631 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support Per De728631's. Is the information provided by him already available in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico? If not, it should --Discasto talk 09:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
We should also adjust {{PD-Mexico}} because anything that was published in MX before 1928 is now effectively out of copyright. Moreover, the claim that government works published more than 100 years ago are PD is not exhaustive. In the 1928 copyright act, the Mexican government was still not entitled to any copyright and the modern 100-years term is not retroactive either. So we need to find out when the copyright for government works was first introduced and calculate the proper term. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support Apologies for getting the country wrong. Although Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico#Anonymous works is not very clear, this appears to be OK, both because it appears to be a 1905 publication (not the 1940 in the file name) and because the term was much shorter then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. Please license as appropriate (this was uploaded without a license, which contributed to the reason for its deletion.). --Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File: Álvaro_Suárez_Vértiz.pdf

ftpmirror.your.org/pub/wikimedia/images/wikipedia/.../Álvaro_Suárez_Vértiz.pdf Deseo que eliminen este archivo pdf porque soy el autor del pdf y tiene errores de redacción y diagramado. --Alvro8 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Alvro8 14 de enero de 2017

 Comment The subject PDF was deleted in 2014 for being in the wrong format and the fact that the subject is not notable. What, exactly, do you want us to do now? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: "Deseo que eliminen este archivo pdf" ("I want you to delete this pdf file") is a nonsensical request; this file is already deleted. --Эlcobbola talk 16:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CELAG logo.png

The deleted image is the official logo of the CELAG (Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica) I uploaded and used it in Wikipedia with the permission from Alfredo Serrano, the current Director of the organization, who provided me with the PNG. They agreed to put their logo under a Creative Commons license so it could be used freely.--EneasMx (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

An authorized representative of CELAG can send this permission in writing using the procedure outlined at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We need permission directly from the copyright holder. This is either the original artist or CELAG if the copyright was transferred to them. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Main page.jpg Main page.jpg файлы удалены неправильно. Прошу восстановить.

Это страницы моего сайта, который я сам разработал. прошу восстановить файлы. Спасибо. {{translation|This page of my site that I designed myself. I ask to restore files. Thank you.|Google]]

--Memoryal33454567 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Added wiki markup for clarity. Thuresson (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, these are all out of scope. We do not keep personal art or texts from non-notable people. Second, unless you you actually took all the photographs and drew all of the drawings shown on these pages, your claim of "own work" on the files is incorrect. Unless you can get free licenses for all of those works, they cannot be restored to Commons. I also suspect that they violate Com:Advert but I don't read Cyrillic, so I'm not sure of that. I also note that these are your only contributions to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Niklitov

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS No 2017011710008338 Niklitov (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Niklitov: please add the final OTRS templates. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Windows 7 Logos

Please restore the following pages:

New:

Reason: If we have a wide consensus that Microsoft Windows 7 logo is below COM:TOO in the US then please undelete these files as they're not a copyright violation. Please also search in deletion log for other files containing this logo and post them here below as I was unable to search the log. Rezonansowy (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Could someone take a look at this request? Thanks in advance! --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Few of them undeleted, still have doubts concerning few other, so leaving them for sb else decission. The last one is a redirect, unnecessary IMO. Probably some of the undeleted logos shoud be deleted as duplicates. Ankry (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks that you took care of it! I added some new files to request, as they address the same situation and probably can be restored. --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Rezonansowy: Could you please point out where this "wide consensus" was reached? The timeline I see for File:Windows 7 logo and wordmark.svg (log) seems to be:
Rather than consensus, this seems like a tactic of forcing the issue long enough to come across administrators that are either unaware of previous discussions or have enough of an activist stance on what the threshold of originality should be to ignore previous discussions, getting them to restore one file without raising too much attention and then building an "other stuff exists" argument around that decision.
More substantive discussions actually addressing the matter of originality can be found (for example) here:
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@LX: I think you should refer to @Amitie 10g and @INeverCry with this question and for example to this DR. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That is your "wide consensus"? Really? If that's it, then I've already addressed it above.  Oppose further undeletions and  re-delete the restored files. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@LX: this is not "mine", I assumed that there's a consensus if that was present as an argument in this DR mentioned above. And your vote does not clarify this situation. --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, let me clarify: I have, shall we say, limited confidence in Amitie 10g's abilities when it comes to adjudicating community consensus and legal precedent when it comes to matters of threshold of originality. I find the hand-waving in the aforementioned deletion discussion thoroughly unconvincing, and I'd point to more on-point arguments by Stefan4 and Carl Lindberg (aside from my own, which I still stand by) in the more substantial discussions that I already listed. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment @Amitie 10g and INeverCry: Could you have your say on it to clarify this situation? Thanks in advance. --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

partially done (by User:Ankry): No one seems to be willing to undelete the remaining files. I am closing this request. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per OTRS 2016123010006653 . kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 14:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is original, unpublished art, by a non-notable artist. While he has a LinkedIn account and so forth, there is no WP article and no indication on Google of notability. Therefore this work is out of scope..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support if the OTRS ticket is valid. Normally I agree with Jim about works of notable artists. In this particular case, though, it is a high-quality visualization of a work of fiction that is similar to many other depictions of the same subject. Since we will be unable to get "real" depictions of the subject and we are unlikely to get permission to publish images by notable artists, this is the best we will be able to get. Also, this image was widely used on Wikipedias before its deletion, which would make it automatically in-scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose If at all, we should restore File:Un hobbit.jpg for two reasons:
  • It does not have this misleading name. "Hobbit by Tolkien" sounds like Tolkien himself drew the image.
  • It does not have the useless "Hobbit" tag. So it could also be used in Wikipedias with non-Latin alphabets or languages where "Hobbit" was not adopted as the term in the local translation at all (cf. Translations of The Hobbit). De728631 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Sebari -- I had not realized that it was in use. I now  Support restoration, but only if the file name is changed to remove Tolkien's name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that File:Un hobbit.jpg is actually the correct version to undelete, as that is the version uploaded by the author. Could someone with OTRS access confirm. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to see File:Un hobbit.jpg undeleted, given that the rights appear to be cleared. Not how I imagine a hobbit -- a bit too influenced by the movies -- but the elimination of Tolkien's name from the file name is good, in that it is no longer an assertion of matching the author's imagining. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, it's not quite that simple. The OTRS ticket refers to File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg, not the earlier file, and also refers to the writer's nickname as "Tan Khaerr" which is the name on User:Khaerr~commonswiki, who uploaded File:Un hobbit.jpg. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the same person. If we restore the latter, we don't have direct OTRS support. I also don't like the name "Un hobbit" much -- the OTRS ticket is in French, so it makes sense, but unfortunately in English it reads "not-Hobbit".
I suggest we restore File:Un hobbit.jpg, change the name to "File:Hobbit.jpg", add the OTRS ticket to the file and add a note to the OTRS ticket saying that it is the same file as File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 Comment File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg is described by Krol111 as the book cover of "The Hobbit", but I haven't been able to find that edition anywhere. On the other side, from OTRS it appears that File:Un hobbit.jpg has been originally uploaded by its author and is unpublished. --Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored File:Un hobbit.jpg per discussion. @Kvardek du: Can you please add the permission to the file?. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Oobi Grampu Eyes - Hand Puppet Street Art.jpg

Reason: This photograph is of a painted cement sculpture, made to look like a concrete wall, in Digbeth. It was initially nominated for deletion by De728631 and supported by Jameslwoodward, who stated that freedom of panorama was not provided for paintings in the UK. I explained that since the artist created the entire sculpture rather just the painted parts, such a work is covered by freedom of panorama. Both De728631 and Jameslwoodward agreed with my statements and said that they would leave the discussion open to further comments. However, the discussion was closed by Srittau before we could get any additional comments, and Srittau's reasoning for deleting the file was "This is a difficult one. I think there are fair arguments to be made both ways, as has been done in this deletion request. Unfortunately, that means a deletion per COM:PRP." I would normally accept such a rationale, but all of the users involved in the discussion ended up accepting my statements and agreeing with them, so this is much different from a discussion without consensus like Srittau described. Both of the arguments in favor of deletion ended with the users agreeing that the work is covered, so there is no significant doubt about the freedom of the file. --Squiddaddy (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose At the DR, Squiddaddy, says:

"all of his work in Digbeth .... was made by compressing cement 'to give the feeling of a painting on a concrete wall,' decorating it, and then placing the cement sculpture in a publicly-accessible area."

That is a misunderstanding of this artist's work which misled me to want to keep the work. I hasten to say that I don't think that Squiddaddy intended to mislead and while his statement about my support of the DR is correct, I have changed my mind after reviewing the artist's web site.

The artist's web site, www.newso.co.uk says:

"This work is often painted on compressed cement board to give the feeling of a painting on a concrete wall."

Compressed cement board is a standard building material, used mostly in shower and tub enclosures as a substrate for tile. There is no indication that Newso actually creates any of the substrates on which his work is done. Therefore those works are simply paintings, albeit on an unusual substrate and are therefore not included in UK FOP. In this particular case, the substrate is actually an ordinary concrete block wall. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Agreed. Painters routinely make deliberate substrate selections to impart a certain texture or other aesthetic quality to the painting. Such selection--or indeed creation of one's own substrate, if true--does not necessarily render the resulting work sculptural. It seems clear to me that the intended work here is a painting, not a concrete brick wall with a painted face. Perhaps a corollary, relief maps (essentially paintings/prints on a highly and deliberately textured surface) are not considered sculptural works. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: @Elcobbola: You have brought up a fair point. At this point, would it be OK if I contacted Newso via his site's contact form about using the file and then forwarded his response to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? --Squiddaddy (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly Squiddaddy, but note that Newso must send his free license directly to OTRS using the license and information there. OTRS does not accept forwarded material -- unfortunately we have bad actors here who could easily forge a forwarded response. May we assume you are withdrawing this request? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am withdrawing this request. I'll ask Newso to send his response directly to OTRS. --Squiddaddy (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request withdrawn, hopefully we will get permission via OTRS. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Restauración de : File:Microperlas trazado.pdf

Hola,

Veo que se ha borrado un archivo que subí hace unas semanas porque 'se considera que el trabajo puede no ser obra del autor'.

