Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-02

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:City of Kenmore logo.jpg and file:City of Kenmore logo small.jpg

These two files belong to the City of Kenmore, WA and as an employee, I am submitting the seals to the City's Wikipedia page. The City has contracted with a local design firm to create the seal and since we purchased the work, it is the City's property to distribute and place in printed materials as well as the web. I would like to use these updated seals on Kenmore's wiki page as the previous seal was submitted by a citizen who cropped the image from a photo they took. The seal image I submitted, on behalf of the City of Kenmore, is the official seal for the City of Kenmore. --Mldynk (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Melodi Yanik 1/23/2017

 Oppose Please see COM:OTRS how to verify a permission by email. We need either a declaration from the design firm that they ceded their copyright to the City of Kenmore or we need a copy of your agreement forwarded from an email address associated with the city. Please understand that this process is required because we cannot verify that your Wikimedia account is truly connected to the City of Kenmore. Once the email has been processed by our volunteer staff, the logos will be restored but this may take up to several weeks because we are very shorthanded. De728631 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Tristan Lecomte.jpg

Professional picture made by professional photographer for PurProjet et Tristan Lecomte's professional use

--Lau1681 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC) 2017/01/31

  •  Oppose Unless there is an explicit written agreement between the photographer and the subject, the copyright remains with the photographer. Also, the image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.purprojet.com/team-member/tristan-lecomte/. In order to restore it, either (a) the photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license including a copy of his agreement with the photographer which permits him to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. OTRS-permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:45èlf.png

It is deleted, but tis logo is my own work. Very strange that someone else discusses the cpoyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinpeelen (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The article at 45èlf is up for deletion for lack of notability. If it is deleted, there is no reason to keep this logo here. If it is not deleted, then policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. In either case we cannot restore this now..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim above. Thuresson (talk) 18:01, 31 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

Восстановите пожалуйста этот файл File:Бабушка и мужчины.jpg. ALDOR46 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because the background is a copyrighted image. Since the image is sold widely, it is unlikely that you can obtain a free license for it. Also, there is no indication of why the group in the image is notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Works by Wassily Kandinsky

Apparently his works are PD: Category:Wassily Kandinsky

--Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images deleted before 16 June 2006 cannot be restored. Thuresson (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, then I withdrow. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 04:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Images deleted before 16 June 2006 cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:JR East Ome Display C2154.jpg

In the first place, Is it a map?
Flow diagrams are also Derivative work? --Benzoyl (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a schematic map of a railroad system. It is well established that such maps have a copyright, see the free use rationale at

File:London Tube Map.png.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Yes, it is a map. Flow diagrams are by principle copyrightable, but if there are few entities, then flow diagram does not surpass threshold of originality. It is unclear, how many entities are needed in flow diagram to be copyrightable. But this schematic map meets TOO and needs permission from copyright holder. Taivo (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:TARDIS library ( Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS).jpg

Hi Jcb,

I am quite certain that the BBC would not mind allowing this screenshot on Wikipedia. Do you advise contacting them about this issue ?

 Oppose for now - if the copyright holder sends a valid permission to OTRS, we me undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. We do not know for sure, what BBC thinks about publishing the screenshot in Wikipedia. After receiving OTRS-permission from BBC representative the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Milice ecole.jpg

Anonymous photograph taken during the Vichy France (1940-1944). 1944+70+1 = 2015. I do not know if the anonymous works are affected by the wartime extension. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse.

I withdrow, see below. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 04:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment This one could be restored. Yann (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The rule in France is 70 years pma or, for anonymous images, 70 years from publication. There is no evidence that this image was ever published until recently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The nomination is withdrawn. Taivo (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:KirnerRealities.jpg‬

I created the picture, it is mine, why did it was flagged as a possible copyright violation?

att — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.163.30.233 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the file description, this is translated from the image at http://www.intechopen.com/download/get/type/pdfs/id/39046. Translations are derivative works of the original and require permission from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Good catch, thank you, De728631 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Twee dames met een baby.jpg

Please undelete the file, it is an approved picture of the painting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designmie (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. The artist en:Jean Baptiste Leopold Colin died in 1961 and the painting is protected with copyright. The file can be restored after copyright expiring in 2032 (70+1 years after death). Taivo (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The same rationale applies to the other uploads of paintings by Colin that I deleted today. If the heirs of the painter gave their approval to upload these photographs with a free license, we need an email with their permission as is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done - permission from the heirs of the painter is necessary - Jcb (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Touch artwork.jpg

Please restore this file to the English Wikipedia (preferably as "File:Little Mix – Touch (Official Single Cover).jpg") under fair use, with the file description page containing the wikitext below. This is for use in the enwiki article Touch (Little Mix song). Thanks! Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Notifying Yann, Musicedit98 and Calvin999. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikitext 
== Summary ==
{{Non-free use rationale album cover
| Article           = Touch (Little Mix song)
| Use               = Infobox
<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -->
| Name              = "Touch"
| Artist            = [[Little Mix]]
| Label             = [[Syco Music]]
| Graphic Artist    = 
| Item              = 
| Type              = single
| Website           = 
| Owner             = 
| Commentary        = 
<!--OVERRIDE FIELDS -->
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = <!--Must be specified if Use is not Infobox / Header / Section / Artist-->
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

== Licensing ==
{{Non-free album cover|image has rationale=yes}}

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

File:Sailor fuku in Second Life 5.jpg and File:Sailor fuku in Second Life 7.jpg

The license will become {{cc-zero}}.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done The screenshots are now available under CC-0 and the software itself is licensed under GPL ({{Second Life}}). De728631 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Designmie

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted by the only living heir of Colin and the author of the book the images were taken from. Permission is stored in OTRS ticket:2017020210008033 Mbch331 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done (there was one duplicate). Wow, that was a fast response from the copyright holder. @Mbch331: please add the OTRS tags. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Radhika khanna book launch.jpg

Please do not remove this photo! this is not violating any rules. I took this picture of radhika khanna myself. Thanks--Wikiedits00000 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The book cover is copyrighted and non-free, and the associated poster in the background is prominently displayed in your photo. You may not publish a photo of these without permission from the original designer or the publisher. Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the image pending the outcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radhika khanna book launch.jpg which had just been opened when I deleted the file. Please comment over there. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Afida Turner live.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: User:Scoopfinder/undel Scoopfinder(d) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Please update the file page. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shahak_shapira.jpg

Shahak Shapira hat laut eigener Aussage die Freigabe für die Verwendung des Fotos heute Mittag erteilt. EN: Shahak Shapira has allowed the usage of his picture by sending an email to permissions-de@wikimedia.org this noon. --Danielschwarz (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Danielschwarz: Dann wird die Datei durch diesen Prozess wiederhergestellt werden, wenn die Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:45, 30 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) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Warte bitte, bis die E-Mail geprüft wurde. Dies kann wegen Personalmangels bei OTRS einige Wochen dauern. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Богун_Оникій_Тимофійович.jpg

I have created and edited the following article: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BD_%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0 % B8% D0% BA% D1% 96% D0% B9_% D0% A2% D0% B8% D0% BC% D0% BE% D1% 84% D1% 96% D0% B9% D0% BE% D0% B2 % D0% B8% D1% 87. The photo of the person referred to in the aforementioned article Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg was added to the Wikimedia and the source of it was indicated which is in the public domain. 00:46, on January 24 ,2017 CommonsDelinker (debate ∙ contribution). . (7049 bytes) (-50). . ( deleted the file Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg because it was removed from the Wikimedia Commons by the user Ellin Beltz. Reason: Copyright violation, see). Since it is indicated in attributes of picture Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg that the source of it is a book «For Statehood”. Coll. Kalisz 3, 1932 http://diasporiana.org.ua/istoriya/96-za-derzhavnist-zb-3/ file djvu: http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/96/file.djvu, Paste Between pages 120-121(posted on the website http://diasporiana.org.ua , it may be regarded to be the public domain. The date of publication of the book proves it (more that 70 years passed) and also an explanation of the project (about): "The main principles of cooperation are: 

   voluntary cooperation.
   openness (the members can be any institution or public organizations and also individuals who support the idea of the project). »http://diasporiana.org.ua/pro-proekt/.

Hereby I request to return the photo Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg to the Wikimedia.

 Oppose The fact that it was published in 1932 is important but not conclusive. In order to restore it here, you must prove that the photographer died before 1951. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. As long as the lifetime of the photographer is unknown, we cannot determine the copyright status. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg

The PRP does not apply to simple geometric shapes like squares, triangles, or stars, which this is. It is a simple 12-point star, there is nothing original about that. We have much more complicated police stars on Commons from other countries. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg. The problem is that we have no idea about the standards for TOO of Macedonia. Therefore, the PRP applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I stated, TOO does not matter for simple geometry. I asked the question of what is different between this file and File:Silver star.png, and nobody answered me. I don't think it is appropriate deleting the file without deciding if it is really any different from any other simple star geometry we have on Commons. I see nothing complicated enough about this to be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussed image, even though geometric, is significantly more complex than a simple 'star'. - Reventtalk 13:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's less complicated than the image I provided for comparison. The image I linked uses a variety of colours on each point to stand out, whereas the file deleted only uses two colours. And then it has another star with the same number of points, flat, and some letters. It is simple as anything. It should not have been deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There would seem to be a greater design component to the deleted image than the star used for the example. One needs to consider the concentric nature of the components and the colour. I can see how the assessment was made that it is more than simple geometric shapes, and it looks to be more to that assessment than a simple collection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The only difference is the number of points, my star example has 5 and the image in question has 12. Increasing or decreasing the number of points on a star does not change it's complexity, it is still a simple geometric form. Fry1989 eh? 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support undeletion. I agree with User:Fry1989 here. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I found what looks to be a translation of the Macedonian copyright laws here. The only thing concerning our case I found is in article 12:

(1) A copyright work, within the meaning of this Law, is an intellectual and individual creation in the field of literature, science and art, expressed in any manner and form.

(2) A copyright work shall be, in particular:
[...]
10. Works of applied art and design;
[...]

(3) The adaptation of a copyright work, where it fulfills the conditions of this Law, shall be considered as a copyright work.

No indications about the threshold of originality. Is this image an intellectual and individual creation? I'd say so, yes. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The legal situation concerning the TOO is inconclusive and there is no consensus in this discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:自分自身のファイル名.jpg

これは私が保有しているロゴです。 即時削除の撤回を求めます

This is the logo that I have. Requests withdrawal of immediate deletion.
translator: Google

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.21.139.229 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Also:File:ロゴス.jpg

Hmm. Except for the tree on the right, this is PD in the USA. The tree is fairly simple, so even with the tree, it may be PD-USA. What about Japan? What do others think? You can see it at the top left of http://www.kitanotatsujin.com/index.php where it appears with "Copyright(C) Kitanotatsujin Corporation All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support. In my opinion this is quite simple tree. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 Support. The TOO in Japan requires "a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain". The tree doesn't look very artistic or expressive to me so this should qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Journey Cover.jpg

RE: Ticket:2017011610012478 I responded to editor (Smooth O) regarding rights to the photograph in Wikimedia Commons (Journey Cover.jpg). This is a composite image used for an album cover. The image of the artist was taken by his wife, Denise Flauding, who has given full permission for its use. It was superimposed over an image of the Canadian Rockies taken at the Marriott Lodge in Jasper, Alberta, Canada. This is a photograph I took during a video expedition in 2009. I am a videographer and the Producer of the album named in the photograph. I did explain this to some degree in my previous email, however I respectfully request that the image be UNDELETED. The cover helps to update Mr. Flauding's bio on Wikipedia. The album is being released internationally on Feb. 15, 2017. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimnblack (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The OTRS ticket speaks of "verbal permission". Because copyright can last more than 150 years, long after we are all dead, all copyright license must be in writing. Therefore each of the copyright holders involved must send a separate free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Verbal permissions are not sufficient when it comes to verifying copyright matters. Unless all authors and copyright holders of this joint work have sent in their permission in writing (i.e. by email) we cannot restore the file. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Christian Jessup Composer.jpg File:Christian Jessup's Falling for Her Album Cover.png

I personally own the rights to the two files mentioned in the subject and would like to request their undeletion.--GothamRogue (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The first image has been published before without a free licence at the Gardner-Webb University website: [1]. In such cases we need more evidence to verify the free license. The easiest solution would be you updating the copyright information at the Gardner-Webb page to a Creative Commons 4.0 licence. Otherwise you'd have to send an email from an account associated with the University. Please see COM:OTRS for details.
As to the album cover, this has not yet been deleted but the verification process is the same. Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:syedameenbadasha.jpg

since I am the owner of this image --Sadiqmf (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Owning a physical copy of a photograph does not make you the copyright holder. The copyright rests almost always with the original photographer. Unless the photograph was taken by a member of your family and you inherited it, we cannot restore the file without permission from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:NazaninB.jpg

I would like to let you know, I had downloaded my friend's picture (Miss Nazanin Boniadi) in Wikimedia Commons and used it in her English and Persian topic's page. During download process , probably wrong licence type has been chosen ( I am not familiar with rules ) and it get deleted . As I explained before in that picture's talk page I have permission to use it in Wikis by owner of picture and also she knew very well that picture would be contribute and anyone can use it after. She is famous actress and well known so has million pictures but This picture have been used in her personal website in internet. by above information could you please kindly help me to restore that. regards --Farid69 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We need a free license from the original photographer sent by email. A permission from the subject shown in the photograph to use the photo in Wikipedias is invalid because all media at Wikimedia Commons need to be free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose, and only the photographer as the copyright holder may grant such a license. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify a permission by email. De728631 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @De728631: thank you for explanation. you are absolutely right. so in this case I prefer to get picture by my own camera for peace of mind & saving-time in paperwork. I am pretty sure, that portrait would be Picture of the Year :) fingered crossed ;)

Also could you please cancel my UN-Delete request regarding this picture. Kind Regards Farid69 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Presentacion_gambeta_de_sueños_2014.jpg

File:Presentacion_gambeta_de_sueños_2014.jpg

Personal Image, without copyryght.