Este ha sido un trabajo académico totalmente creado por mí basándome en datos reales que he volcado en gráficos visuales.

Soy nueva en esta comunidad así que me gustaría un poco más de información acerca de esta situación.

Gracias y saludos,

Andrea. --Agcampal (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hola Andrea, en el fichero hay el simbolo de la licencia Creative Commons — Atribución-CompartirIgual, pero temo que no sea demasiado explícito (falta "Creative Commons" y la versión de la licencia). Te pido de escribir al servicio COM:OTRS confirmando la autorización para publicar el fichero bajo licencia libre. Cuando recibas la respuesta automática del sistema, contactame en mi página de discusión con el número asociado, así que pueda cerrar rapidamente el tema. Gracias --Ruthven (msg) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission request per User:Ruthven. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Coderity_Dashboard.png

According to https://github.com/coderity/app & https://github.com/coderity/example, the thing should be MIT-licensed software screenshot, {{free screenshot|MIT}}. The source has a copyright at the bottom but no "all rights reserved" at the bottom; this is consistent with the MIT license. Pinging @Gabrielchihonglee: as uploader --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are several problems here. First, as outlined at MIT License, the term "MIT License" is ambigous and not a satisfactory license as it stands. Second, the license is fundamentally a software license and is not a good free license for images because it requires a paragraph of text to be printed with it -- which was not included with this upload. Third, it is not clear that this screen shot serves any educational purpose. Coderity has a one sentence article on WP:EN which was placed there today. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Re 1: The license on both of the repositories are [16] and [17] are 3-clause MIT license, or Expat license, consistent with {{MIT}}
  • Re 2: We don't require commons screenshots to include the long GPL text within itself, do we? License text can be added to the file description as the usual process.
  • Re 3: Educational use is a disputed area of argument; and different people have different opinions. COM:EDUSE provides the explanation of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". I don't see how this image is not informative regarding a software. Commons:PS#Discussion discusses the effect of rareness and quality on its value; this image, as far as I see, is not low quality, or common, as it describes "a subject is rare".
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(2) While we don't require license text to be included in the caption, use on a non-WMF web site or in print media would require special handling that, as a practical matter, makes such use impossible.
(3) A screenshot of any software is not particularly useful educationally, except, perhaps, as part of a step by step tutorial. This page is so like competitive products that it doesn't present anything new or informative.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: MIT is a valid license. Coderity has an article on en-wp and is in-scope. This screenshot can represent the software, so I'd consider it in-scope as well. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Capa DLG 4 small.jpg

Please, undelete the file File:Capa DLG 4 small.jpg

Reasons: I (João Máximo) am the author of the file, which is the book cover of a book for which I have all the copyrights.

Please, find the ISBN of the book (978-989-8575-395) in the technical data for the book, at the bottom of the publisher website page: http://www.indexebooks.com/dicionario.html or in the book page of a webstore: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=cCzaAgAAQBAJ https://www.amazon.com/Dicion%C3%A1rio-Literatura-Gay-Portuguese-v%C3%A1rios-ebook/dp/B00IGFRLDA/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1484336816&sr=8-1&keywords=dicion%C3%A1rio+de+literatura&linkCode=ll1&linkId=4479356b314349ddb9e28d4b2f76a6cd (look inside the book)

And confirm in the at APEL, the Portuguese ISBN agency, excel file that the ISBN prefix (978-989-8575) belongs to me (full name: João Luís Coelho Máximo). http://apel.pt/pageview.aspx?pageid=207&langid=1

Best wishes,

Jmx (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we do not know that User:Jmx is actually João Luís Coelho Máximo and we have many fans and vandals who make false statements here, in order to protect your copyright we require that you send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jmx, please note that this is not an outright "no". If you follow our license verification process (that's what Jim means by "OTRS"), giving us proof of a free license, we will have no copyright-based objections. Since freely licensed book covers are routinely useful for educational purposes, we'd normally consider this one to be in our project scope, so I'm confident that we won't have any other objections either. If that's the case, this image will readily be undeleted if you can prove the license status. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If I load it on Flickr under a CC license, would it be acceptable? Jmx (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You may do anything you like on Flickr, but that will not change the file's status here. The problem is that we do not know who User:Jmx actually is, either here or on Flickr, so you could well just be a fan who owns a copy of the book. You prove your identity here using OTRS, as explained there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hitori Murayama 2013-11-14.JPG

This picture was taken on November 14, 2013 at the Tokyo University, targeting Hitoshi Murayama, an excellent mathematical physicist and director of the laboratory in Japan. There is the same image on the homepage I manage, but I added CCBY there. http://taira.poohmie.jp/node/502 --さかきばらたいら (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion rationale: source=https://twitter.com/TairaSakakibara/status/400961578494742528. The quality of the photograph is so low that there is no reuse possible ⇒  Oppose, even if the copyright question can be cleared up. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My image has poor resolution, but his image already in the commons is a very young picture and it will be greatly different from the current figure. I think that this picture of me is the best.

  •  Comment As you said, my image has poor resolution, but his image already is a very young picture and it will be greatly different from the current figure. I think that this picture of me is the best.I think that my picture is the best.--さかきばらたいら (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Aside from the copyright issue, the image is so poor as to be unusable.
Also, you say "I think that this picture of me is the best". If you are in fact the subject, then the "own work" claim is not true and the statement above ("This picture was taken") is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. You also say, "There is the same image on the homepage I manage" which further implies that you are either the subject or someone close to him. If that is the case, you should read the statement of the Wikimedia Foundation's Conflict of Interest policy at WP:EN and not do anything else on any WMF project until you have disclosed your conflict on your talk page here and on any Wikipedia where you edit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a crop from a previously published image (I'm getting an "access is denied" (アクセスは拒否されました) error for the purported CC-by link in the request). COM:OTRS requires additional evidence of permission. The scope concern is also valid; even if this is a "very young picture," it seems of irredeemably poor quality. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Copyright vio Judgement Copying films directed by Chaplin 2007 jp.pdf

I uploaded it and soon requested for deletion myself, but that was my hasty decision. The document only contains judgement and verdicts. They are in the public domain in Japan (Template:PD-Japan-exempt). Also, the identical document is published on an official site held by the Court of Japan (see the source in file description). Defendant's postal address was already omitted, it only includes companies' city address, name and lawyers' name, so I think it won't cause the privacy violation. The document is significant for providing a case that deal with Japan copyright law. Thank you. Darklanlan (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't generally host legal decisions, no matter how important the case. There are perfectly adequate external sources for them in all major countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Dana Rosendorff, actress

This file was taken from IMDB, a public forum, free-ly used worldwide website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovatloraine321 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright violation from Getty Images. Yann (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose. That's not at all how copyright works. The act of publishing a work does not grant others the right to redistribute it. Content on IMDB is not free. You cannot upload non-free content grabbed from the Internet to Commons. You cannot make up patently false licensing claims. You cannot claim to be the author of someone else's work. All of those things constitute copyright infringement and are illegal. You need to read Commons:Project scope/Summary before attempting to upload anything else to Commons, or you will be blocked to protect Commons and yourself from your illegal actions. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per LX and Yann. The content on IMDB may be free to access but it is still copyrighted and not free to re-use. De728631 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Rolf H.

Please undelete:

Reason: The Wikimedia community has decided in previous requests about copyrighted artworks in aircraft liveries (Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet - Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg) that those files where the whole aircraft is depicted should not be deleted, as 'de minimis' or even 'incidental' is applicable. None of the images where focused on the logo (OO-SNA) or Tintin (OO-SNB), but on the whole aircraft. Moreover, according to airport codes on the file names I'm seeing, some of those deleted images were taken in countries where the FoP is applicable. --Dura-Ace (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support undeletion, on the grounds that the livery is incidental... you cannot photograph the entirety of the aircraft (a utilitarian object) without photographing the livery (see the cases cited by Carl at the 4X-AHC DR, specifically Latimer). These are not 'generic' vehicles (random cars, for example) with a paint job that is being photographed for the purpose of showing the art, but instead photos taken of 'specific aircraft' (tail numbers) to illustrate the aircraft themselves.... there is a compelling interest in having a collection of images of as many specific aircraft as possible (in case of a later accident), and the photos would be desirable regardless of the livery. The aviation photographers who take such images tend to sit a particular location and take images of 'every' aircraft that passes... the point of such photography is not the livery. - Reventtalk 19:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support per Revent. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose There are many images that we would like to have on Commons, but cannot because of copyrights. Arguing that we need these images to have an image of every aircraft does not get around the fact that the entire fuselage of both aircraft are covered with copyrighted images. This argument is also substantially weakened by the fact that we five images of OO-SNB without the Tintin livery, see Category:OO-SNB (aircraft) and seven images of OO-SNA without the Red Devils livery, see Category:OO-SNA (aircraft).
I also note that two of the DRs cited above were closed out of process by non-Admins.
Dura-Ace, unless an aircraft is on permanent display in a museum, FOP cannot apply.
Finally, we regularly delete images of buses, trucks, trains, and buildings that have similar copyrighted material on them, including Tintin, -- why are aircraft different? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: The DRs were closed by Jdforrester, Yann, and O. The first two are current admins, and O was an admin when he closed the second "Pokemon" case back in 2008. So, no, not out of process. - Reventtalk 20:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected, sorry -- I shouldn't have raised it at all. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: The way the Freedom of Panorama is applied in your country does not imply that is the way it should be applied in other countries. You should take a look on how FoP applies at Israel, Portugal, Spain or the United Kingdom.--Dura-Ace (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well let's see:
  • Israel -- FOP does not apply to paintings
  • Portugal -- requires that the creator's name be given.
  • Spain -- applies only "en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas"
  • UK -- does not apply to paintings
And, of course, in all of them, the work must be permanently installed in a public place. The definition of "public place" varies widely from country to country, but the definition of "permanently installed" would not apply to an airplane in airline service in any country except, perhaps, Mexico -- the statute there is vague and there is little or no case law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see in the Pokemon's DR linked above a few images deleted, they were by me, after this discussion, where the case court exmple provided by Carl was about a unique vehicule, a vehicle not yet produced in large series, I mean the first of the serie. And there were no other ways to take the photo of the vehicule than to take the drawing in photo at the same time. The categories linked above by Jim shows that it's far from to be the case here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I think I see some 'misapprehensions' show up in these discussions, such as people mentioning 'de minimis'. Artwork on an airplane, in a photo of that airplane, cannot be de minimis... it was deliberately placed on the plane by the company, and it's inclusion is unavoidable if you take a photo of the entire plane. It matters not how much of the plane is covered by the artwork, or how 'fancy' it is. The arguments that apply toward deleting these images apply just as strongly toward something like File:JA8169 1 B747-245B(F) JAL Cargo NRT 09JUL01 (6896203818).jpg.... and yes, despite that we have copies of the JAL 'bird' logo on Commons, it is in fact still copyrighted (it was designed in 1958, published in Japan, and the designer - Jerry Huff - was still alive as recently as five years ago). The copyrighted work is prominently visible, and rather obviously not de minimis. Yet, I think most people here would argue that the image should 'obviously' be kept, and yet apply a different standard when it's 'art' on the plane, instead of a logo. It matters not... copyrightability is not dependent on the 'artistic merit' or the 'effort involved'.

An airplane is, in and of itself, an uncopyrightable utilitarian object. If you are taking a photo of that 'utilitarian object', then what it painted on it becomes incidental. Items like cars are indistinguishable... if you take a photo of one with a fancy paint job, you are rather obviously taking a photo 'of' that particular car because of the paint job, and so it's not incidental. Airplanes are not 'indistinguishable', they have distinct registration numbers and histories, and a photo of 'this' 747 is not the same as a photo of 'that' 747, regardless of the paint job. You cannot go out and take a photo of OO-SNB, an uncopyrightable utilitarian object, today, without being forced to include the artwork that is painted on it. It matters not, legally, if you 'could have' taken a photo of it a few years ago... that concept of 'replacability' is an enwiki creation, copyright law only cares about 'the work at hand'. As long as you are taking a photo of 'the plane itself', the artwork (while still copyrighted) is incidental, and so the photo is not copyright infringement. If you were to isolate the art, instead of taking a photo 'of the utilitarian object', it would be.

If we are going to delete images like these, then we should delete any image of a plane that includes copyrightable elements in it's paint scheme, no matter how artistic they are, or how much of the plane they cover, because they cannot be de minimis (as I said, they were put on the plane 'on purpose'), and to do otherwise is to enforce some arbitrary self-created standard based on how 'significant' we think the copyrighted work is, that does not exist in copyright law. That would, frankly, include many, if not most, of the images of airliners on Commons. - Reventtalk 23:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment If you are right we should mostly stop deleting objects with the "packaging" rationale, because with have only photos 'utilitarian objects' with an incidental artistic design on it. In case of airplanes I think there is a difference between a fresco that covers an entire airplane or a big part of it, and with a logo which covers less than 2 or 3% of the surface. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: The main 'function' of most packaging is merely to display the material printed on it... and, in many cases, to take up sufficient shelf space so as to give the product increased visibility. The 'shape' of the packaging itself serves no real utilitarian purpose... this, or a box with the same art, or a plain box that just said 'Oreos' would all serve to contain the cookies, but a major 'purpose' of product packaging is to display the artwork... this is not true for an airplane, where the shape is mandated by physical factors and the livery is purely decorative. A grey box that said "Oreos" would not sell as well, but an unpainted aluminum airplane would carry just as many passengers, just as efficiently... it would simply be ugly, but people do not choose what airline they travel on based on how pretty the planes are. The livery is merely 'applied art', and if the intended subject of the image is the underlying utilitarian object then the artwork is then incidental.
I 'believe' this argument is correct, based largely on that there has, to my knowledge, never been a successful legal challenge to the use of such photos, despite their widespread use. However, it's quite clear that in a 'legal sense', the JAL logo is no different than the Pokemon... neither can be de minimis, since they were deliberately applied to the aircraft and the photos deliberately include them both; and both are copyrighted. If one is infringement, then the other is for the exact same reason. Arguments for or against 'de minimis' based on the 'physical extent' to which the copyrighted material is used are simply misguided.... if it's not 'de minimis', taking the photo from twice as far away will not make it so.
What is important here, in my opinion, is not that were restore these specific images, or keep them deleted... it is that we do not impose some arbitrary value judgement based on what copyrightable material is 'significant' or 'artistic' enough, and what is not. Such distinctions do not exist in copyright law. If we choose to remove images of utilitarian objects that are decorated with copyrighted material, then it should be on the basis of a significant doubt in the argument I've laid out here, and we should do it consistently. I do not think we would be wrong to 'keep' such images, and if we delete them we will clearly not be violating any copyrights by doing so, but creating some in-between standard for what we do and do not keep would be purely artificial. - Reventtalk 09:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your vision, the main prupose of a cookies package is to carry cookies, the artistic design on it is not necessary for its containing fonction. As well as the fresco on an airplane is purely artistic and/or promotional and had nothing to do with the vehicule carrier fonction. Our policies are quite clear, and exactly in the same way for both packagings and vehicles, see [18]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: A plastic bag, or a paper bag, or a box, would all serve the merely utilitarian purpose of 'holding cookies' just as well. The physical design of packaging is not based on the purely utilitarian aspects of 'holding stuff', but is chosen for the purpose of portraying a desired impression about the quality or characteristics of the enclosed product. Oreos have a fancier packaging design than Target's generic version for exactly that reason, regardless of what is printed on the outside.
In the case of an airliner, however, the design of the underlying physical object is completely utilitarian... the physical design of the exterior of a 747 is dictated purely by the consideration of arbitrary physical factors. They all look the same when they leave the factory. The 'livery design' is copyrightable, yes, but it is 'applied art' that serves purely as decoration. It's inclusion, when taking a photo of the underlying uncopyrightable utilitarian object, is 'incidental'. - Reventtalk 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. A tail logo is usually de minimis in a photograph of a whole plane, so we can legitimately keep photos that show only a tail logo without debating the question of whether any particular tail log is below the ToO. If we choose to keep these, we are deliberately choosing to keep planes that are painted all over with copyrighted material when we have other perfectly good images of exactly the same planes that do not have the copyrighted material. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Revent made a compelling argument that each plane is different. That's the difference with decorated cars and packaging. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? How are two planes with different registration numbers somehow different from two cars, also with different registration numbers? And, as I have pointed out above, we already have images of both of these planes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Frankly, I struggle to see how a copyrighted work, placed on the tail of an aircraft, is fundamentally different from a different copyrighted work, placed on the side. The 'entirety' of the livery design of an airliner is a copyrightable work 'as a whole'. The design might be simple (the JAL plane) or complex (the Pokemon plane), but unless the plane is simply painted a single color then there was copyrightable originality involved in the creation of the design. A photo of an airliner, as a whole, displays any one 'livery design' to the same degree that it displays 'any other'. Copyright law does not judge how complex or artistic the work is, it only cares about 'original human creativity'. No one is any 'more' de minimis than any other... the liveries are in all cases prominently and intentionally visible. The only 'defense' that lets us use such images is the rationale expressed in Latimer v. Roaring Toyz... that the inclusion of the copyrighted livery is incidental to a depiction of the underlying utilitarian object. This applies equally well to Pokemon, or JAL...the liveries intentionally and prominently display copyrighted works as part of an original design. - Reventtalk 03:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Revent let me answer this for you. Jameslwoodward, it's really quite simple. If we wanted a photo of an ACT Airlines Boeing 747-400F to illustrate a book on the history of the company, having this photo of TC-MCT is a lot different to only having access to this photo of TC-MCL.

Jim will you be deleting all BA Landor liveries next?

Perhaps it's not known to you but this entire livery is the creation of Landor. It's NOT just the tail. This work of art is the tail, it's the blue underbelly, it's the red cheatline, it's the white top, it's the positioning of the British Airways namemark.

Or how about Air India?

It's not just the tail. It's the cheatline. It's the little palace window at every aircraft window spot. It's the choice of white, red and metal grey colours. The whole thing is a work of art!

Or Korean Air

It's the Pepsi logo on the tail, the choice of that beautiful shade of blue, the silver cheatline, the white underbelly. All applied to hundreds of aircraft after much research and work going into the livery design. The entire aircraft is a work of art

Or Aeroflot

The stylised Russian flag on the tailfin which meets at the fuselage and forms an orange strip which runs down the length of the fuselage, separating the silver top from the blue underbelly. So stylish and also very much copyrightable.