Gabriel de Chascomus (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Yann (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Sart.jpg

This is my own picture. There is no copyright on it.

--Ciaoui (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ana Maria Braga.jpg

Hi, this file Ana Maria Braga.jpg was take by me in december 2016. I'm her employée and I have Ana Maria Braga permition to add this photo at Commons. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia Henz (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Nadiabochi-.jpg

Hi, This picture was taken by me in june 2016. I work with Nadia Bochi and I have her permition to add this file at Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia Henz (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Files of user User:BavariaYachtbau

The files

have been recently speedy-deleted by user:Ellin Beltz. The deletion reason seems to have been that the files do not have identical metadata and therefore an own-work claim is dubious. The uploader is a confirmed account of Bavaria Yachtbau, a well-known german boatbuilding company (see en:Bavaria Yachtbau, de:Bavaria Yachtbau). That the company is not the photographer on itself is obvious, but that the company has the necessary rights for distributing their promotional images (which they obviously were) is very likely. We do have an OTRS ticket (#2012022710009281) about the account, so the content of this should also be considered when making a decision on these images. If something is still unclear, there should at least be a contact in that ticket to clarify the situation. (XenonX3: can you check that ticket?).

The images themselves would be very valuable, as they're among the best images of modern sailing yachts that we have. Others of similar good quality I've found seem to be obvious copyvios (that's a different story though). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The files did not have any OTRS information, no descriptions and were uncategorized in addition to having two different photographers (uncredited). If restored, please take the time to adequately describe and categorize the images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. That is no problem at all. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not sure that the fact that this is a well known company is relevant here. Ticket:2012022710009281 does not come up when requested. Aside from a deleted logo, these are the only contributions from this user. We have no evidence that User:BavariaYachtbau is in fact the company -- it could well be a fan or customer of the company. We also typically require a free license via OTRS for images that are not PD, own work, or from freely licensed sources. We also need to know the actual author, because in most countries that determines the life of the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don't have the rights to see that ticket? It might be on the permissions-de list. This edit is very unlikely to be fake. XenonX3 is admin and OS on dewiki. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have pinged de:User::XenonX3 on their talk page on German Wikipedia. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
When I search for the ticket on the OTRS main page it comes back saying there is no result. But, of course, strange things happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: XenonX3 seems to be taking a wiki-break. He hasn't edited for half a year. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also cannot view this ticket. As a matter of principle, if an OTRS ticket provides the permission (i.e., foundation) for hosting on the Commons, it needs to be in a permissions queue accessible to Commons' OTRS volunteers. If the ticket is valid as claimed, please assign it to a permissions queue. Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    That ticket is in info-de and contains nothing but an account verification. --Didym (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    In that case I  Support restoration of the files. These are clearly promotional images by the manufacturer of the boats and we can assume that they have secured all necessary rights to publish those photos under the licenses stated. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Didym, would you be kind enough to post a note at User:BavariaYachtbau summarizing the OTRS message -- that the user is, in fact, the company of the same name. With that done, I would support restoration. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Bump! @Didym: pinging Didym?! De728631 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I did get that first ping, but I didn't see it between other alerts. Done now. --Didym (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per discussion. @PaterMcFly: Can you add descriptions and categories?. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ALANNA LOCKWARD 2016.jpg

ALana Lockward herself the person in the foto is the owner of the rights of this foto. The potographer Miguel Gomez took this foto of her. Both Alana Lockward and Miguel Gomez are informed and in acord with this foto being published at wiki commons.

Rafapetunia (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Framsida.jpg

Hello,

This picture is taken by me and not in violation of anything. I took it and have permission from the Royal Tennis Hall of Stockholm to use it.

Best regads,

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikwelin (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Unfortunately we cannot verify your claim right here and since the image has been published before by the Royal Tennis Hall without a free licence, you need to send an email from an address associated with KLTK confirming your authorship. Alternatively you as their webmaster could add a notice on the website attributing yourself as the author of the photo and releasing it under a free licence like Creative Commons 4.0. The recipient address for the email of confirmation is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per De. Taivo (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Page 2 - CFL as shown on UN Map to Karachi Agreement 1949.JPG

Was deleted as "uploader request" without further explanation. Is PD per {{PD-UN-map}}. Replaces the identical copy en:File:Page 2 - CFL as shown on UN Map to Karachi Agreement 1949.JPG with was unnecessarily tagged as non-free content. Finnusertop (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Free image on en-wiki, transferred latest version. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg

It was said that it was a duplicate image but it was not. It was from the Reform Club Election Bulletin of 1965 but what the author of this image is remains unknown. --Lmmnhn (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted after a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg. Do you have any new information not known at the deletion request? Thuresson (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn: anonymous images are a big problem as:
  • it is very difficult to prove that they are really anonymous
  • Wikimedia Commons images are required to be PD in US also, not only in the country of origin.
And according to this guide, US copyright for anonymous images last much longer than in other countries (120 years from the image creation or 95 years from their first documented publication). If you can point out an image that was published in HK in 1945 or earlier, or that was first published in US (and not in HK) in 50ties-60ties, we may go forward because of some extempts. Otherwise an identified author is necessary. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No new information has been presented to indicate that the image is in fact in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Joseph_Becherer.jpg to undelete

Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park is licensed to use the photo I want to add.

--Ezacek (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Erin Zacek 02/02/17

 Oppose I'm not sure what you mean -- in the file description you claimed that you were the photographer. Are you now claiming that someone else is the photographer and has licensed the image to the Park? In any case, the image includes prominently a work by Roxy Paine which will probably be under copyright well into the 22nd century, so we cannot restore the image without both a clarification of the copyright status of the photograph and a free license from Roxy Paine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim's reasoning. De728631 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lage magellansche wolken.jpg

This is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Lage_magellansche_wolken.jpg , where it says CC-BY. Author is de:User:Szs. 85.179.108.145 09:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited page shows CC-0, not CC-BY. However the permission block says:

"Die SuW hat mir/uns die freie Benutzung des Bildes erlaubt. Wortlaut: 'Du kannst das Bild benutzen. Bedingung ist ein Hinweis auf "Sterne und Weltraum" mit Angabe der Heftnummer.' Die Anfrage enthielt den Link auf wikipedia, es war also der Zweck bekannt. Ist das so OK? Im schlimmsten Fall muss ich das Bild neuzeichnen... --szs 10:01, 21. Apr 2004 (CEST)"
The SuW has allowed me / us the free use of the picture. Text: 'You can use the picture. Condition is a reference to "stars and space" with indication of the issue number. ' The request contained the link to wikipedia, so the purpose was known. Is that so OK? In the worst case, I have to redraw the image ... --szs 10:01, Apr 21, 2004 (CEST)
translator: Google

Because it is a 2004 image, the permission would be grandfathered if it met our requirements, but because the request was for use on WP:DE, it is not a license to use the image freely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems unlikely the author fully understood the licensing terms and intended the file to be licensed under those. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Прапор_міста_Вараш.jpg

File:Прапор_міста_Вараш.jpg Should be restored because of current licensing policies on the official Varash City Council site. File:Прапор_міста_Вараш.jpg Повинен бути відновлений базуючись на чинній політиці ліцензування міської ради Вараша згідно з офіційним сайтом. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергій1271 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Uploads by Aaberlanga

Also:

Good evening

I´m Aaberlanga user on Wikimedia commons. Recently I upload this image but Wikimedia reject it because of use without permission.

I have just written to the author of the permissions and rights of the photographs to request permission and I have obtained his authorization under the license CC-BY-SA 4.0. I just resend that authorization to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but i prefer not to include it here to protect the identity and the data of the sender.

Please, could you be so kind to republish that images. The images are on this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaberlanga

Thanks so much Best

--Aaberlanga (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Aaberlanga

  •  Oppose The file will be restored when the permission email has been processed by our voluntary email team. Because they are badly understaffed though, this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Also, unfortunately, we have enough users here who have tried to forge permission e-mails that for some time we have required that the e-mail must come directly from the copyright holder. Your forwarding it to OTRS will not be accepted. Please ask the copyright holder to send the license directly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion, COM:OTRS required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Qabusnameh.jpg

This file moved from en.wiki to commons and deleted as no source. Copy of th file avalube also in he.wiki he:קובץ:Qabusnameh.jpg. The work is from 1349. That is PD-Art-100. If we need a source is not very hard her for example. -- Geagea (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support I think it would be best if Geagea undeleted the file and cleaned up the description appropriately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Geagea, please feel free to restore this and update the description. {{PD-art-100-1923}} should be the appropriate licence. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, @Geagea: please clean up. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MB…read_the_unshapeable_shock_night….ogg

REASON: This file is correct & needed, because:

  • It is an original composition by Mr. Márton Bujdosó, notable Hungarian composer, who is uploaded it and gave correct OTRS permission Ticket#2016112510017171 permission
  • AND this file is absolutely IN SCOPE of Wikimedia Commons PROJECT SCOPE, because:

Aim of Wikimedia Commons

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: 

   that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
   that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

This is file is needed int the common repository because it referred from various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. E. g. the Wikipedia Article about the the composer: Márton Bujdosó

Please, undelete it (because it was mistakenly deleted and this absolutely correct and needed) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If the creator of the derivative work is also notable, the work obviously is in scope. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:...read_the_unshapeable_shock_night..._(Gerard_Manley_Hopkins).pdf --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. But: this is not a derivative work (narrow sense of the term). The title quotes a verse from the English poet (not composer!!) G. M. Hopkins, but the musical material contains no quotation or transciption. Ellin Beltz wrote this ("derivative work", "as an amateur copy of a famous painting") complete mistakenly. In broad sense, naturally, all works are derivative works. :) BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 OpposeThis work has been discussed before -- see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-12#File:MB.E2.80.A6read_the_unshapeable_shock_night.E2.80.A6.ogg. The OTRS ticket is new, however, so this is a legitimate request. However, I oppose it.
First, we must discount all of the comments about scope and value above because they were made in complete violation of WMF's policy on Conflict Of Interest. See WP:EN's summary of the COI policy which is applicable to all WMF projects. A person cannot comment here about the value of his own work as BUJDOSÓ Márton has done here.
Second, although BUJDOSÓ Márton does have an article on WP:HU, the first entry was on January 13, 2017 and a significant portion of the article was written by our uploader, also in violation of the COI policy. Google has no significant hits for this person other than Facebook and similar self-promotional sites. I doubt very much whether our Hungarian colleagues will keep the article.
Third, there are no Google hits for "read_the_unshapeable_shock_night" except in direct reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins. That strongly suggests that the musical work does not meet our requirements for notability.
Fourth, a musical work has many copyrights -- composer, lyricist, arranger, producer, and, in many countries, the performing artists. While not all of these may be applicable here, the OTRS message speaks only to the composer's copyright.
Last, the OTRS e-mail is from a gmail account. We do not generally accept licenses coming from gmail account because, of course, the owner of a gmail account can be anyone.
Any one of the five points above are enough reason to oppose this restoration. The five of them are overwhelming. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: According to COM:INUSE the file is in scope until our hungarian celeagues decide to delete the article. Also, I doubt, you should not refer English Wikipedia policy while talking about a Hungarian Wikipedia article. If you found this to be a real problem, it should be disputed either on huwiki or on meta, not here. The 3rd point I see irrelevant while we are talking about media for a huwiki article. The last two points may be a real problem, however, I see no attempt to resolve them in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
One more comment here: I don't see anything about unpaid edits that may be Conflict Of Interest in WMF policies. So they seem to me traeted under local wiki policies. I see no such policy in huwiki. Maybe, we should canvas this discussion there to receive clarification? Ankry (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The original deletion stated "in essence the same as an amateur copy of a famous painting and as that, out of scope" though the evidence is now that it is a notable person, so that original reason must be set aside and the matter reexamined. Otherwise I agree with Ankry. If there is an article at huWP (in scope), the work is released or out of copyright (in scope) then I do not see why it could not be undeleted against those points. [Also noting that we do not have a CoI policy, nor rule out of scope due to a CoI, and we cannot as many images we upload are our own works, so I cannot accept that as reason for deletion. I also dispute that WMF has a conflict of interest policy for contributors outside of "Paid contributions without disclosure". Terms and conditions checked. Foundationwiki and metawiki searches undertaken.] The 4th and 5th dot points are valid and need consideration and answers prior to undeletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst, Ankry, two points. 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 at WP:HU 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." on potential conflicts of interest

I can't imagine how anyone can think that it is OK for a user to talk about his own work and be a significant contributor to an article on his own work. Billinghurst, you say

"I also dispute that WMF has a conflict of interest policy for contributors outside of "Paid contributions without disclosure"."

That suggests that you believe that while I may not pay someone to write an article about me without disclosure, that it is OK for me to write an article about me without disclosure or, perhaps, that the fact that he used his own name is sufficient disclosure?

While I am aggressive in defending almost anything on Commons from deletion if it is in use elsewhere, there are exceptions to that rule, most particularly when a user himself places an image or creates an article himself, or when the WP use is so new that the WP has not had a chance to react. I agree that if, a few weeks from now, it was clear that WP:HU was going to keep the article, then my point #3 would be invalid. But that still leaves #4 and #5. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: If you think that general WMF policies should be considered here, point them directly. Not through other wiki policies. I see no evidence that any benefits are taken into account here. If I write an article about myself/my sister/my father/my boss/my employer/my house/my book/etc. (or publish a photo of any of them) you cannot assume I do it to receive any benefits. If there are benefits here, they have to be proven, not assumed, IMO. Going this way, I should assume that I enter CoI while publishing my own photos on Commons. I see no real difference between publishing a photo by a photographer and publishing a composition by a composer. The notability of the author may be taken into account, but it cannot be the only criterion. Ankry (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:
  • It is not "what I think about CoI" it is interpreting the community's policies, and at this wiki we have nothing about CoI.
  • At this wiki we have the commons:scope around educational, and public domain or freely licensed. If you wish to introduce a CoI component, please suggest it, rather than invent that it outweighs our scope.
  • At huWP they will have some policy and are able to make their decisions. If you believe there is a CoI abuse, add your opinion there, it is what I do with my crosswiki work when I see abuse. It is what huWP has to do when they disagree with our actions.
To the facts:
  • You quote foundation:Resolution:Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. If you read the lead paragraph it is for the board and employees and the lead paragraph expresses that the Board of Trustees ... hereby approves ... Guidelines on the Disclosure of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest in Requesting Movement Resources (my emphasis)
  • The guidance relates back to foundation:Conflict of interest policy, the policy for board and staff. Zero mention about volunteer edits; and one consistent with their position of providing the platform, not guiding editing, leaving that to the respective communities.
  • w:en:WP:COI is interesting reading and good guidance for many wikis, but it not the universal policy, nor the universal approach.
So as I said, I do not believe 1-3 are impediments, and I agreed with you that 4 and 5 do need to be addressed and resolved to undelete the file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jim, I precise that this is not a comment about the potential undeletion of this image but a comment about the discussion. I tend to agree with billinghurst, that foundation:Resolution:Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest talk mainly about "when requesting, using, or allocating movement resources". I'm not sure that to upload a file here, while it is indeed a use of wikimedia servers, can be considered as "using movement resources", but I may be wrong. I also think that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is very difficult to transpose here because to edit an article is totally different than to upload and license an artwork, mainly because an artwork while being COI in a specific article, can be useful for someone else. Scope and licensing are our main issues, and while one can think a specific image used in an article can be indeed COI regarding local wikipedia policies, it is also clearly in our policies to not editorialize the other projects, therefore we should not use our tools to enforce local wikipedia policies. Maybe one day we will have an easy tool for authorized users to postpone from here potentially misused images to the local wikipedias, and as we check a lot of pictures this could be an advantage for local wikipedias. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore @Jameslwoodward: why I think COI is not applicable here, it's at the opposite of the goal of our project. I mean, if a notable artist alive, e.g. [2] open an account here verified by OTRS, and then upload legaly here a few image of it's paintings, we are not going to say there is a COI, of course not! If the artist is notable enough then its artworks are welcome, this is even one of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, or I missed something. And when an artist, also verified by OTRS, is not enough notable we will say there is COI, this is not logical. The only issue for us may be the scope but not the COI, or COI have to be an issue whether the artis is notable or not.
To license an image of an atrwork is done here, and when it is in scope and legaly licensed we accept this image whether from where it come from. To write an article about this artwork is done in wikipedia, but sorry, while I personally see no issue that you cite the Wikipedia rules and policies to the inexperimented users to make them understand the goal of the wikimedia projects, which is to your credit (nicest when said in french "c'est même tout à ton honneur"), we have to be careful when quoting such policies because to say that an artwork may be in scope or not is one thing, but applying a COI rule in function that the artist is notable or not makes me uncomfortable, as we begin here to sort not the files but the users. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for raising the issue of COI on Commons -- it was plainly contrary to our policy here. However, I made five points way up there at the beginning of this long discussion and COI was only one of them. There seems to be some agreement above that at least two or three of the others are valid reasons for not restoring this file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me ask: how can I give a correct, valid permission? What else is needed? A scanned signature? Maybe, signature of performers, festival organizers and maker of the recording? (But: we speak about a free-licensed piece of music...) - - By the way, if I may say so, overwhelming majority of composers (at least in Hungary, and in this musical style) have not the slightest intention of publishing their works under free license. I made an attempt... but it makes me sad, that this is so much difficult. (Or you make it so much difficult.) BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Still on copyright grounds. According to the statements in this UnDR we have an OTRS permission of the composer, but not one of the performers. COI arguments are invalid, since this is in use. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tehran_Province_Constituencies.png

Hey guys, User:Jcb, User:INeverCry, the author of these file has just left me a note on my local wiki talk page about possibility of restoration of these files:

I know the user is very active on creation of political related maps and as he claims he is the author of these files I also can trust him on that. I can not find any similar image on Google Images to these files, and I guess this is used as source but I ask him about exact reference if needed. So, do you see any other specific issue with these? Thanks −ebrahimtalk 08:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The PDF you linked is all text, so, while I cannot read it, I can say that it is not relevant. The problem here is not the source of the data -- data does not have a copyright. The problem is that he gives no source for the maps. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jcb, as the user had linked on the images pages, File:TehranProvBlank.svg is used as the source. This image and above linked uploads are not different in fact, the user is correctly has managed to separate the newly introduced Iran province, en:Alborz Province from Tehran on that files it seems and also merged some of constituencies regions based on data can be found on the PDF I've linked.
I also asked from him if he is able to find some extra reference for his works but I believe the files are not incorrectly uploaded, he likely just used some locally available geographical map books it seems and used them with regions that originally was available on File:TehranProvBlank.svg.
Also, it worths to be mentioned the user is not able to access to Wikimedia Commons due to some recent Internet restrictions and this is why he couldn't response to lack of source notices and also is not able to put his comment here. −ebrahimtalk 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. There is no reference to any source on the maps, so "as the user had linked on the images pages" is not correct.
  2. File:TehranProvBlank.svg, which you cite as the source above, is not the base for these maps. It is a different map.
  3. "he likely just used some locally available geographical map books it seems" suggests that these maps are derivative works of the map books.
While I sympathize with Arfarshchi's communication difficulties, your various inconsistent statements do not give me the confidence to accept your assertions. I also note that Arfarshchi last contributed to Commons on January 11. Has his situation changed since then? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. It is linked already. Please have a look at this, permission section. Wrong place of course, whole file descriptions should be improved after revival, if we conclude to undelete these of course.
  2. Yeah, that is the exactly point I was talking about, it is the same. Just some of splitted west regions (en:Alborz Province) are removed, look at east (right) regions of this and.compare it with one of the uploads.
  3. No. I meant if you don't know about the regions, and, how and why he merged and removed some of them, it is because of unfamiliarity, the info of which region named what is well known and not controversial at all. Region removals can be done by subtracting Alborz map, and merges, by using the info available on this PDF or this Persian Wikipedia page, all based on the map image uploaded before, File:TehranProvBlank.svg. Also the user gave me this (national statistics organization of Iran which it seems has blocked foreign IP access to the site) for verifying the info.
Jameslwoodward: I am not sure, that is what he said to me, I heard also some of ISPs are better than other on this. −ebrahimtalk 11:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you were an Admin. Incidentally, it would be helpful if your user page said that.
  1. one of them is linked -- others are not. I did not look at them all.
  2. I see, thank you.
Given #2 above and that you recommend this and will clean up the sources for the files that aren't linked, I can now support this. Thanks for your effort here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you also :) −ebrahimtalk 12:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, @Ebrahim: please clean up. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

ISS-50 EVA-2 (i) Robert S. Kimbrough.jpg

ISS-50 EVA-2 (j) Robert S. Kimbrough.jpg
ISS-50 EVA-2 (k) Thomas Pesquet.jpg
ISS-50 EVA-2 (l) Thomas Pesquet.jpg
ISS-50 EVA-2 (m) Shane Kimbrough.jpg

The assessment "Works by ESA employees are automatically All Rights Reserved, and not automatically released from copyright as with NASA images" is not true. The EVA of Thomas Pesquet was a commissioned work for NASA with NASA hardware. To say Thomas Pesquet is an ESA employee and so his work is ESA property is not purposeful. For example Robert McCall was never a NASA employee but his paintings and patches made for NASA are free.

Where is difference to the photos of CSA employee Chris Hadfield? His work may be also "All Rights Reserved"? We have many other photos here on Commons made by ESA astronauts and cosmonauts, all copyright violations? I don't believe so. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I estimate that there several hundred thousand images on Commons that ought to be deleted. Telling us that other stuff exists is never a valid argument. I have, in fact, just created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robert McCall (artist). Note also that even if the creator of a work transfers the copyright to the US government, that does not automatically make the work PD -- modern postage stamps and the Sacagawea dollar are the most notable examples of this, but there are others. In order to have these images restored, you must prove that they have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Enough doubts to not warrant undeletion per the precautionary principle. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Вы нарушили мои авторские права и нанесли моральный ущерб. Вы преследуете меня из за того что я мусульманин! Вы исламофоб! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OderGunchin (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No valid reason for undeletion provided, just baseless accusations. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hunters Painter - Ivanov Boris Mikhailovich.jpg

The photographer and artist is the similar person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingvar rr (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The photo at [4] is size 529 x 865 pixels and apparently licensed as CC-BY-4.0 but it is not the same photo that was actually uploaded. The uploaded version is 3,094 × 3,906 pixels. It is possible that the painter wish the smaller photo of the painting to be licensed freely, not that the painting itself if licensed as CC. Thuresson (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A "work" in the copyright legal sense of the word is a work -- you cannot freely license only a small version -- the license applies to all versions. However I still haven't seen any evidence that the painter has authorized the source web site -- anyone can put anyone else's copyright notice on a site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
By your logic we would have to treat any external free licence as licence laundering and request verification for all images from Flickr, Ipernity and whatnot that so far been uploaded. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We must use judgement on all such questions. Certainly we are careful about Flickr and other such sources -- you are surely familiar with Commons:License laundering. My judgement here is that this may -- beyond a significant doubt -- be a third party site not authorized by the painter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That must be a hardcore fan posing off as Ivanov himself writing from a first-person perspective [5]. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Finally. I said above "Perhaps I am missing something here", and I now see what it is. As you say, it would have to be a very hardcore fan.  Support .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request by Taqs Blaze

Undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqs Blaze (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

From the edit summary: I don't see a reason for this dfd for being deleted and I don't think a dfd is offensive to be deleted and it was made by 1 of my group member on a project and I am free to do what I want with it