Hopefully before the day is out, we can have at least 500,000 airliner photos being deleted from Commons under the same reasoning at the Brussels Airlines. 114.30.103.45 19:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I also have to add:

These photos of the RAF Eurofighter Typhoon in Battle of Britain colours. This is surely a piece of art? Please start deletion requests on all of these too. Might as well clean the entire project out of such images in one foul swoop. 114.30.103.45 20:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the RAF livery is probably OGL3 licensed, so that'll be just the 499,996 files to delete. Every little helps. Nick (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
For it to be OGL3 licenced there would have to some sort of clear and explicit notification of that fact on the aircraft itself. So let's keep it at 500,000...unless you can zoom in on the airframe and find the licencing statement? Also, I believe the MOD has only made photos of this Typhoon available under the MOD News Licence. Of course, I stand to be corrected. Unlike a delete happy dude in these parts. 114.30.103.45 20:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
On the same issue, there are images linked on Commons:Deletion_requests/Pokemon_Jet, which should be undeleted as well. For the record, I changed opinion. I previously thought that they were not OK, but Revent's and Carl's arguments convinced me. I should also say that this was deleted out of process, after it was kept. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I could write a long essay why I restored the files but that would be pretty much moot. The arguments made by Carl elsewhere and Revent at this undel request are quite convincing. The arguments brought up by Jim are countered by Revent and 114.30.103.45 though I doubt they will ever come to an agreement ;). Though, I do have to say that this purely as a DM or no DM case and it has little to nothing to do with FOP.

I also restored the files mentioned by Yann. The same rational applies to them. Natuur12 (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Achiva Group.jpg

undelete my logo.. its my image and i dont know how to put the tag.. plz undelete it.. u can refer to directly compnay website nidhi.achiva.in its company logo..

 Oppose Complex logo, way above Com:TOO. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose This logo is so complex that we need permission from the copyright holder to keep it here at Commons. Copyright would either be held by the original designer or the Achiva Group, and we require an email with a free license for this logo as is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: As per my colleagues, a permission from the copyright holder must be sent to OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ramsey Water.jpg

I have written permission from photographer, Blair Bunting, to use photograph. Lowcawki (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Then why did you declare this as your own work? Please note also that permissions like "for use in Wikipedia only" are not sufficient. We require images that anyone may use for any purpose including commercial re-use. So if your permission includes these points or if it explicitely grants a Creative Commons 4.0 licence like you did, please forward a copy of the written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Once the email has been checked and approved by our team of volunteers, the file will be restored but this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per my colleague, if a valid permission is received, then the image will be undeleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Exhibits at the the Lehi Museum IMG 1170.JPG

I do not understand why the image was deleted. Deror avi (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a photograph of a man who is not named anywhere in the file name or file description. There are no useful categories. It is obviously not "own work" as claimed and you clearly have no right to put a CC license on it -- either it is PD or someone else owns the copyright. In order to show that it is PD, you will need to provide the date it was made or published, in addition to the name of the author, if known. You will also need to name the subject and show that he is notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification -- an unnamed man is rarely notable. This man is, indeed, probably notable, but until we have a name we cannot make that judgement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The file has two problems. At first, it has no source and this was immediate reason, why it got deleted. At second, depicted person is unidentified and that way unusable. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:USAF JAN15.pdf

i request undeletion of the file because the file is my own work created and dated Jan.15,2017 and the only changed two changes i made from the original to the new version are a) a correction on the word ´´in deed´´ to ´´indeed´´ and the change in the file name, from ´´USAF JAN15´´ which was the file (archive name on my computer) to the full name United States of Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwisdom (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose File:USAF JAN15.pdf is marked © 2017 THE GLOBAL VISION GROUP CORP. & ® All Rights Reserved. Photographs within the file are not sourced. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS-permission from copyright holder Global Vision Group Corporation is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics.jpg to undelete

Hi

This image has permission to be used by the editor of the Journal in question.

Hope that's all ok.

Thanks Gareth --Garethbaxendale (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First of all, the image is way too small to be useful. Regarding the permission, I'm afraid a simple statement on this noticeboard is not enough, but we need an email sent by a representative of the journal's publisher. For details of verifying permissions, please see COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Only 99×58 pixels, text is too small to be readable. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Healthy-kids.ru-new-logo.png

Мы сделали этот логотип сами We made this logo by oursekves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesha.hkds (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Только простые логотипы могут быть в Викискладе без OTRS-разрешении. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of permission must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Global Thinkers Forum Logo.png

This image is not a copyright violation. I have tried to upload it in various ways (directly on wikipedia commons and through Flickr) and it still gets deleted. I need to know what I am doing wrong and the images keep getting deleted, so that I can upload this logo and other photos that have been deleted.

Thank you in advance. --ContentGenie (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This image has been published elsewhere before you uploaded it at [19]. A representative of the organization can use the procedure outlined at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The file will be restored after receiving OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Funnel Space.pdf

Copyright Issues and Survival Significance of ‘Funnel Space’ Author of ‘funnel space’ 1. Copyright issue of ‘Funnel Space’: Contents of my article in internal magazine ‘Peking Man’ are adopted for ‘Funnel Space’, and copyright issues may be produced. A few questions should be clarified here: 1. ‘Peking Man’ is an internal magazine without sociability. 2. I have not entered into any agreement with the magazine ‘Peking Man’. 3. Papers published in magazine ‘Peking Man’ are not integral (references are deleted). 4. The paper is not modified by magazine ‘Peking Man’. Therefore, the magazine ‘Peking Man’ is a platform for discussing issues. Papers can not be issued publicly. There is no copyright issue about ‘Funnel Space’.

2. Survival Significance of ‘Funnel Space’ It is proposed in ‘Funnel Space’ that modern people survive and dominate the world by new attribute of biology- spirit flow rather than intelligence improvement. Human beings are discussed since more than 2.5 million years ago till the late pleistocene: homo habilis is regarded as beginning, development of human beings looks like tree-shaped development, thereby intelligence was improved, and human beings were varied. However, intelligence from human brain capacity did not guarantee survival of human beings in different categories in the late pleistocene, and modern people were separated only. It is obvious that improvement of biological intelligence is not the master key of survival. It is only a mode of limited competition under evolution trajectory shared by biology. However, human beings respect high intelligence in the concept. ‘High intelligence’ concept of modern people has been formed, which must lead to behavior direction. The behavior direction goes against nature. Meanwhile, it leads to a series of wrong theories. ‘Funnel Space’ theory is proved by the evidence chain formed during human evolution. The existence of ‘Funnel Space’ theory is confirmed in the process of human evolution. Existence of ‘Funnel Space’ theory is confirmed in the process of human evolution. There is no way to discuss the process of human evolution and reveal source of modern people except by ‘Funnel Space’ theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zx13007202263 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. Nothing in the word soup above addresses the reason for deletion stated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Funnel Space.pdf. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This was correctly deleted for the reasons given at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Funnel Space.pdf. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Luis_Callejo_Martinez.jpg

We are Tandem Talent, S.L., the agency that represents the actor Luis Callejo. In his name, and on behalf of his rights to own image, we asked the deletion of the file Luis_Callejo.jpg, published in the article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Callejo whithout his permission. We uploaded his picture, our own work, Luis_Callejo_Martinez.jpg, by request of himself.

Please, undelete it, as it has all the rights and the actors' permission.

Tandem Talent.

--Tandemtalent (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Tandemtalent: Submit verification of the permission per COM:OTRS for this previously published photograph. - Reventtalk 13:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Shattered Blooms 2015.jpg

This picture is mine (I took it) and there's no copyrights on it.

--Trustno177 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Trustno177: Copyright exists as soon as the image is 'fixed' in tangible form. Submit verification of permission for licensing per COM:OTRS for this previously published photograph. - Reventtalk 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Curtis Hill.jpg

We have full rights to this image. Please undo deletion. Also please let us know if there is any method by which someone is able to somehow provide documentation of their rights to an image. I am not sure how we could do that, but of course we are more than willing to comply with any reasonable standard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianaHistory (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain that We have full rights to this image? In which terms? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @IndianaHistory: See COM:OTRS for how to provide evidence of permission to license an image. - Reventtalk 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bill Winters on the San Antonio Gunslingers.jpg

I request this file be undeleted. It is not a team publicity photo as asserted by user C. Fred. It is a photo of Bill Winters taken by his coach Mike Barry with Bill's own camera. Additionally, the San Antonio Gunslingers team does not even exist anymore, but that photo doesn't exist anywhere except for in Bill's personal belongings and was never under the ownership of the team. If I need Bill to send an email to OTRS to verify this, that is fine. I have several other photos of Bill that were taken by friends or family and would like the know the proper way to handle this in the future, so I do not have to repeatedly deal with deletions. Is it as simple as writing this information somewhere when I upload it?

I would at this point also like to express frustration with the way this has been handled by administrators/moderators. I am new to Wikipedia, but have read the copyright information section for uploads. My goal for creating the page is obvious, and the admins do not seem to be especially helpful. Instead, they do not reply to what I write on their talk pages while nominating the photos for deletion. They also did not reply or even ask questions on the photo page when it was nominated, but instead made a false assertion that the photo was a team publicity photo. An admin, INeverCry, then ignored my comment and deleted it. I don't know etiquette here, but that comes off as rude at best, and negligent at worst.