 Oppose This is apparently about File:DFD for the AI personal assistent.jpeg. If this was not created by yourself, you cannot grant a free license for the image because you don't hold the copyright unless this is a work for hire made by an employee of yours. We need a written permission coming directly from your group member that this can be used by anyone for any purpose. A suitable licence would be "Creative Commons by attribution 4.0". Please see COM:OTRS how to verify a permission by email. And what we need too, at least after restoring the file, is a description of what is actually shown in the image. De728631 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually the reason for deletion was that the diagram is out of scope. It is a diagram without any explanation at all that can serve no educational purpose. Also, it is a PNG and our preferred format for files of this type is SVG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bri_on_a_fitness_ball.gif

No reason for deletion, no Notification about possible deletion. Disappeared - and that's it! Shustov (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't know why it slipped in the list, but 1. I doubt you are the author of this small GIF, 2. it is quite out of scope. TBH, seeing the number of warnings on your talk page, I wonder how it is possible you are not blocked yet. :/ Regards, Yann (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanation that you "doubt" and you "wonder" is not my problem and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my file File:Bri_on_a_fitness_ball.gif. Please, look at the similar file from Wikiversity: Work-out on a ball and say what is wrong there? Shustov (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, I mentioned this image (and another) to the closing admin after the closure as I'd mistakenly not included them. The deletion reason, as indeed mentioned in the deletion log, was "Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov" (i.e., same issue as the contemporaneous batch). Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chin-up on one.gif

Notification about possible deletion by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Headstanding.jpeg

Notification about possible deletion of this file by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Headstand training.jpg

Notification about possible deletion of this file by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Stand on head only.jpeg

Notification about possible deletion of this file by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Donald Trump's Victory Speech.webm

The video was correctly released by the photographer (VOA News). Though Donald Trump is giving a speech, and can be seen referring to prompt board, there should be evidence provided that he was reading a prepared speech verbatim ("verbatim" seems highly unlikely, especially when thanking supporters, staff and members of his family, or segments like "That is now what I want to do for our country. Tremendous potential. I've gotten to know our country so well. Tremendous potential. It is going to be a beautiful thing. Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential."). In order to delete this public domain file, there must be verifiable evidence that a counter claim exists, in this case by producing the text of a copyrighted speech that was prepared in advance of giving the speech, so that we can verify that the text matches what Donald Trump says in the (public domain) video and that the intention of the speaker is to limit republication. In this instance my opinion would be it is more likely that Donald Trump would want his speech in the public domain rather than limiting re-publication or charging for it being requoted.

The original DR is linked below, there was very little discussion of the copyright issues with both participating opinions being that the file should be kept, though as there were only two participants in addition to nominator and closer, that's not much representation of community views.

--Fæ (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Equivalent case to any sound recording. The recording is a derivative work and therefore, copyright is assumed, just as with any other content. There must be verifiable evidence that the Trump campaign has released the rights of the speech and that the very Donald Trump has released its own rights as "performer". Pretty obvious. --Discasto talk 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please link to the speech text, this is missing from the DR and would be needed to overturn the public domain release. It is obvious that Trump improvises most of his words in this video, so they cannot be in any prepared text, it would be useful to check the necessary pre-existing text to demonstrate this. As far as copyright is concerned, there are literally no performance rights for this speech (as he is not performing a pre-existing published creative work). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest contacting greatagain.gov which is released with a free license. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The speech is not at https://www.donaldjtrump.com, so I suspect it has not been published as a prepared text. On greatagain.gov, the earliest date for releases is 2016-11-20 and the acceptance was videoed on 2016-11-09. I have tweeted greatagain at https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/826067546323427330 --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, several sources (e.g. [6], [7], etc.) say then President-elect Trump read his victory speech from a teleprompter, which suggests that fixation of the content of the victory speech did occur before he gave his speech. Of course, that does not remove the issue of whether or not he deviated substantially from the previously prepared remarks that would have been on the teleprompter. —RP88 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@RP88: That does not matter, there is a copyright in 'the performance itself', as fixed by the recording of it, separate from any copyright in the text of the prepared remarks. - Reventtalk 05:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As always on Commons, the burden of proof lies with those who would keep a work here to prove that it is PD or otherwise freely licensed. Note also, that for the work to have a copyright, it is not necessary that Trump read the speech word for word -- if he read any complete sentence from a prepared document, that portion of the speech has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I realize now that my comment above is too restrictive. Since the video of the speech is a form of fixation allowed by US copyright law, all of the speech is, in fact, copyrighted, whether read from a prepared text or not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: This is related to the re-opened deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm#Reopening. --Closeapple (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. See archived discussion from Jimbo Wales user talk page: (Archive). These deletions are, in effect, creating a new Commons policy. Because evidently in the past we did not delete public domain videos of public speeches. We should keep these videos, and adjust, or clarify, the rules so that we continue to do so. The VOA (a federal government agency) is not deleting these videos. Why should we? We should operate according to the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). --Timeshifter (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We are not the VOA. The VOA is a news agency and reporting notable speeches is a fair use for any news agency. Commons is not a news agency, so fair use can not apply to us even if Commons policy did not prohibit it. The suggestion that we should operate as guided by the DMCA is explicitly prohibited by COM:PRP.
Note, by the way, that any speech made by Trump while he is President will be the work of a Federal employee and therefore PD. This was, however, made in November. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
A correction, when VOA videos have been created by their employees, the videos are automatically public domain. The separate issue is whether we can or should accept that hypothetical notes for public speeches should overrule the video's public domain status for Commons, when nobody can produce the notes, the notes are unpublished, the notes may not have been followed by the speaker and the notes may even no longer exist. In terms of Commons policies we are stretching our understanding of "significant doubt" to cover hypothetical texts which we may never verify and for which copyright may never be asserted or be impossible to assert. --Fæ (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually it is not Fair Use for VOA to replay a whole copyrighted speech. VOA is operating like Youtube, most news media, and most individuals who replay public speeches. All public speeches are copyrighted the moment they are on video. No prepared notes are required. Look it up. Youtube, VOA, etc. are operating based on DMCA concerning public speech. They are waiting for a Take Down notice that rarely comes, because people making public speeches usually want it spread far and wide. I know the rules on the Commons. They need to be adjusted to the fact that a large percentage of people have high-resolution videocameras on their smartphones, and they use them to make many videos of other people speaking. All of those people speaking have a copyright. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The VOA (any other news sources recording these speeches) had permission from the 'performer' to do so, obviously. Thus, the videos were 'licensed' derivative works (though not a form of license we would accept), and they have a clear right to themselves republish them. The VOA cannot, however, 'relicense' the copyrighted material that they do not own (the text of the speeches, or the performances) to third parties, and neither can we. Only the author of the performance can do that, and there is no evidence in these cases that they have done so. - Reventtalk 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Revent. You have raised performer rights several times now and I believe these are an unsupported tangent from the text copyright core issue, so would like to see it put to bed.
If you wish to argue that speakers, such as politicians, have performer rights there are specific points you must address where there is a mismatch between copyright law and video recordings of this type. Firstly, my understanding is that the USA (where this video was taken) has no established federal performer rights law, not to be confused with performance rights of a work. Secondly, there is no copyrightable artwork being created by a normal spoken address, i.e. not singing or poetry readings, that would be distinct from the argument that a prepared text may be copyrightable; if this were true then if the speaker gave a later address using the same text, you should be able to prove in law that each performance has a separate copyright.
Could you address these two points by pointing us to the correct and verifiable part of USA intellectual property law? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
As I, and others, have pointed out above, it doesn't matter if it was a prepared speech or completely off the cuff. USCO Circular 1 says:
"Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device."
The speech itself is the original work. The video is the required fixation. (I note, for completeness, that the speech must be original -- if one stood up and recited the Gettysburg Address, there would not be a new copyright.) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Jim, you are going wrong with "The video is the required fixation", as the video is legally the intellectual and material property of the photographer. As WMF legal stated "If a speaker’s remarks or responses to questions presented during a speech were not written down or “fixed” in some manner, they would not be protected by the written speech’s copyright.", please refer to the sources that WMF legal quoted. To challenge the copyright of the photographer in a court action, evidence must be presented of pre-existing copyright material, in whatever form. Contributors here and earlier may find discussion muddied by the word "fixation", it just means that to be copyrighted, the creative work must be able to be presented (on request in court) and verifiably pre-exist the video (as per the legal case study referenced earlier).
In the example case study, a judge determined there was a case to present by first examining the presented alleged copyright-able material, before an action was allowed to proceed; there is no example case study of where the film or recording was itself the pre-existing copyrightable material. The only relevant cases would be those of performer rights, an entirely different area of IP law, problematic in the USA due to a lack of any successful legal cases, and for which there is no evidence that they would apply to normal speeches, as opposed to music or other conventional performance-based artworks. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless made by a Federal employee, the video will generally have its own copyright, but that is irrelevant. The video is still a means of fixation of the speech. Your quote from WMF mentions "fixed", but does not support either side of this discussion as it does not mention whether a video is fixation. I found several supporting items on the Web, see for example https://library.osu.edu/blogs/copyright/2015/09/30/copyright-in-campaigns/, where it says:
"Two categories of works are not covered by copyright, however: works that fail to meet the fixation requirement and .... This means that speeches made at town hall meetings or political rallies may not be protected by copyright, unless those speeches were recorded or transcribed."
That clearly tells us that extemporaneous speeches are copyrighted if recorded or transcribed. There is no requirement for speaking from a prepared text.
And, from 17 USC 101:
"A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission."
For these purposes, the video is a "phonorecord". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The first citation (a blog rather than a conventional reliable source) you give here I would put aside as the conclusion you use it for is not based on any actual U.S. legal cases, and the quote you use is where a video is taken as effective meeting notes, and the film-maker is the asserted copyright holder of the content, circumstances that are logical and I would in no way challenge. The example therefore just muddies the water as the case we are looking at here involved multiple copyrights in conflict.
The citation you give from 17 USC 101 is not disputed. It is this definition that was used to assess in court whether pre-existing notes could be presented to assert a claim of copyright. Again there is nothing in the citation that justifies the presumption that live speech in a video, with no pre-existing notes being quoted, can be copyrighted by the speaker, separate from the copyright of the video creator. In practice there are no existing legal cases that support this assertion or reading of USA IP law (and by the way, it is clear to me that WMF legal support my reading of IP law in this regard, however I encourage you to ask them to revisit the wording of their essay to address your interpretation.). --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: It's now been cited to you, repeatedly, at the DR about the Steinem speech where the USCO specifically, explicitly, and repeatedly states that the performer whose work is 'fixed' in a recording has a copyright that is separate from the copyright held by the 'producer' of the recording. You keep insisting that people provide 'court cases' that prove you wrong, on a point where half a dozen legal experts, including the USCO, have said you are wrong. A court might at some point ruled that the sky is indeed blue, but there is no need to dig up the ruling when reliable sources agree. You are not a copyright lawyer. When the USCO says something is true, the burden of proof then lies on the person who claims they are wrong to provide the evidence. - Reventtalk 01:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious that you can record your words and then copyright your recording. The USCO does not state that all recorded speech is thus the IP of the subject. --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems likely that this speech is copyrighted, therefore we cannot host it, at least per the COM:PRP. One area where we should relax our rules, in my opinion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:201701_Trachea_and_Bronchial_tree.png

At least this image is not so small that it should be undeleted. --Yayamamo (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support uploading the SVGs only if they were created in such a manner that they will render realistically at sizes in the 200 pixel on a side range and, preferably, larger. If they render poorly at that size then they are not useful and, as I said at the DR, would be a disservice to our colleagues with poor vision. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just uploaded its SVG file at File:201701_Trachea_and_Bronchial_tree.svg. Is this preferable? --Yayamamo (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the light gray on light gray colors, but the size is much better -- there's good detail even at 2000px. Perhaps one of our SVG experts could modify the color.
As I noted above, if the rest of the SVGs are similarly detailed, I support uploading the SVG version of the files I deleted yesterday. You might do, say, ten of them, list them here, and let us take a look at them. If the ten are good, then do the rest. And thank you for your effort and understanding here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I just had a closer look at the Trachea SVG. Recoloring would likely become a really tough job because there are hundreds of little elements with different hues. So swapping of colours is not that easy. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the try -- nonetheless, I think we should keep the SVG (but not the PNG). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:ZhangJinghui.JPG

This file was deleted in a RfD in 2004 because the status of its copyright is uncertain. It was not possible to determine even the date the photograph was taken. I want to restore it to submit it to an new RfD trying to clarify the status of its copyright and, if re-deleted, determine an undelete date. Apparently it is a historical photograph. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images deleted before 16 June 2006 cannot be restored. Thuresson (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll confirm this. The file's deleted revisions do not have any file revision, only the revisions of file description page --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There are a source that is not a broken link and allows you to recover the image in the description page? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The source is [8]. Yann (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann, did you get that link to work? It has timed out twice when I tried it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No. IA has a page copy from 2004-10, one month after the date in the URL, but the image isn't available. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Searching for 张景惠, the mentioned name, on Chinese Wikipedia, we seem to already have a lot of his images. Noting that the original image has an aspect ratio of 300 * 204, File:Manchukuo politician.jpg is probably the closest to this ratio, but not quite. The original page has also no title text for the image, or a description of the image in the Chinese text below that could help identification of this image. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: File can not be restored for technical reasons. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Csatáry László

File:Kanada IM levél 2015..jpg

Dear Andrzej Krzysztofowicz!