Please let me know about the photos, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks and kind regards,

Delfry88 (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. The file was deleted correctly: it was really not own work. Copyright holder (here Mike Barry) must send permission and after that the file can be restored. Maybe we should clarify that better, sorry about that. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of permission must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If you will upload photos not made by yourself in the future, then always OTRS-permission from copyright holder (usually photographer, not depicted person) is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Taivo. The original photographer (Mike Barry) must license the image per COM:OTRS. - Reventtalk 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bangladeshi actor Hero.jpg

I cordially requst for undeletion of Bangladeshi actor Hero.jpg This is an actor from Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow2017 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Question Who is the photographer? What is the source of the image? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Has been published before without a free license (image 2 of 19). De728631 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:HazcoLogo.png

Please undelete this image - it was created by myself and it is being used in a draft article that will be published soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzy6000 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing new since 2015: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HazcoLogo.png. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gebosintang.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See the Commons:Deletion requests/File:바른정당PI.jpg. I only request for moving this image. And then I want to marge File:바른정당PI.jpg into File:Gebosintang.jpg, because of copyright license problem. So I hope, undeletion this image first. Thanks. Idh0854 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with my fellow admin point of view presented in the mentioned DR. And, at this point, I can't see any reason for undeletion of the smaller logo. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Editie speciala. Roman tabu.jpg

--Rodiquelle (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)-Hello,

The photo you have deleted is my own property, I've made it myself. No one else can have copyright rights for this.

Please, undelete it.

Thank you!

 Oppose While the photograph is yours, the drawings on the book cover are copyrighted and non-free and you may not reproduce them without permission from the original artist. This is why your file was deleted. Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Stephanie Diamond, Artist.jpg

ticket:2016112110025428 contains valid permission; please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @BU Rob13: May the ping be with you. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The ping is strong in these two! De728631 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:LordsGroup2015 4.jpg

I am the singer for this band. I own full rights to this picture, and I allow open use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshabooboo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Please have the copyright owner send permission using: OTRS If everything checks out, the file(s) will be restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS-permission from photographer (not from depicted person) is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Quiron el Centauro Dicta el Primer Tratado Terapeutico, oleo sobre lienzo (590x410 cm) pintado por Vicente Puig y Antonio Pena en la Facultad de Medicina, Uruguay.jpg

This image may qualify for UNDELETION on the basis of FREEDOM OF PANORAMA {{FoP-Uruguay}}

The picture shows the claustro of the School of Medicine in Uruguay. In the background it can be seeing a mural painted by Vicente Puig and Antonio Pena. This photo has been uxed extensively public media for decades. It is frequently used to announce public activities or celebrations by the School of Medicine as may be seen in the following URLs .

http://www.universidad.edu.uy/prensa/renderItem/itemId/29437 http://www.universidad.edu.uy/prensa/renderItem/itemId/36069 http://www.universidad.edu.uy/prensa/renderItem/itemId/39915

The photo has even been used to feature tourism opportunities en Montevideo Uruguay as may be seen in the following link https://urumont.blogspot.com/2015/09/facultad-de-medicina.html — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.90.21.56 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This file was not deleted because of the painting in the background, although that might be a problem. It was deleted both because there is no evidence that it has been freely licensed by the photographer and because the uploader did not put any license on it. In order for it to be restored to Commons, (a) the actual photographer must send a free license via OTRS and (b) someone fluent in Spanish must determine that either the painting is PD because its copyright has expired or that FOP covers works in schools. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, only the copyright holder of the photo can decide to put one of the licenses allowed here on his artwork. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Rehan_Yar_Khan.jpg File used by owner's permission. Issued to public domain for publications.

This file has been released by author for publication, thus it's presence on other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veejs7er (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So why did you claim that you have created this photo? Thuresson (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The uploader has now admitted they are not the source, and nothing stated here indicates that the image has been released under a free licence as required by COM:L. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


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

undefined

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleted item is book cover done by us so we do not violate any rights. Please restore it. 2A00:1028:9195:B5D6:7585:51FA:EEDA:DE13 11:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Please have a representative of your company send an email as outlined in COM:OTRS. Unfortunately a simple statement like yours is not sufficient to verify the permission for works that had been published before. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires permission sent to OTRS, as indicated above. If a satisfactory release is received via that route the image could then be undeleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:4FKtZan.jpg

File:4FKtZan.jpg was mistakenly flagged as a copyright violation.

There are a few things which struck me about this particular deletion as odd, namely that it was a photograph I took myself and freely licensed during my mid to late 2014 sojourn in South Africa. I created the photograph with my personal CANON PowerShot ELPH 135 or an iphone on the week of July 1-9, when I was visiting that country's Free State Province. It illustrates the end of a long day on the N1, South Africa's national highway.

I upload all the photos of my travels here on Wikimedia Commons, and post them on specific gallery pages, which is how I know this was one of them.

The file appears to have been deleted solely due to its ubiquitous file name, which Dispenser identified as an "Imgur file name". I also uploaded the same file to Imgur, and may have subsequently re-uploaded it to Wikipedia, which explains why the file name is the same.

Look, I'm not a fan of copyvios, but to delete an image solely because it had an Imgur-generated file name is unacceptable in my opinion. That is not reason enough in itself to prove a copyvio. You need to look at the context of each individual image, see if it has appeared on other image-sharing sites or social media, or been published at a prior date, etc.

When it comes to a pretext this flimsy, at the very least open a deletion request and ping me on it. But I was not consulted, I was not given the reason why my original photograph was marked as a copyvio (which really grinds my gears, given how understandably bizarre this would seem to any other photographer of an original work); Yann just slapped me with a standard copyvio template and deleted the file later in the day. So, I get home from work to find the procedure had already been undertaken before I was permitted a chance to appeal and explain myself, or indeed, even notified why it was incorrectly marked as a copyvio.

The image was part of a general series of photos taken on the N1 outside Bloemfontein, which you can find here. Again, I took all of those myself and am the creator of those works.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, It was published [20] on November 27th, 2014, before being uploaded here December 29th, 2014. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Howzit, does this mean the file will not be restored? --Katangais (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Please remember that we get 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,500 of them. Ten Admins do the bulk of that work so we must work fast. If we had many more active Admins, we could give more personal service, but as it is, we are barely staying ahead of the deluge. When we see an image that has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy allows us to delete it on sight.
Since we do not know who User:Katangais actually is, or whether he or she is actually the same person who uploaded the image elsewhere, policy requires that he or she must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but an OTRS ticket is unnecessary. I can prove I am the same photographer who uploaded the image on Imgur with a few simple keystrokes. Go to the link posted by Yann above and read the new image description. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks for that. I have restored the file for you. Apologies for the inconvenience. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Undelete in 2017

see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Touquet-Paris-Plage - Villa tata Ice.JPG

Thanks, Bloody-libu (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Writer with No Hands Festival Poster.jpg

This is an image I made, without using any other images from anywhere else, so there should be no copyright problems with it at all. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodpolitics (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we have no way of knowing who you actually are, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder (usually the production company) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: If you are the copyright owner as original creative designer of the poster, and you created it without reliance on any other copyright work, you should follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to confirm your identity and your licence. Or, more likely, if you are the copyright owner as representative of the production company, please do the same. Either way, once the OTRS volunteers have confirmed the facts, the image can be restored. That's the only way forward, I'm afraid, if you want the image hosted here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Writer with No Hands Festival Poster.jpg

This is an old poster, exclusively my property. I don't know why it keeps getting deleted. If there's to be a wiki page on this film, it surely should be illustrated with the relevant poster, as other films are as a matter of routine. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodpolitics (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: (This is a duplicate undeletion request: see above). Please follow the instructions I've indicated above and do not re-upload the image in the meantime. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Historic District Neighborhood.jpg

Sorry I didn't mention that I have received the right from the owner (Sean Pavone) to use on wikipedia. --Brlaw8 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - this should go via OTRS. Please be aware that it's not sufficient to have permission for usage at Wikipedia. See our License requirements. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission required; and note permission to use in Wikipedia is just invalid. Ankry (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Please I need more information about the reasons of deletion of my picture, in fact it is my self picture captured from a personal video. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim Ben Khalifa (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This image is not deleted. And not intended to be deleted. Ankry (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Mahrman19

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i don't think that pictures are allowed and i wrote its source and its owned ... so what i have to do too . Mahrman19 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for images to be kept on Commons, they must have a free license from the actual photographer. So, in order to restore these each of the actual photographers must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied straight from a blog that says "Copyright ©2017 RETROKIMMER.COM". If you are the blog owner and photographer, you need to send a notification to OTRS as stated above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael, that's only the first one. The three that I looked at all had different sources, hence my more general comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done For previously published copyrighted images a written permission following COM:OTRS is required. Ankry (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Inner Shadows cover.jpg

Hello! I am member of Inner Shadows community. I absolutely confident about authorship of this image. It was drawn by Andrew Saraew specially as cover for project group. If you need more evidence than publishing it on project page, I ready to provide evidences, but I need to know, what kind of evedences you want. I expect we will resolve this misunderstanding quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSamedy (talk • contribs)

Hi. If Andrew Saraew is prepared to release this image for use here, he will have to email us by following the instructions at COM:OTRS, but a response will not be immediate due to backlogs. You might also want to take a look at COM:LICENSING to see what sort of licences are acceptable. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission required. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kunstmuseum Albstadt.jpg

Bild selbst und im Auftrage des Kunstmusuems Albstadt erstellt. Das Bild ersetzt ein früheres Bild, das nicht mehr aktuell ist. Das frühere Bild wurde nie gelöscht, warum dieses?