The Wikimedia deleted the photos because he was not authorized by the author of the free publication and referred to the Canadian Rights Notice that this is also covered. The US law was not a word of complaint. The permission for the free use of the letter authored by Terry Breitner Director of the Canadian Department of Justice gave a written, so the issue is resolved. This is the case in Canada, so the problem does not affect the US.

The photo upload is necessary since the year 2012 the press wrote that Csatáry Laszlo been expelled from Canada and the Canadian citizenship for war crimes. Laszlo became the player with Csatáry II. One of the episodes and thus became közszereplővé World War II. Based on these accusations in the media and many articles and video reports and flagged forrárásként, Laszlo was referring to these Csatáry Wikipedia. The year was 2013. It was the editor of the article named "Tomcsy" editor. The discussion board people complained why "Tomcsy" refers to the media as a credible source? I have one and a half year period of the Hungarian and Slovak archives and Canada got into the documents that show the reality of it Csatáry Laszlo. The Kandi Justice Minisztérum 2015 letter proves that the expulsion and denationalization mCsatáry accusation is not true and does not commit any sin.

This letter is complete supporting Canadian history László Csatáry Wikipedia and the world. In order for this photo is legal, historical and educational significance because it becomes a round of László Csatáry whole story.

That is why I want you to get permission to upload.

This letter was written using the Google translator, because the English language just a little know, but I hope that my reasons are understandable and logical. Best regards, Sandor Verbovszki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peretsényi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file is a letter from a Canadian Official. Since it was written by a government official in the course of his duties it will be under Crown Copyright until 50 years after its publication. It cannot be kept on Commons without the permission of the Canadian Government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear James, This Canadian Law promulgated in 1997: - Reproduction of Federal Law Order SI / 97-5 Registration 1997-01-08 Reproduction of Federal Law Order P.C. 1996-1995 1996-12-19 - It has, so that more people can get to know the Canadian public documents. It is therefore not clear what kind of encryption is 50 years. Peretsényi (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Covered under Crown Copyright. The Federal Order cited is about laws and decision by courts, not about correspondence with an office. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Dies ist eine Aufnahme meiner Person. Dieses Bild ist in meinem privaten Besitz. Ich möchte dies sowie einige anderen Bilder die auch in der Verinsrunde von mir aufgenommen wurden in mein WIKI Profil hinzufügen leider ist dies alles absolutes neuland für mich. Die Zeitungsartikel ist absolut Verständlich aber mir stellt sich die Frage warum ich Bilder die mehrere Jahrzehnte in meinem Besitz sind nicht unter meinem Profil veröffentlicht werden können. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juergenbrecht1 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Um welches gelöschte Bild geht es hier? File:Example.jpg in der Überschrift ist nämlich nur ein Platzhalter. Allgemein gilt für Fotografien, dass nur der tatsächliche Fotograf ein Bild für den freien Gebrauch lizensieren kann, nicht jedoch die Person, die darauf abgebildet ist. Das heisst, wir benötigen hier ggf. die Freigabe durch den oder die Fotografen. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Unvollständige Anfrage. Unklar, welches Bild gemeint ist. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

The above file uploaded by User:Art javier was initially tagged for speedy deletion by The Big Bad Wolfowitz with the rationale "Derivative work. Uploader may have cropped this image from a record cover, but since they don't hold copyright to the original, which is presumptively under copyright, their work is self-evidently nonfree". User:Art Javier claimed on the file page that "Nikki Phoenix authorized This picture to be uploaded for general use so that it also could be used for her Wikipedia Page. I converted it to DR here. The claimed by User:Art Javier suggested that the work is likely to be a commissioned work but it was not clear weather User:Art Javier is indeed the original photographer or not. Meanwhile, the image already appears on Jetset Magazine Website and the website says "All content and materials available on jetsetmag.com, including but not limited to text, graphics, website name, code, images and logos are the intellectual property of Jetset Magazine, and are protected by applicable copyright and trademark law. Any inappropriate use, including but not limited to the reproduction, distribution, display or transmission of any content on this site is strictly prohibited, unless specifically authorized by Jetset Magazine.". I argued that the copyright notice on Jetset Magazine's website is not an evidence that they are the copyright holder of every contents on their website and in case of images, the copyright holders are the original photographers who took the images. Unfortunately, this argument was described as "Unresponsive nonsense" by User:Elcobbola who believed that "a statement on a legitimate publication's website is, in fact, exactly that." Of course, this is not correct. Jameslwoodward deleted the image that it would be restored provided "an OTRS e-mail is received from an address at nikkiphoenixxx.com that includes a free license from the photographer or a copy of the written agreement between the photographer and Ms Phoenix that allows her to freely license the image. User:Art Javier claimed to have sent the email as requested by Jameslwoodward. In other to resolve this issue as soon as possible, User:Art javier contacted jetsetmag.com that since he's the original photographer, the image should be credited to him and Jetset Magazine did exactly that. Jet Magazine credited the image to him as requested. At this point, I think the image should be restored since the website has now credited the image to the uploader. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is pending. Let the OTRS process sort this out. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Marian and Vivian Brown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted by Jcb as a copyright violation today (5 Feb 2017). Russavia (posting as an IP) initially queried the deletion and was reverted by Jcb. I added my name to the request hoping that as a fellow administrator, Jcb would explain his reasoning. I've not received a satisfactory explanation.

The image was uploaded by Russavia before their ban. The image was imported from Flickr [9] when it was originally licensed under the CC-BY-2.0 license, the license was verified by the Upload Wizard, and the templates {{FlickrVerifiedByUploadWizard|cc-by-2.0}}{{cc-by-2.0}} was automatically added to the file description page during the initial upload.

The image was deleted on Flickr between the upload date and todays date, and an alternative image, made available only under the All Rights Reserved licence, was uploaded. [10] which is the source given in the deletion request and in Jcb's deletion log entry.

The deletion was triggered by Montanabw (this user needs to explain why they're tagging Flickr images with the licence verification template as a copyright violation).

I would quickly like to remind both Jcb and Montanabw that Creative Commons licences are not revocable and that this image should not have been deleted on the grounds of copyright violation. If there was doubt about the veracity of the licence at the time the image was uploaded, that can be remedied by looking at the original source file on the Internet Archive. I have confirmed that on the two snapshot dates (8 October 2015 and 24 January 2016) the image Jcb deleted was available under the CC-BY-2.0 licence (see [11] - be aware that Flickr pages on the Internet Archive can be slightly temperamental and you may need to refresh a couple of times to catch the image and the accompanying data). Nick (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Procedural restore. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shanks Poster.jpg

This is a poster of an upcoming film "Shank's" and uploaded by the person associated with the film. Request for undeletion immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notjustent (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Notjustent: If you really have the right to upload this image under license given, please have a look at COM:OTRS. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

?

What could be more creative than using my wife and my baby to portray Africa essence in motherhood. I own the work and that's the truth. I'm submitting similar work right away. #onaaraTODAYnews — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnaaraTODAYintelligence (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: User has no contributions (deleted or not). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jean Jepson 1940s Portrait.jpg

I am having discussions with your Teahouse colleagues about permissions for using this file.

Questions are being put to me about "ownership" and "legal permissions" over the use of the picture.

Jean Jepson, before she died, distributed several copies of this and other photos to many of her students, including me.

Over the years we have shared these photos freely and widely and they are posted in many dance studios and websites. This is how Jean wanted us to remember her and we use all such memorabilia to honor and remember her.

I have added this photo to the article so that interested parties can get an immediate snapshot. This would be very convenient for readers. If you are not able to use it then that is fine. This same photo is available online and readers will be able to see it somewhere else.

Do I own it? I own the copy that Jean gave me.

Do I have permission to use it? She gave it to me and other students so that she would not be forgotten. That is what we are doing. Introducing her to new generations and making sure that she is not forgotten. We have been doing it for a long while and we will keep on doing it as long as people are interested in learning her story.

CableHut (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing, File:Jean Jepson 1940s Portrait.jpg has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Collapsed fullview.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was uploaded by MGalloway (WMF). An ex-employee of the WMF. Globally locking such account is common practice when leaving their position/employment, and not an indication of wrong doing. The file was deleted by Taivo due to it being with no known purpose (i.e. out of scope) after only one day of "discussion". The similar file File:Board Owner View.png was kept by INeverCry, since it is a screenshot or mockup of WIkipedia made by an WMF employee, so there has to be some sort of documentational or procedual value to it.

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

  • that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
  • that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
    — Commons:Project scope

I'm arguing that this file should be undeleted for two reasons. One for procedual reasons, it did not go through 7 days of DR. Secondly, I'm arguing that it is automatically in scope, since it is made by and for the WMF themself. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. Closing DR-s speedily is totally OK, if nominated files qualify for speedy deletion. This file qualified: it has a lot of en:Lorem ipsum text, nothing what had sense. At second, not everything produced by WMF is in scope, for example this total junk file. It was not "project of the Wikimedia Foundation." Taivo (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It was a mockup of Flow, made by an WMF employee. It may not have educational value, but we are a media storage for both educational media, media from WMF events, and WMF documents. This is one of those. Also speedy deletions should only be done if it is a clear COM:CSD or non-controversial, which scope-issues clearly are not. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Mockups use Lorem ipsum, to avoid real quotes or usernames in their documentations. It is still valuable and in scope regarless of the text in the discussions they are representing, since that's not the "point" of the mockups. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't fully understand the circumstances surrounding this, but this is a WMF project page. Either (a) it is publicly available either directly or in the history of a page, (b) it has been deleted, but is still available to Admins if needed, or (c) has been more permanently hidden so that a limited number of people, or, perhaps, none, can see it. It seems to me that if (a) is true, then having a screenshot of it is unnecessary. If (b) or (c) is true, then keeping an image of it circumvents a deletion process that should be addressed directly, not at second hand. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: This is a screenshot/mockup made by a WMF employee of how Flow could have looked, as part of the development of Flow. Nothing to do about circumventing deleted pages. (I.e. it was never actuially a real page with any real content) (t) Josve05a (c) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, lets see if I understand. This is a dummy page, which was created off-line, and never existed as a page on any WMF project -- is that right? If so, I'll withdraw my comment above and support undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Given that all text in the discussions is lorem ipsum, I'd say so. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support Per above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support For the reasons explained above. - Reventtalk 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per this discussion. "Out of scope" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. This is clearly in scope as a MediaWiki mockup. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Tschunk-org.jpg

delition was requestet here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tschunk-org.jpg

The bottom of the website says:

(cc-by) 2011-2013 Alle Inhalte von tschunk.org als Creative Commons mit Namensnennung freigegeben.