Ncarste (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.kunst-und-kultur.de/index.php?Action=showMuseum&mId=240. In order to restore the image, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:AbuseMark AfroFlight Naze 32 Flight Controller rev5 white.jpg

This file was deleted by Hedwig in Washington with the rationale "Layout not free". I was going to ask them but I saw that they are taking, with humor, a kind of break, then I come here. I was not aware that photos of printed circuit boards, which are utilitarian objects, are prohibited here. Further opinions to confirms or cripples this are welcome. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support In the USA, the masks for integrated circuits have a special ten year protection period which is not a copyright, see Integrated circuit layout design protection, but, because they are utilitarian, there is no copyright or other protection for printed circuit boards. The law may differ in other countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. In the US, to the extent that they are utilitarian, the design of the traces on circuit boards are not protected by copyright. Only the rare layouts in which the design incorporates non-function creative elements above the threshold of originality are protected by copyright. This does not appear to be the case for File:AbuseMark AfroFlight Naze 32 Flight Controller rev5 white.jpg. German copyright and IP laws appear to function similarly. —RP88 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GramHar.jpg

File:GramHar.jpg has been deleted by Jcb despite of clear arguments that {{PD-Hungary}} #2 applies. There was Ungvar 1941 dateline at the page, so this has been published in Hungary in the year of 1941, and the drawing has been made by unknown author. Please review this request. --Яй (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The issue here is that there is no evidence that the artist who drew the building in the center of the seal is actually unknown. The fact that we don't happen to know who he was is irrelevant -- he must be unknown after serious inquiry has been made at the organization represented by the seal and elsewhere.

However, under the circumstances and particularly given the very small size of the drawing on this cover, I think it would be OK to restore the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - this in not just about the small image. The depicted work is not just the small image, but rather the page as a whole. The page is not PD-ineligible IMHO. Hungary has the PMA+70 rule, so as long as we do not have any indication that the author of this 1941 work would have died before 1947, I see no reason to undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This picture is the logo of Subcarpathian Science Society ([21]). It is very unlikely that the publishing house would name the author of their logo in this particular book. {{PD-Hungary}} states that the year in which the author died is only relevant when ...the author becomes known during this time (70 years). Is anybody can prove that the author becomes known? --Яй (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The logo is de minimis here. Yann (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The book author is irrelevant here: this cover/title page contains no copyrightable information except the logo. And we have an evidence that the logo is anonymous (unsigned) and more than 70 years old. Ankry (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The title page is not creative in its words, it is factual and descriptive; the formatting is generic for books through the 19th and 20th century, so would be hard to defend as creative, and the logo is de minimis. Re demonstrating that the author is unknown, the 1941 period was tumultuous, reasonable enquiries should be sufficient for precautionary; it is not an absolute prohibition, and the precaution needs to be contingent to the amount of copyright potential, and for a title page that is becoming ridiculous. Also note that PCP says significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file please support the claim for significant doubt, rather than just doubt.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:明神会20周年記念誌 外見.jpg

この本の共同作成者です。 I am a co-author of this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaztima109 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kaztima109: please follow the OTRS process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per billinghurst. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:3d-character-businessman-talking-on-the-telephone.jpg

I have uploaded the copyright declaration.

This image belongs to me and can be seen on my accounts in many stock image websites such as shutterstock.

Stuart Miles

--Stuartmiles99 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose For any previously published image a written consent from the actual copyright owner is required. Read COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bosco verticale, milan, italy.jpg

Buongiorno, ho chiesto e avuto autorizzazione scritta via mail dall'ufficio stampa dello studio Boeri per l'utilizzo della foto. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.0.56.11 (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for procedural reason: file is not deleted. Discuss this issue in the appropriate DR. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bosco verticale 2, milan, italy.jpg

Ho l'autorizzazione scritta via mail dall'ufficio stampa dello studio Boeri per l'utilizzo della foto. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.0.56.11 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This must be discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bosco Verticale .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for procedural reason: file is not deleted. Discuss this issue in the appropriate DR. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Reggie Sears pictures

The Reggie Sears pictures should be undeleted and added back to his page, as they are all promo shots and are free to use. And Wiki guidelines and rules say that promo shots can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.201.230.12 (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Please indicate the names of the files you would like to have restored. Any media at Commons must have a free permission to be used by anyone for any purpose, and press photos are usually copyrighted and non-free to use, which is different from "free to obtain". I'm not sure which "Wiki guideline" you are referring to but at the English Wikipedia non-free images of living persons may not be used either, and Commons does not accept fair use material. De728631 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose. This is probably about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Southernsoulman. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to en:Wikipedia:Publicity photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernsoulman (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Wikicommons is not English Wikipedia. Please see Commons:First steps. Thuresson (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Davidm med.jpg

Hello,

I'm requesting undeletion for the file File:Davidm med.jpg. It was deleted by User:Túrelio. It is a file which I uploaded to the page (in progress) for David T. McCoy. The photograph is David T. McCoy's property. He provided it to me to utilize on his page. It is his official headshot from his tenure working for the state of North Carolina. No copyrights have been violated in the usage of this photograph. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--Meredithlmccoy (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Meredith McCoy, 1/24/2017

 Oppose An evidence (a link to it or an email to OTRS) is required that the copyright owner wishes the image to be freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry, a permission must be sent to OTRS bu the copyright holder. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Brian Kowitz.png

Brian Kowitz, is the living biographical reference and owner of the pictures. He has published these pictures and authorized Wikipedia to upload. It is appropriate for free-content encyclopedia since he owns the copyright status.

An evidence (a link to it or an email to OTRS) is required that the copyright owner wishes the image to be freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry, see OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kowitz - Greenville Braves.png

Brian Kowitz, is the living biographical reference and owner of the pictures. He has published these pictures and authorized Wikipedia to upload. It is appropriate for free-content encyclopedia since he owns the copyright status.

An evidence (a link to it or an email to OTRS) is required that the copyright owner wishes the image to be freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry, see OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nick-Brophy 2015.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I understand, I am allowed 2 photos however, all 4 of my photos have been deleted. I'm requesting that these 2 be un-deleted. I have completed all the ownership requirements for these photos. Thank you Nbrophy00 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I suggest you read my closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nbrophy00 again. Until you become an active contributor, you aren't allowed any personal images. Commons is not Facebook or Flickr. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Maybe at future, when you have become an active user. Taivo (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Bare Facts Boys 2014.jpg

I am Wes England and would like to understand how a photo containing the author might be considered a violation?

Sincerely, Wes England — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesrelips (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Image has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:150 Jahre Photographie, Folder.jpg

The Mail was sent from User:VK.Kid to OTRS. --K@rl (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (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) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I know the procedure and it's not so urgent, I noted it here only. --K@rl (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Awaiting OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ford Taunus Knudsen.jpg

Das Bild wurde von mir, zusammen mit einem Freund aufgenommen. Die Kamera gehörte dem besagten Bekannten, welcher mir das Bild dann zukommen ließ. Das Fahrzeug welches sich auf dem Bild befindet gehört mir!

--Jnhndrk (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Permissions for images that are declared to be copyrighted by somebody else that the commons user (exact user name) are required to go through COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Awaiting OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Art-eh! Batangas Samahan ng mga Malikhaing Batangueño round logo-glass png.png

I am requesting undeletion of the logo I uploaded stated above. I am the sole creator and owner of the logo. The logo is created on December 2011. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artehbatangas (talk • contribs) 05:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

--Artehbatangas (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Marvin Mako Antenor

 Oppose An OTRS written permission from the copyright owner is required for copyrightable logos which were used outside Commons. Ankry (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Awaiting OTRS.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foto Luis1.jpg

The photo deleted was taken by me, and I gave permission to Pagina 24 and other newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladiaz00 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because the image has appeared elsewhere on the web without a free license policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS-permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Patyoung.jpg

The file in question (Patyoung.jpg) is a portrait of me and I consent to it being on Wikimedia Commons. I uploaded this image of me and would like the file to be brought back. 1/25/2017 --Pyoung0311 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image has appeared several places on the Web with explicit copyright notices. Also, since it does not appear to be a selfie, you probably do not have the right to freely license it -- that right almost always rests with the photographer. In order to restore it here, the photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Note to my colleagues -- the image is of Pat Young who is a Member of the Maryland House of Delegates. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Francois Z Fournier during his USA Rugby Academy tryouts in 2014.jpg

This photo was taken by ATAVUS (a rugby training company) and released via FB to the player. They have water marks on the photo so that they can claim advertising revenue if any. We were given this photo by the player when we asked for a photo. --Lebanonrugbymedia (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because copyrights can last more than 150 years, all permissions must be in writing. There is no evidence that the photographer, who is almost certainly the owner of the copyright, has licensed it to anyone or that each of the links in this chain (photographer > ATAVUS > player >Lebanonrugbymedia > Commons) has been properly closed in writing. In order to restore it to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Facebook photos are copyrighted? What is the point of a water mark then? Photo was tagged here [[22]]. Still un-useable? thank you. --Lebanonrugbymedia (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Facebook image you cite above does not appear when clicked.
With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works are copyrighted until the copyright expires, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. Unless there is an explicit free license on a work, it cannot be kept on Commons without the written permission of the copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer. Please read Commons:Licensing for more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means almost always from photographer) the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:DanSchwartz.png

I have re-uploaded this file after deletion, and am unsure of where to upload the license for the photo. Please advise. Mc3437 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not do it again.
This image has appeared previously on the Web without a free license. Restoring it here will require a free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means usually from photographer, not from depicted person) the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ne Kunda Nlaba.jpg

I'm requesting the undeletion of this file as it is a free picture and doesn't below to Indiegogo. Kongo News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongonews (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is under a copyright, and cannot be uploaded without a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means usually from photographer, not from depicted person) the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Abeti Masikini film.jpg