--Shisma (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support This should not have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: There is no reason why the permission on the website should not be valid. Everything at that website points to a correctly licensed image. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:KFC SoGood.png

El cóndor andino:

Le solicito que no borre mis dibujos, están con dominio público y que se pueden usar para otros usuarios. --El cóndor andino (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)El cóndor andino--El cóndor andino (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The KFC logo is copyrighted and non-free. All the other files have not yet been deleted but there is the same issue. Please comment at the individual deletion discussions. You might have seem some of these logos at Wikipedia that accepts fair use content, but Commons does not tolerate fair use. All images here must be free for anyone for anyone to use for any purpose and these logos do not match this criterion. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Files not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Babu 1.png Request for Undeletion

Mr. K. Babu is a friend of mine, the image to be undeleted is the one which taken for his campaign purposes (especially in social media). The rights of this image belong either to him or his election campaign manager V Chenthamarakshan. The image is used here to represent K Babu MLA, with both their permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirudhankovath (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So why did you claim to be the copyright owner when you uploaded the photo? Thuresson (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Copyright holder (that means photographer, not you, not K. Babu) must send OTRS-permission to Commons. After that the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gan (1).png

That file is a WMF file, a logo of a Wikipedia. It was transferred from ganwiki to Commons [12]. Now the transfer is blocked, and it is not possible to delete the local file. But ganwiki normally moves all 'commonizable' files to Commons. If the uploader really asked for deletion, please say who it was, so one can discuss with that user. 77.180.32.8 13:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I have restored the file for now. It should most likely be moved to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gan.png and needs cleanup, though. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Logo TEHNOMASH Znak CMYK-01.jpg

This file belongs to us, we are the company, which created it. Also, we have patients on this logo, we will be happy to show it to you. Logo_TEHNOMASH_Znak_CMYK-01 is my file, i also can provide you the whole brandbook of the company. Tmnpo (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. This is not a simple logo and surpasses threshold of originality. Complex logos can be in Commons only with official permission from copyright holder. Plain words are not enough. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After that the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The file has been re-uploaded by another user with Ticket:2017020610011058. Kept pending validation of the licence by the OTRS team. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:An-Pu-O Papiro de Wadjet.jpg

Reason: I am the author of the image, which appears in my book Nicole Sigaud (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, User:Nicole Sigaud could be anyone. Second, as a general rule, the author of a book does not have the right to freely license the cover. That right generally belongs to the publisher and depends on what basis the cover photograph was licensed. In order to restore this image, we will need either (a) a free license from the publisher or (b) a free license from Nicole Sigaud together with written evidence that she has the right to freely license the cover. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Лунчено.jpg

Please restore File:Лунчено.jpg we have received OTRS permission from author (Ticket:2017020710015703). --sasha (krassotkin) 15:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Krassotkin: , please add the OTRS tag. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Collaborators.jpg & Bastion Poster Compressed.jpg

The image file - File:The Collaborators.jpg - is owned and licensed out by my company (I own rather than work for it). I didn't realise the film had a wikipedia page/article written about it, when I saw it, I saw the image provided on the page was simply a list of title credits. As we have already added the release poster of the film to other sites and entities, such as imdb, I thought I would add the completed release poster to the already created wikipedia article.

The other image file - Bastion Poster Compressed.jpg - is another film owned and licensed out by my company. After adding the poster to the collaborators page, I did the same for the recently released Bastion film.

I would like to request the un-deletion of these files; or if that is not possible, could I have the reasons behind and advice on the correct procedure for adding our licensed property for future reference.

Thank you.

(RichardAlbiston89 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

  •  Oppose We have a rule that free licenses for media that have been published before without such a licence must be granted and/or verified in writing directly by the copyright holder. If your company holds the copyright for these posters, please send an email from one of your official accounts to verify your Creative Commons licenses. For details and the recipient address, please see Commons:Email templates. Once your email has been processed by our volunteers, the image files will be restored. This may take some weeks though because we are very shorthanded. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631, permission(s) must be sent by the copyright holder(s). Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chateau moulin Lustrac.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file deleted is a private photograph dedicated to the public domain by the author. 79.91.174.34 16:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The image can be found online at this forum site which credits neither the photographer nor mentions the public domain. "Sources diverses" is the only credit to be found there. To restore the image, we need a permission by email from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631, we need a permission from the copyright holder. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Boundlesslogo.jpg

We own the rights to this image and it was created by us. We would be happy to provide further evidence if you need it. WonderstruckGames (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@WonderstruckGames: Please see COM:OTRS for a process to assert your copyrights. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sebari: : We've submitted an e-mail using the template provided by Wiki Commons. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. WonderstruckGames (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Anatislogo suom iso.png

The logo is my own work and thus I am the original copyright holder. I have created it and I willingly want to give it to anyone to be used so I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Symbioosi (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Going for a full DR. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Steven Erikson 2016.jpg

File:Steven Erikson 2016.jpg

I am the person who took this picture of Steven Erikson at Lucca Comics, and I am the person who uploaded it. I do not understand why it was deleted, because doing a google image search and seeing the image used by others on their blogs/websites does not mean that it automatically is in violation of wikipedia's policies. I would suggest checking the date stamp and or date the image was uploaded here on wikipedia and comparing it to the other websites.

I asked the admin, who'd nominated this image, his reasoning behind the nomination for deletion, and he has so far not responded to my message. And apart from that, I have contested the deletion on the image's talk page, but have seen no one responding to it; to the contrary, the image was deleted without a response.

regards, LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This was an extremely low resolution image of only 305 × 424 pixels, which probably caused the deleting admin to suspect that it had been copied from another website. Can you provide a high resolution image, with EXIF data, straight from your camera to confirm that you were the photographer? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) First of all, for future reference: this is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons where a few different rules may apply when it comes to images. And your request at Jcb's talk page was made just 20 minutes before you posted here. Both Wikipedia and Commons are administered by voluntary users who are usually not sitting at their computer 24/7 so I think you should have waited for Jcb's reply a bit longer. Anyhow, I  Support your request because the results from this Google search that caused the deletion of the file are mostly Wikipedia screenshots archived in Google's cache, plus a few Wikipedia mirrors and backwards copies. This was uploaded by you (I suppose) after it was published at Commons. I can't find any earlier publication of this photo that would suggest that you are not the original photographer and publisher. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding.
@De728631: Yes, the image was uploaded by me, as you can no doubt conclude from my username, and my contribution history. If that's still not enough, I just edited my page to include a link to my Wikimedia user page. Thank you for your support, and no, I was not referring to Jcb, but rather to the user who nominated it for deletion; this user.
@MichaelMaggs: Yes, I am willing to upload the uncropped version, but the quality (resolution) would still be low, since the image was made using a phone. But please check this. Look at the profile image and browse through the other images -- I think that it should be sufficient to "authenticate" it.
PS: this is the full image I uploaded on the Malazan Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofMoonSpawn (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful. But there is still one thing that bothers me: the very low resolution of your image. A photo taken with a mobile phone in 2016 has a vastly greater resolution than that. Could you explain why your image is so small, if you took it yourself? It seems to me that you must have deliberately reduced the resolution for upload, but you've not confirmed that. Are you able to provide the full resolution image for verification, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not unusual to crop a regular sized photo to a small section depicting a particular person. Mobile phones do not have a zoom. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: The only explanation which I can give as a reason is that it did not auto-focus correctly. And When you first asked me to upload the image, I searched my laptop but could not find it, which is why I chose to provide those links as an alternative. If you give me a day or two, maybe I can find the original image in one of my external hard drive's. And @AFBorchert: is correct: I cropped it so that only the author was visible.
Also, I'm not a professional photographer i.e. the image was taken as a memento, but since Steven Erikson had no recent image, and since I have been a contributor on wikipedia for more than a decade, I thought I'd rectify that.
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - file has very low resolution and has not meta-data. The so called "full image" as linked above, does not contain any meta-data either. At this website, the image is credited to a 'Davide Monky Moncalero', who may be or may not be LordofMoonSpawn. I think it's necessary that the uploader shows the full version with original resolution and with meta-data to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I will try to upload the original in a day or two, but if I don't find it, I would like to appeal to you to consider the possibility of not everyone being a plagiarizer on the web (not that you accused me of that).
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose unless and until evidence can be presented via the full OTRS process, including a copy of a full-resolution image with metadata. The fact that no earlier copy of the image has so far been found online does not provide evidence that the uploader is the photographer and copyright owner. It is, to say the very least, difficult to accept that a mobile phone that "did not focus correctly" could be the cause of a tiny image with missing metadata. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Found the image (with matadata) on my google drive of all places. Used the OTRS process to release it. Thanks for all the assistance.

LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any OTRS email relating to this file. You sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, I assume? If you could confirm the subject line of the email I can look again. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes did send it to that email. Subject line was OTRS. I received an automated email with this ticket [Ticket#2017020810010046]
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: Should I sent another email?
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks very much for the image via OTRS. That all seems fine, and I have undeleted the file for you. Thanks for taking the time to go through the steps to establish your copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:boundlesslogo.jpg

According to the rules it says "You can upload someone else's work if the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify and sell it." The developers have provided this artwork on their forums at playboundless.com and have encouraged people to contribute to their wiki page. Original Artwork can be found on the developers website under press kit. Therefore I would like to get this file undeleted. Herbertsworld (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Nothing at their website equals an explicit permission "to use, copy, modify and sell" their graphics. A generic press kit and the encouragement to cover the game on blogs, websites and magazines does not include the right to make derivatives and sell Boundless graphics. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631, see also related UnDR. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Olavo-de-carvalho-1033048 1920.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: IT WAS PROPERLY LICENSED. here is the source. It is a sketch made by someone who decided to make it public domain. Holy Goo (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not really sure that the license is valid, but I undeleted this and created a DR instead. --Yann (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olavo-de-carvalho-1033048 1920.png .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jim Boeven with Colin Farrell on the Set of Hart's War.jpg

Hi - although this image was approved previously by Wikimedia, I see that it has been removed. We have been able to track down the person who took the picture using Jim Boeven's phone and will be submitting that copyright affirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Do I have to reupload the images? --Elizabg (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Elizabg 2/8/2017

 Oppose Commons has no mechanism for approving images, so I'm not sure what you mean. This file was deleted because the OTRS permission was from the subject, not the photographer. In order to have the image restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Anything you or the subject sends will not be accepted. If and when that license is received, approved, and processed, the image will be restored without further action on your part. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. OTRS-permission from photographer (not from depicted persons) is needed. After that the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Scott Evans.jpg

I am writing concerning the deletion of the file File:Scott Evans.jpg. This is not a copywritten picture of Scott Evans. It is owned by me. It must have been deleted in error. --Stella8358 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When you uploaded the photo you claimed that the photo was copyrighted. If you are the copyright owner of this photo, please use the process described at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The photo was published in Instagram before upload into Commons. That case own work is considered dubious and OTRS-permission from photographer is needed. After receiving the permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jason Dy MCA Music.jpg

Also File:Elha_Nympha_signed_under_MCA_Music,_Inc.jpg

This image is owned by us, MCA Music Inc., a Universal Music Group Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCAMusicInc (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be great. However, since user accounts are essentially anonymous, we prefer to be careful with previously-published material, and require an extra step to confirm the license -- see Commons:OTRS. The second reason is to make clear on the permissions being granted -- we cannot accept permission for Wikipedia use only, and that sort of thing. So, once the email mentioned in that OTRS page is sent and processed, the files get undeleted then. It may also be possible to specify that anything owned by MCA, Inc., and uploaded via this account is OK, which could then be used for future uploads (they can be marked with an OTRS template to refer to the number). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, the same applies to your other uploads which I have just deleted -- an authorized official of the copyright holder must provide a free license via OTRS. In at least one of these cases, the copyright holder was not MCA, so do not assume that a single license can cover all of your ploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Carl and Jim. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SrBlanc.jpg File:Sr Blanc.jpg

This image no copyright. It´s Free. I´m the director of movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpatagonia (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose With few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have copyrights. As a general rule the right to license copyrighted material from a movie lies with the producer(s), not the director. In order to restore this, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After Commons has received and processed OTRS-permission, the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Handvenenscanner.png File:Spielbank Cottbus.png File:Potsdam.png

Ich bitte darum, die gelöschten Dateien 

•File:Handvenenscanner.png → http://www.bbsb.de/nc/cottbus/news/news/datum/2016/09/23/quick-check-in-mit-venenscan/
•File:Spielbank Cottbus.png → http://www.bbsb.de/cottbus/
•File:Potsdam.png → (http://www.bbsb.de/potsdam/)

wieder herzustellen und in dem Beitrag der Brandenburgischen Spielbanken einzufügen. Die Bilder wurden in unserem Auftrag aufgenommen und stehen uns zur Nutzung frei.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen

Jana Biste --JanaBiste (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerne können die Bilder wiederhergestellt werden, sofern Sie eine entsprechende Genehmigung erteilen können. Dazu empfiehlt es sich, eine E-Mail an das Supportteam zu senden. Die genaue Vorgehensweise wird unter Commons:OTRS/de erläutert. Gruß, →Nagy 09:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, OTRS permission has been received. →Nagy 15:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MFP LOGO.jpg

this is a freely available picture of the logo of Money Free Party, check for yourself on a google search--Jodian007 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo appears at http://moneyfree.party/ with "© 2017 Money Free Party International". Please remember that almost everything on the Web is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons without permission of the copyright holder. See COM:Licensing for more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kosovo_Metohija_Turks_1961.gif

Hello. I am the author of this image which got deleted. I was not notified of its nomination for deletion and I contacted the person who did delete it but they didn't reply [13]. The deletion request seems very unusual - the person asking to delete the file said that it was misnamed? No, it was not misnamed. (Lilic (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)).

It was not deleted, it was renamed as File:Kosovo Metohija Turks 1953.gif. The file clearly shows that the population data is as of 1953, not 1961. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm, thanks for the clarification!
The thing is that the file name should say 1961. I don't have settlement level data for 1953 at this time. The legend is wrong - but I can change the date there. I am not sure how to change the file name itself though. (Lilic (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC))
Moving the file back to the old name is not a problem, but I'm not sure I understand. I assume, as you claimed, that you are the author named in the upper right -- your username matches -- then why is the wrong date in the upper right? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I made a mistake, that's why it says 1953 on the map itself. I should change that. But, the title/file name should also be changed to say 1961, not 1953.
Data for settlements for 1953 for Serbia is not available as far as I know. It's not possible that it's for 1953. Meanwhile, I do have this data for 1961, and I made the map with the 1961 data but made a mistake on the legend... (Lilic (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)).
✓ Done I apologize for our two colleagues who renamed this file without checking with you first. Please update the file and the file description with the correct date. You can upload the new file directly over the old one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-11-02 WikiDACH 2015 Schwerin, (256) Der Kunsthistoriker Dr. Gero Seelig.JPG

Soweit ich weiß wollte Bernd über diesen Mann ein Artikel schreiben. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: A quick googling turns up a few sources about the depicted person: he seems to be curator of a state museum. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ondoua4.jpg

Dear friend, With a lot of respect that i'm writing you this letter. Finally friend , i don't understand why all my files are deleted. please friends , i'm sending you this undeletion request to help me to configure the profile of this young player. Regards TONYE TONYE ERICK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergytony (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a small image without EXIF and it therefore appears that you have lifted it from somewhere on the Web. If you are the actual photographer, the easiest way to prove that is upload a new version of the file at full camera resolution using the same file name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Venusberg in MEK.png

no nreason for deletion given, https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosiero:Venusberg_in_MEK.png says it is GFDL. 78.52.112.235 14:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was originally deleted because at the time it did not have any information on author and licence. We could restore it but the map is out of date. The district and municipality depicted have been merged into larger administrative entities during the last few years. That is also why the very first version was deleted from de.wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes no sense at all: "The district and municipality depicted have been merged into larger administrative entities during the last few years." - there are thousands of files depicting borders of dissolved administrative entities. Even categories exist: Category:Maps by former country. 77.180.32.8 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support for now as it is in use on eo-wp. Although replacing it by an SVG version would be preferable. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2008 for lacking licence information. At the time the inforamtion given was "Permission=GNU-FDL (wiki de)". We can't undelete unless we have some information as to source and validity of the licence ("DE wiki" is not enough). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

eo:Dosiero:Venusberg_in_MEK.png has the same file with an original upload log from de.wiki where the file was released under GFDL. So a restoration and attribution would be possible. Otherwise we could just transfer the file from eo to Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support The licensing was correct on dewiki (it was just given as a link to de:GNU-FDL, but given it's upload date in 2005, that's probably ok). The deletion rationale on dewiki is a bit unclear, but It was clearly not copyright related, but had something to do with the image being obsolete due to a political reorganisation. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted. @PaterMcFly: can you add the necessary information from the deleted file on the German Wikipedia?. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Added original license and uploader to the description page. (The accounts Rauenstein, Zeuke and Geograv all belong to the same user) --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Niet Stemmers logo.png

In my opinion, the following applies to File:Niet Stemmers logo.png

This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support That's quite true. It was tagged for deletion by a bot because it had a third party source and no evidence of permission. It was deleted, not because it is a copyvio, but because it had no license or PD tag of any sort. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: As PD-textlogo. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-02-24 Sascha Fuchs, Geschäftsführer der Stiftunglife.jpg

Moin zusammen, durch die Sammellöschungen kann ich nicht erkennen zu welchen Bild ein Artikel geschrieben werden sollten. Ich versuche nun die Bilder zu finden, die Relevant für Artikel in der deutschen WP sein könnten. Löschen geht nun mal schneller als richtig zu suchen. Tschüß-- Ra Boe watt?? 10:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Image will be used in an article at de.wikipedia which would place it in the project scope of Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Giancarlo Frosio.png

The file (File:Giancarlo Frosio.png) has been deleted. I kindly ask to be undeleted.

The photograph and any rights attached to it belong to me.

Kind regards,

GCF--Gcfrosio (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gcfrosio: Please see OTRS for our process to undelete previously published files. In this case we need proof that the photographer transferred all necessary right to you. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear,

I'm saying that the rights belong to me. As far as you are concerned, the picture was taken by me. I wouldn't know what proof I might provide you. There's no right to be transferred.

Best,

GCF--Gcfrosio (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per myself. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Margaret Joan Spencer.jpg

Please undelete. When I uploaded the image, I stated that it is Public Domain. Further explanation: The image is an official photograph taken the Australian War Memorial (AWM) website and it is clearly marked on that website as: "Item copyright: Copyright expired - public domain. This item is in the Public Domain". For confirmation, the web address is: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/093326/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcm261 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Actually, when you uploaded the image, you said absolutely nothing about its status. It was deleted because it did not have any license or copyright tag at all. With that said, it is, as you say, PD, and can take the tag {{PD-Australia}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Pd Australia it is. Ruthven (msg) 15:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rebol-on-Mac.jpg

From Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Maxint2

On Rebol website iw rtien clearly: ( http://www.rebol.com/license.html ) REBOL/Core and /View are free and will always be free. They are intended for commercial, non-commercial, educational, and hobby uses.

Summary of the end-user license:

You can download and copy the software free of charge.
You can redistribute the software free of charge.
You can use the software for commercial uses.
The software is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind.
You cannot modify the software or the license.

Help promote REBOL! Display the REBOL logo on your website.

Type "license" from the REBOL console to see the specific license details.

So all Rebol images can be on wikipedia. If you don't believe on me, contact the author of Rebol: Carl Sassenrath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxint (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In the first place, the license above speaks only to the software. It says nothing about icons and screens. Second, "You cannot modify the software or the license" is an ND license, which Commons prohibits. With that said, however, I am not at all sure that there is anything copyrightable in the subject image.
However, I'm not at all sure that the subject image is useful for any educational purpose. The image does not in any way illustrate the language -- it is a small window that could be easily created in any of hundreds of ways. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: out of COM:SCOPE; per Jim (and the request suggests it's COM:ADVERT purpose). Ruthven (msg) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Valeria Gontareva.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: according to uk:User talk:Julia berezovska#Фото, the uploader is a professional photographer (but apparently she's not experienced with Commons); you can also look at her Depositphotos profile. Djadjko (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Free licenses for previously published works need to be verified by email. After all, anyone could create an account at Commons and claim to be photographer Julia Berezovska. This requires an OTRS email either for the licence of the image or for verifiyng the identity of User:Julia berezovska. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728632. @Julia berezovska: an COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ruthven (msg) 16:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:sanoj das.jpg

http://sanojdas.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanojaryan (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This image has been uploaded twice, once by User:Sanojdas, who has been blocked by Taivo for uploading out of scope images after warning and by User:Sanojaryan, who I have just blocked as a puppet of Sanojdas. It is still an out of scope unused personal image from a user whose only actions on Commons have been to be a nuisance. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Ruthven (msg) 16:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Guillermo A Baena y profesor Navas de España.jpg

RESTAURAR ARCHIVOS

mi usuario es Gbaena He recibido notificación de ustedse del borrado de estos artículos ya que fueron publicados en un magazine. Si revisan cuidadosamente el magazine verán que soy el autor de los artículos, y bajo esa condición fueron enviados a la revista electrónica, por ello no estoy de acuerdo que los artículos violan los derechos de autor, al ser la misma persona que los escribió. Articulos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Millennials_Vs_Baby_Boomers.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CUIDADO_CON_SUS_COMPRAS_POR_INTERNET.pdf

Sobre la foto con el profesor Navas de España mi amigo e invitado a Uruguay, no encuentro la violación de los derechos, ya que la foto fue tomada por mi, en un Congreso en donde fui invitado como Conferencista y expresidente Internacional de la Sociedad. Además estoy en la foto. La Sra Griselda Lassaga en compañera de mesa y ella ha publicado igualmente la foto https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Congreso_Internacional_de_SLADE_en_Montevideo_Uruguay.jpg

--Gbaena (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Guillermo A Baena Lopez

 Oppose We require a written confirmation for any works that have previously been published without a free licence. Please send an email confirming your authorship of all prose text and photographs included in the articles. For details, please see COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Gbaena: para trabajos publicados ya, hay que enviar una autorización por COM:OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:R.C.baleno.jpg

This image is mine. Is present in my collection of ancient photos.--Maxtsn (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Ownership of a physical copy of a photo does not grant copyright. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Sebari. Ruthven (msg) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ледокол проекта 21180 "Илья Муромец".jpg

This file has been nominated for deletion as Copyvio, and Ellin beltz deleted it without even checking the source: Contents from {{Mil.ru}} are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hello bike logo.png

The Hello Bike logo, as can be seen on the website: https://www.hello-bike.net, is a logo of which ownership belongs to The Bikevertising Company B.V.

Request to undelete the logo due to permission of uploading the logo by The Bikevertising Company B.V.

--Jrkbgrt (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Might be borderline {{PD-textlogo}}, but if you want to be sure to avoid further problems, the best thing is to send evidence of permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support. In my opinion this qualifies for textlogo. Note that both e-s are identical. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Emily Duggan, Series X3 NSW Enduro winner.jpg

Good afternoon,

This file was deleted on the grounds that it could be found elsewhere on the web, but as Emily Duggan's PR representative, I actually have ownership of the file.

Regards,

Lachlan Mansell

--Cfmedia (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. If the image is found elsewhere on the web, the per out policy documented permission is needed. Due to large number of fans and impostors simple words are not enough. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After receiving the permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is another problem. Woman on photo holds a cup. Cups have own copyright. I do not know, where (in which country) the photo is made. In my opinion Commons needs another permission from cupmaker. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
IMO the cup is very simple here, and it should be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose You say, "I actually have ownership of the file". Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph is irrelevant -- what you must prove is that the actual photographer has licensed the image to you, including the right to freely license it to others. You can do that by sending a free license and a copy of your written agreement with the photographer using OTRS.
Although it is a close call, I'm inclined to agree with Yann that the cup is OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Poster.post-cineflix.jpg

File Poster.post-cineflix.jpg was created by me using wholly original art of my creation, and it is available at LaundryDayFilm.com for anyone to use. Please undelete & restore immediately.

--ArmakProd (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The poster appears at laundrydayfilm.com without a free license and is, therefore, not "available at LaundryDayFilm.com for anyone to use". Since we do not know who you are or what your role is in creating the poster and the photographs in it, policy requires that an authorized official of the production company (usually the Producer) must send a free license using OTRS from an address at laundrydayfilm.com.
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) 11:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Wraith Logo Square.png

Requesting to undelete file File:Wraith Logo Square.png due to the fact that permission for the file was requested and received in October and was confirmed in December, but for some reason there was no permission attached to the file in February when it was deleted. Sirkidd2003 (talk)

✓ Done: Permission received. --Yann (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-08-24 Ausstellung Echoräume Laveshaus Architektenkammer Niedersachsen (104) Wolfgang Schneider und Matthias Görn.JPG

Bitte wieder Herstellen Benutzer Matthias Görn in der Deutschen WP -- Ra Boe watt?? 23:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Watt? Mach doch bitte ein paar mehr Angaben. Möchte Matthias Görn das Bild auf seiner Benutzerseite zeigen? De728631 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin wenn ich das richtig verstanden habe hat Bernd ihn eine Schulung geben, bitte stell das Bild wieder her, ich poste es dann dort auf der Disk Benutzer:Matthias_Görn. Danke und Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 00:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Nachfrage; der Vorstand im Landesmuseum Hannover ist relevant oder? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Was Matthias Görn angeht, bin ich nicht sicher, dass er die Relevanzkriterien auf de.wiki erfüllt, aber Herr Schneider hat bereits einen Artikel. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done de:Wolfgang Schneider (Architekt) is a notable person. Image is within the scope of Commons and was previously in Category:Wolfgang Schneider (architect) so it should not have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Skatrunde_in_der_Laube_1930.jpg

OTRS Ticket#2017020610016679 bitte wieder herstellen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Raboe001: Bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Vermerk auf der Dateiseite. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Moin De728631, super vielen Dank, werde ich machen, es sind noch ein paar Fragen zu klären. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Kolonie Neu-Holland 1911.jpg

gleiche Ticket OTRS Ticket#2017020610016679 bitte wieder herstellen -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Raboe001: Bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Vermerk auf der Dateiseite. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

josé luis rey vila SIM : ARTICLE AND PICTURE

I have received two alerts about the article and picture of my great uncle José Luis Rey Vila SIM. The picture belongs to my family so I am not breaking any copyright license. Otherwise I changed the pdf text and write the article again in the wikipedia. The article is a summary from my Master work at the University of Barcelona and I added all the libraries where this work is catalogued nowadays. --Mbaldarey (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done File:JOSÉ LUIS REY VILA SIM.jpg and File:José Luis Rey Vila Wikipedia español.pdf has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rozhdestvenskiy.jpg