This picture is not copyrighted and it's free of used. Kongonews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongonews (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is under a copyright, and cannot be uploaded without a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Film posters are usually protected with copyright. Copyright belongs usually to film production companies. After receiving OTRS-permission from production company representative the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ray Bradbury.jpg

Not clear the reason for deletion. --Алый Король (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I cannot guess why user Cirt decides that the image (uploaded as {{Own}}) requires a permission six years after upload. And I doubt that they remember the reason two years after deletion (@Cirt: do you?). Many sites refer to the image providing Commons as the source.
My suggestion is to restore the image and go through a formal DR to resolve potential doubts. Any other suggestions? Ankry (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was uploaded from a Flickr account that is CC-BY-NC-ND. In fact, the Flickr account explicitly forbids use on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: look at the dates: the Flickr image was uploaded by another user and it was permanently deleted before a more recent image was uploaded. I think this was a completely different image.
The Flickr image was uploaded by "Daniel (de)" on 12 Jun 2005 and deleted 2 hours later. The next image was uploaded 26 Jan 2009 by "MDCarchives" as {{Own}} and was never referenced to Flickr. Ankry (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Aha. I was confused by the fact that the log shows only one upload, which is strange, given that there were two deletions. This image appears much smaller at https://www.otrcat.com/p/ray-bradbury, but I think we can ignore that.  Support I suspect that Cirt saw a blank "Permission=" line and tagged it. That seems like poor practice to me when there is "Source=Own" and a CC-BY license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Louvre Serekh.png

CC BY 3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louvre_Serekh.png 92.229.165.128 06:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. This file has an absolutely blank file description page -- no description, source, date, author, license, or categories. However, it appears to be a poor job of moving the WP:EN file cited above to Commons. Therefore, I think we should restore it and use the description in the WP file. I'll do that if others agree. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support Of course I agree. Taivo (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please fix the source, date and author. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jugnoo_logo.png

This is the company logo of Jugnoo. Just updating it here after our rebranding. PS: I am VP Engineering at Jugnoo and I am uploading the logo myself. Don't know how to avoid the undeletion. :-/

Let me know if there is any other way to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaydhakar (talk • contribs) 11:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because we have no way of knowing who User:Sanjaydhakar actually is, policy requires that an authorized official of the company must send a free license from an address at the company using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg Photo is not copywrited

I took the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark612 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You do not say what photo you want undeleted, but on almost every image you have uploaded, you have claimed "own work" when the image has another source. This includes two of the three at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mark612 which are your last remaining images. I see no reason to believe that the assertion above is correct for any of your images..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:VT 137 331 Foto Otte.jpg

Für die Seite der Stettiner Triebwagen hätte ich gerne ein Betriebsbild als Eingang. Auch wenn das hochgeladene von den Farben her nicht das beste ist, aber es stammt aus der Zeit um 1960 und hat historischen Wert. Die Begründung für den Löschantrag hat mich nicht überzeugt.--Rainerhaufe (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Offenbar hattest Du ja E-Mails mit der Betriebsgesellschaft ausgetauscht. Du musst diese E-Mails an das OTRS-Team weiterleiten, damit sie die Bewilligung dort archivieren können. Was genau in diesen E-Mails stehen muss, damit es als Bewilligung akzeptiert wird, steht ebenfalls unter COM:OTRS --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sketch_of_Bhamidipati_Jagannatha_Rao.jpg

Mr. Bhamidipati Jagannadha Rao (residing at Nagpur, Maharashtra State, India Phone Number : <hidden phone number>) gave permission to use this file in his Wikipedia page. Hence, please permit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkramaiah (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kkramaiah: Hi,
The copyright owner has to send a formal written permission for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gabrielle-ou-le-saut-de-lange-001.jpg - File:Gabrielle-ou-le-saut-de-lange-002.jpg - File:Gabrielle-ou-le-saut-de-lange-003.jpg - File:Gabrielle-ou-le-saut-de-lange-004.jpg

Hello, ticket:2017012710005671 give us the permission to use theses 4 files under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Ping Blondie.lerand. Thanks --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bertman's Original Ball Park Mustard.jpg

Bertman's Original Ball Park Mustard.jpg is a photo of mustard that is publicly made available for promotional purposes and, other than its alteration, requires no additional permission to be displayed. You have their competitor, Stadium Mustard's photo on that page en:Stadium Mustard which appeared, prior to recent edits, to have been a promotional effort by the manufacturer. These are both, interestingly, of historical significance to the Cleveland and Ohio communities and sports fans in the upper midwest. It was placed for such reason, as part of a larger discussion of mustards and their social attachments in American culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theclevertwit (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that an image "is publicly made available for promotional purposes" does not mean that it is freely licensed for all purposes. That requires an explicit free license from the copyright holder. I note also that the image of Stadium Mustard is not here on Commons, but is on WP:EN with a fair use rationale. That might not be necessary as I see nothing on the Stadium Mustard bottle that has a copyright. Bertman's, on the other hand, has the Indian's cap insignia, which is clearly copyrighted. You can either upload it to WP:EN, with an appropriate fair use rationale, or have it restored here if an authorized official of the manufacturer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nobodys Perfect A Derrick Simmons Film Promo Poster.jpg

I have been asked by the employee of Derrick Simmons, who is the director of the movie to create this wikipedia page. So, I am using this image on his behalf and not doing any copyright violation. --Ashishchopra778 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ashishchopra778: Asked or not, the law is the law, and our policy is to protect us against unlawful activity. We have the OTRS process that can be used to register and record communications about making images freely available, so please follow that up if you wish to pursue the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ashishchopra778, I suggest you read and obey WMF policy on Conflict of Interest which applies across all WMF projects, including both Commons and WP:EN]]. Your creating a page at the request of the subject is explicitly forbidden and, at the very least, you must declare your conflict of interest on your User page both here and at WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: could you provide a link to where the Commons community agreed to implement the English Wikipedia behavioural guideline on conflict of interest to uploads on Commons? As far as I was aware, it does not apply here.
If the issue is the statement about what Ashishchopra778 hopes to do on the English Wikipedia, it would be better to ask them to raise their concerns at en:Wikipedia:COIN rather than discuss Wikipedia policies in a Commons deletion request or UNDEL. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I quote the WP:EN COI rules because they are the applicable portion of the broader WMF rules which apply to all projects. The broader WMF rule, which applies here and on all WMF projects is
"Disclose actively if you are requesting, using, or allocating movement resources that may benefit your family member, spouse, partner, business associate, significant other, close friend, or their organizations or employers." https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I am familiar with the resolution, especially as I have to comply with it. As no movement resources are being spent by Ashishchopra778, that resolution literally cannot apply. Again, the best advice to the uploader would be to ask for help at the English Wikipedia COI noticeboard as they have stated they are interested in creating a Wikipedia article. COI concerns are not relevant to the image being hosted on Commons, so long as it is in Scope and is not spam, we do not care if someone is paid to do the upload. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. An upload is a use of resources and is covered by the statement above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, uploading a file is not part of the CoI policy. While there may be areas where en:WP:COI apply on Commons, uploading files is not one of them. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Jim, have a close look at the long list of examples in the 2013 WMF Board Resolution you linked to. If the board intended it to apply to readers, uploaders or editors of a Wiki-project, they would have said so explicitly and included an example. The Resolution is about internal governance of funds within the Wikimedia movement. Editing or discussing a wiki page or uploading a media file to Commons is not covered by that particular Resolution unless the WMF were providing funds to do it. Using that Resolution as justification to get Commons account holders to make COI declarations does not stick, it's an inappropriate governance document to reference. --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Projects are also allowed to created their own policy regarding paid editing and Commons has such a policy. See Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy. The en-wiki COI-policy is something completely different and isn't a WMF-policy or whatever that may be. Natuur12 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 Not done OP has received information about OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Belen López 02.png

El archivo es una captura de un video en Youtube con una licencia libre Creative Commons compatible con Wikipedia, como se puede ver en esta otra foto: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bel%C3%A9n_L%C3%B3pez.jpg#Licencia Pido que se vuelva a recuperar la imagen. Gracias. Billy brown (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeed, I see no valid reason for deletion. Maybe the license change (CC-BY on YT -> CC-BY-SA for your crop) mislead the nominator. Ankry (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Blas Piñar1.jpg

The picture was rightly deleted on the grounds of what is exposed here. However, Raderich has tracked the source and clarified that it is under a cc-by-4.0 license (it's a little bit tricky as the license is only "viewable" under the Dublin Core RDF description of the file). Best regards --Discasto talk 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 SupportThank you, Dicasto. Just to clarify, we're talking about the pic uploaded with that name on 18 Jan (which had a nomination) not the one uploaded with that name on 13 Jan 2017, which had an unvalid license. If you go to the link provided and select Formato -> Ficha, you'll see that it's the same photo as the uploaded one.--Raderich (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 Info I can't find anything informative under the URL above. Only information that the search has expired. Ankry (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ankry. We're talking about this link. It's viewable to me.--Raderich (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. The only information I can see there is "Las condiciones de búsqueda solicitadas han expirado. Por favor, repita la búsqueda." (except standard page header & footer) Ankry (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 Info That link redirects to this. R.P. Emmanuelis de Naxera Toletani ... Excursus morales in secundum librum Regum : pars secunda, & in ordine (1676), by Manuel Nájera (1603-1680), not to Blas Piñar. Strakhov (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Info Yesterday it worked (although it did not include anything about Piñar) today, again, ãpparently expired. The stable link to the pic is this one. In the heading, clicking the "orange" icon (Dublin Core RDF format), between MARCXML and MODS, you can download a .txt with metadata, where is stated the following:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <rdf:Description> <dc:description>Contiene fotografías pertenecientes al archivo fotográfico del diario "Región", publicadas entre 1972 y 1981</dc:description> <dc:title>[Blas Piñar] [Material gráfico]: [(Fundador de Fuerza Nueva)]</dc:title> <dc:description>Algunas fotos no indican autoría; el resto firmadas por Cifra Gráfica, Información Gráfica Sierra (Oviedo), EFE</dc:description> <dc:publisher>[Región]</dc:publisher> <dc:type>Ilustraciones y Fotos</dc:type> <dc:language>spa</dc:language> <dc:date>1972-1981</dc:date> <dc:creator>Sierra, F. , Fotógrafo</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Diario Región (Oviedo)</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Cifra Gráfica</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Agencia EFE</dc:creator> <dc:identifier>http://bvpb.mcu.es/es/consulta/registro.cmd?id=492410</dc:identifier> <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format> <dc:subject>Piñar, Blas, 1918-2014)-Fotografías</dc:subject> <dc:rights>Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)</dc:rights> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

.Strakhov (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So  Support undeletion. I think, this link can be provided in the Permission field. And I suggest, to request review it by somebody. Ankry (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Strakhov. Permission CC by 4.0 added. Ruthven (msg) 13:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Lo stemma degli Sbandieratori e Musici di Fenegrò.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: questo stemma è stato realizzato dal nostro gruppo, non è soggetto a copyright, richiediamo quindi che sia caricato sulla descrizione del gruppo. Volevo inoltre chiedere se la sezione che ho aggiunto rimane o è stata rimossa. Sbam90 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose With limited exceptions, non of which are applicable here, all created works have copyrights until they expire. In in order to restore this image, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Sbam90: Come ha detto Jim, l'autore dello stemma (che è soggetto a copyright come tutte le opere d'ingegno) o chi ne ha ordinato la realizzazione (il direttore degli Sbandieratori?) deve inviare una mail dando i permessi di pubblicazione sotto licenza libera a permissions-it@wikimedia.org. Ruthven (msg) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:zulfiqar.jpg

I found the image on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by অদৃশ্য মানব (talk • contribs) 09:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the place to request the restoration of deleted files. Although I have just started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zulfiqar.jpg, the file has not been deleted so there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Speedy deleted as copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 13:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Keiana Cave.jpg

This photo of Keiana was taken by me and I have express permission from Keiana herself to post it to Wikimedia commons.

--LaurenSchwartz1978 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Lauren Schwartz 25 January 2016--LaurenSchwartz1978 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

First the image was uploaded by Keiana as her "own work". It was deleted for lack of permission, which is strange because it had a clear license. Then you uploaded it, in violation of Commons rules, and it was deleted again as small (960 x 960 px) and lacking metadata. It does not appear elsewhere on the Web, so I suggest you upload it again, using the same file name, at full camera resolution and including the metadata (EXIF). If, for some reason, you cannot do that, please explain here. I also suggest that Keiana refrain from uploading images as "own work" when they are not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Haik family photographs

File:Alma with gun.jpg please undelete

This is my own photo and I have permission to use it from the Haiks. --Charis888 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1947 Building the Haik home.jpg please undelete

The photos are my own; please undelete. --Charis888 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Alma with gun.jpg please undelete

This photo is my Own work please undelete. --Charis888 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Stringing the telephone wire.jpg please undelete

File:Stringing the telephone wire.jpg

This photo is my Own work please undelete.

--Charis888 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Charis888--Charis888 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

When and where did you make this photo? If you are the photographer, send your written permission following COM:OTRS. Being the ownet of the photo prints does not grant you the right to free-licence the photo. Ankry (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1947 Building the Haik home.jpg please Undelete

I have direct permission from the Haik's to use this photo, please undelete immediately.

--Charis888 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Charis888--Charis888 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)January 27, 2017

 Oppose We need either a direct permission coming from the photographer or their heirs, or if you have a written permission from the Haik family to publish their photograph under free a licence, this needs to be forwarded by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify a permission. De728631 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Horse and line.jpg please undelete

The photos are my own; please undelete. --Charis888 (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Picnic at the Haiks.jpg please undelete

This photo is my own, it was given to me by the Haik's themselves. They hired me to write this page and save their family history -- please undelete this photo as well as the others.

--Charis888 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Charis888--Charis888 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)January 27, 2017

 Oppose Owning a copy of a photo does not put you into a position to grant a free licence. We need either a direct permission coming from the photographer or their heirs, or if you have a written permission from the Haik family to publish their photograph under free a licence, this needs to be forwarded by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify a permission. With regards to writing a Wikipedia article on behalf of someone else for hire, please read also the Wikipedia user policies on Wikipedia:conflict of interest and Wikipedia:paid-contribution disclosure. De728631 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:QUIET RIOT movie poster.jpg

I OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THIS IMAGE AND I UPLOADED IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

quietriotmovie.com says ©2015 QR Movie, LLC all rights reserved. I suppose you own QR Movie, LLC? If so, please send an e-mail from their web site to COM:OTRS, confirming the free license for the poster. --rimshottalk 10:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Joker Movie Still 3.png

File:Joker Movie Still 3.png We are the producers of the movie and this still belongs to us. Hope we have emailed about copyrights. Still why this is deleted? Zkathir (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2017 (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) 10:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait for the permission email to be processed. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vladimir Burkov.jpg

Please restore File:Vladimir Burkov.jpg we have received OTRS permission from author (Ticket:2017012910010679). --sasha (krassotkin) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Krassotkin: Done, please add permission to the file. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SimCityDS1.jpg

este archivo no tiene copyright esto lo saque de la wikipedia en ingles para la española en su sistema de traducion --Goku diaa (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. This appears to be a screenshot of SimCity, which certainly is copyrighted. However, even if it was created outside of SimCity, it still is a copyright infringement. It is also too small to be useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Goku diaa: Please read Commons:First steps before making any more contributions. Thuresson (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 Not done The source is the fair use image en:File:SimCityDS1.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Eve Genre.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017012310004161. I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. Scoopfinder(d) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Scoopfinder: Please update the file pages. De728631 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @De728631: . I see now that File:Eve Genre.jpg can't be covered by the received permission and will pursue to clarify its copyright status via OTRS. I addedd the OTRS received template in them meantime so that we avoid another DR and UNDEL. --Scoopfinder(d) 00:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lachihat br -300.jpg

Request undeletion of file: Lachihat br -300.jpg

The photo is on flickr with a CC license (attribute/share-alike) found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulachi/32173304110/ --Pyrobob451 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Very recently uploaded. Flickrwashing? Taivo (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support Why was this even deleted? The original upload at Commons had a valid source (own work) and licence as well as a full set of EXIF. So any internet versions should rather be backwards copies unless they are significantly older than the Commons upload. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I've been able to discern from the DRs of the related photos, Pyrobob451 is apparently associated with Lachi in some manner and it is his or her job to keep her public persona updated, and I see no reason to doubt that. However, as I understand it Pyrobob451 is not the actual photographer of this or the other photos, so can't claim own work (but, of course, It would be great to get a statement clarifying this from Pyrobob451). It is not clear who is the copyright holder (it might be one or more photographers, or even Lachi herself if the copyright was transferred in the photo contract). One way to fix this mess is permission verified via the procedure found at COM:OTRS. —RP88 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is blatant Flickr washing. This was uploaded to Flickr 27. January 2017, but previously appeared in the subject's social media (an other publications) more than three years prior - e.g. Facebook here on 6. January 2014, and a more complete version to boot. To retain this, we need evidence that 1) the Flickr account is operated by or genuinely associated with Lachi (who has a robust social media presence, but, perhaps tellingly, no link to this Flickr account and 2) that Lachi, as the mere subject, has obtained rights from the photographer/author. Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Headshot22.jpg

I OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THIS IMAGE AND I UPLOADED IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you the photographer of that picture? If not, how did you come to own the copyright? --rimshottalk 10:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer so far. --Yann (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Logo of IIC.jpg

hello ... as i introduce myself that i am basically an artist and not much in the technicalities but to add a necessary information regarding the preservable history to the best of my knowledge ... i tried to add some necessary information & reference to the page of Indian Institute of Cartoonists|IIC(one and only one trust in India, dedicated to the art of cartooning & exhibit the works of the famous artists of cartoon art), obviously without the ref of logo we can't step towards the perfection of info... NOW let me clarify the doubts raised Indian Institute of Cartoonists is purely a non profit trust, so no issue of potentially advertisements case ... Since this image is digitally made by me, exclusive to upload here, i used the lines of logo as reference while adding the name of the trust at one side & added color my own (not in original)... 1st of all, This modified image cant be a case of Copy Right due to its modifications and 2ndly the way its name is written, the purpose is clear. this image of the reference logo cant be misused else where apart of introducing the trust itself.

Even after my logical clarifications it was been deleted at the point "no personal art" now i feel the decision raises contradictory situation .. <1> When a person upload any pic ... the question raised is of "copyright issues" <2> To avoid any possibility of "copyright issues", if anyone create the required image his own, whom he can claim that it is my own creation ... Then the point is "no personal art" It means a person should not be a creator, but only copy right holder ... in practical words we should just be none other than a kind of "copy right dealers" !! Kindly help in this context to clarify the doubt and re-nominate the file. Regards --CSG-Info (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The problem here when people draw logos is that (a) the logo is close to the original, in which case it is a copyright infringement or (b) far enough away from the original, or there is no original, so there is no copyright infringement, in which case it is a misleading fake and cannot be used for any educational purpose. Your logo falls in the middle -- it is both a copyright infringement and not useful because it is not the original logo. Therefore there are no circumstances under which we will restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-01&oldid=795340813"