Please restore this file. Draws copyright when placing I did not break, as the picture is taken from the my family archives.--Comrade1988 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Name of photographer and date of first publication please. Thuresson (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you stupid?--Comrade1988 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose As suggested by Thuresson, as a general rule images from family archives are not yours to license. This appears to be a formal portrait by a professional photographer. If that is correct, we will require a free license from him or his heirs. You yourself can freely license an image only if you were the photographer or are the heir of the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No one knows the name of the photographer. No one will know his name.--Comrade1988 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Comrade1988: please use COM:OTRS, so you can confirm that you're the copyright holder. Ruthven (msg) 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jürgen Koch, Galerie Koch, Königstraße 50, 30175 Hannover.jpg

Abgebildete Personen sind in Hannover sehr bekannt. Von daher ist eine Löschung vorschnell gewesen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says that the source is http://www.galeriekoch.de/de/gallery/team. That web site is not freely licensed and the image does not appear on it. In order to restore this, aside from the question of whether the subject is actually notable, the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The uploader stated Please see permission given by Ole Christian Koch. That user is blocked on de-wp for failing to provide OTRS authorization. Therefore  Oppose, unless we get such authorization per Jim. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Danke für die Info, durch die Massenlöschungen kann ich nicht erkennen, ob es zwischen den Bilder unterschiedliche Löschgrunde gibt, ich bin gegen Sammellöschungen und Ansprachen an die Hochlader um die Aktionen zu erklären. Vielen Dank und Bernd, schau Dir bitte diese Begründung an. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: no permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Corts Catalanes 860-872.jpg

This file was delated for not containing information about the license but it have a OTRS ticket and the authorship is verified. It is the same case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taulat 5-11.jpg. @Magog the Ogre: ,@Jarekt: ,@Ellin Beltz: . Please undelete it and also:

All of these files are part of the architecture heritage project to liberate the images from Xavier Badia Graphic Archive. Thanks. --Dvdgmz (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Restored. Dvdgmz the reason files were deleted was that files misspelled {{Xavier Badia permission}} template name and the deleting admins did not noticed. --Jarekt (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Jarekt, thank you for restoring the files and fixing the source templates. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

JamesEllsworth.png

Please restore my image, is benefit for the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijosdzdw (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This was deleted as a copyright violation. You uploaded it as your own work but the image can be found [ttp://shop.wwe.com/james-ellsworth/ online] in a larger context, so you are likely not the copyright holder. We need a written permission by email from the original photographer to restore the image. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation, read COM:L. Alan (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Konniemac

Hello, I deleted last year the four files below with other files in this DR created by Ellin Beltz.
I deleted the files of this DR mostly because I found a signifying part already published, I've been requested by mail yesterday to check the dates of the uploads, and to restore the files first uploaded here. It's true 1/ I did no find previous publication of some uploads at the time of the deletion 2/ as requested I checked the dates and indeed some of the files have been firstly published here. On the files not published elsewhere or at least later a signifying part are blurred/with bad quality and/or with random composition, and therefore are useless for our project. Only the 4 files below, uploaded here 8 February 2015 and in Panoramio the 5 March 2015, have a very decent quality, a good resolution (3008*2000px) and may be in scope:


I do not want to do a one-sided restoration, and I ask here the opinion of the community. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My nomination was for the whole group which were all attributed to the same creator and did not appear to be free. Since the same creator was listed on all the pictures, not just the ones from Panoramio, I assumed that the entire group had been picked up from that source (even if some of them had been removed from Panoramio prior the search) and that they were all not free. I still think COM:PRP on these because of how the original template was made |author[[User:Konniemac|Konniemac]]|permission=|other versions=}}Cobb Island Maryland, Southern Maryland Real Estate Konnie Mac. If you put that into google, you get a link to http://konniemac.com/cobb-island-homes-for-sale/ which is run by Konnie Mac McCarthy, who I would assume actually took the photos. It is not uncommon for individuals to assume the name of another and upload photos belonging to or taken of that other, and my assumption, based on the "all rights reserved" on panoramino and the lead to the real estate company is that this is either one of those, or a promotional upload series to make more hit value on "Cobb Island Maryland, Southern Maryland Real Estate Konnie Mac". But if you feel they're free and restore them, I would take it on COM:AGF and move on. We have plenty of other stuff to work on! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I like to be accurate, and as far I remember, it's me who searched and found the publications on the web (Panoramio), this was not mentioned on the DR before I put it, therefore your nomination was not for "all rights reserved", unless you have forgotten to cite this information when creating the DR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Furthermore it's me who deleted the files and this was not a "per nomination" rationale, I deleted because I found some of them previously published, "Cobb Island Maryland, Southern Maryland Real Estate Konnie Mac" in the description field was never my rationale, and I don't remember to have seen "courtesy" in those descriptions as suggested by the dr rationale. I likely would have not delete the files without the link to Panoramio provided by me. All the files nominated for undeletion here, have been as far I know first published here and all tagged with "own work", this questions a little my deletion rationale "most of the files are coming from ...", which after to have check carefully the dates is not entirely true at least for the files cited above. So this is not a questioning of Ellin rationale, but about mine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the motive here was to promote the island and, in particular, the real estate company mentioned in each of the file descriptions. That violates COM:ADVERT. These don't have any valid categories, and are virtually identical. We have more than 4,000 sunset photographs, most of which are properly described and categorized. If we were short of sunset pictures, I might remove the ad from the file description and properly categorize and keep one of these, but as it is, I see no reason to spend any editor time helping this single purpose contributor advertise his business by restoring any of these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support We have more than 4,000 sunset photographs - 90-95% of these files have so bad quality, unreal colors that may be nominated for deletion as out of scope. Deleted files have clear copyright status, awesome quality and colors. They may be FPs. I do not see any spam in these sunsets. /St1995 14:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support My concern for the deletion (already published) is not valid for those 4 images, they were first published here. But furthermore the account in Panoramio is very likely the holder of those photos (publication of full set in full resolution). The images are not bad visually, have a good resolution, and a good quality, and in all cases a better quality than most of the sunsets here in Commons. And I know a bit about this topic. The description can be easily modified if there is a concern about a potentiel advertising. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support undeletion, as it is clear that they were deleted for the wrong reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. If nothing else the original deletion request reason seems to have been wrong. Apart from that fairly high-quality sunset images of a known location. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:A-motsnyj-1945.jpg

File has been wrongly marked for deletion. File:A-motsnyj-1945.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3141593d271828c (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was it wrongly deleted? You declared it as your own work but it is a photograph from 1945. Are you really the original photographer? Otherwise the image is most likely still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Unclear rationale for undeletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:DUET, Gazipur.png

This was my own work using using Inkscape so I request to bring back from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhsenbd (talk • contribs) 11 February 2017, 19:11 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The design of the logo itself is copyrighted and non-free so you're not allowed to recreate it without permission from the original designer or perhaps the university. As you have uploaded another copy at the English Wikipedia, I added fair use rational over there, but here at Wikimedia Commons we do not accept fair use material. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per De123456. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bernd Schwabe in Hannover

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung aller gelöschten Fotos. Die Löschbegründung trifft nicht zu. Die OTRS-Freigabe für die Fotos der Galerie Koch liegen OTRS seit zwei Wochen vor. Zu den Personen, deren Fotos gelöscht wurden, zählt der Auschwitz-Überlebende Henry Korman, der Hannoversche Oberbürgermeister w:de:Stefan Schostok, der Landtagspräsident w:de:Bernd Busemann, der Autor w:de:Jürgen Piquardt, der CDU-Politiker Wilfried Lorenz, der Grünen-Politiker w:de:Stefan Wenzel, der Stadtsuperintendent w:de:Hans-Martin Heinemann, der Autor w:de:Rainer Hoffschildt, der Unternehmer und 96-Sportfunktionär w:de:Martin Kind, die Bibliotheksdirektoren w:de:Anne May und w:de:Georg Ruppelt und und und. Teilweise sind die Namen dieser prominenten hannoverschen Personen soger im File-Namen genannt. Die Anlässe, bei denen fotografiert wurde, waren öffentlich. Ich sehe in den fortgesetzten Löschanträgen von User:Steinsplitter einen persönlichen Angriff auf Bernd Schwabe, die Löschung ist nicht sachgerecht, sondern Diskreditierung eines anerkannten Wikipedia-Autors. --Stobaios (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to link to the files which may be in scope, most files seems out of scope. And i told it to you yet: Nominating files is not a personal attack, please refrain from telling stuff like "Steinsplitter personally attacked Bernd Schwabe (...) because discrediting an Wikimedian" because it is simple untrue. I agree with the closing admin that the author being a respected Wikipedian does not make these pictures in scope. I am also quit shocked how Stobaios attacked me in the aforementioned DR for nominating the files for deletion. Pinging the closing admin Jcb. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said anything if it was a single deletion request, but there are lots of those before this mass deletion request. Most of the pictures are photographs of prominent figures in Hannover taken on public events and therefore in scope. --Stobaios (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - individual files can be undeleted if demonstrated to be in scope. I have e.g. assisted Raboe001 by sending him some of the deleted files, so that he can take a look. And @Stobaios: , please be aware that if you continue with your personal attacks, some of us may feel like using our admin tools to stop it. Please consider this as a warning. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I speak plainly. I was quite shocked to learn, that these repeated and continuous deletion request come from an admin, despite the fact, that even the names of encyclopedic relevant persons are mentioned in the file name. There was no serious check of this mass deletion request, this was a arbitrary decision. I'm a de-wikipedia text author, generally i don't care about the affairs on Commons, but in this case it is a shame for an open knowledge project. --Stobaios (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin zusammen, sorry mein englisch ist zu schlecht um zu schreiben, ich muss daher auf deutsch schreiben. Die Fotos die Jcb mir gesendet hat,

sind ich meinen Augen Aufnahmen von Künstlern oder eventuell relevante Personen die einen eigenen Artikel bekommen könnten. Es bedarf eine aufwendigen Prüfung und ich bin gerade etwas sauer das Steinsplitter, das er sie ohne Kontrolle gelöscht haben wollte. Jedes einzelne Bild muss vor der Löschung geprüft werden und nicht erst wenn es gelöscht wurde. Ich tute das jetzt und es braucht Tage. Danke dafür ich kotze gerade. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hier scheint die unverzügliche Wiederherstellung die einzig richtige Lösung zu sein. Raboe001, besten Dank für deinen Einsatz! --ST ○ 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's get this show started and have an individual review:
De728631 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • w:de:Hans-Jürgen Wenzel is a notable person, also Alexander vom Hofe, see [19][20][21][22]
  • Was soll dieses widersinnige Verfahren? In der deutschen Wikipedia wird bei den Löschkandidaten tagelang über die Relevanz einer Person diskutiert, es gibt zumindest Relevanzkriterien. In Commons entscheiden Admins offenbar selbstherrlich ohne Prüfung oder nachvollziehbare Begründung, welche Fotos gelöscht werden. Das ist Willkür pur. --Stobaios (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Stobaios, ich verstehe die Löschung auch nicht, ich denke wir sollen es einfach als interne Qualitätskontrolle für Bernd sehen und es positiv nehmen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Stobaios, die Relevanzkriterien für Commons sind in Commons:Projektumfang definiert, und da es in der ursprünglichen Löschdiskussion trotz 2 Wochen Laufzeit offenbar versäumt wurde, eine Einzelprüfung der Bilder vorzunehmen, sollten wir das jetzt hier machen. Das ist nicht der optimale Weg, aber eine pauschale Wiederherstellung scheint mir auch nicht gerechtfertigt. Abgesehen davon kann sich hier jeder an der Diskussion beteiligen und fachliche Argumente vorbringen, also hat das mit Willkür nichts zu tun. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Aber bitte unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit. Außer Administratoren kann kein (stimmberechtigter) Benutzer an der Bewertung teilnehmen. Sehr merkwürdiges Verfahren. --ST ○ 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Wenn Du damit die abschließende Bewertung und Entscheidung über die Löschung oder die Wiederherstellung gelöschter Dateien meinst, dann ist das überhaupt nicht merkwürdig. Hier geht es im Allgemeinen nicht um von Wikipedia-Benutzern selbst verfasste Textbeiträge, sondern wir müssen hier meistens über Urheberrechtsfragen von Bildern entscheiden, die von außerhalb kommen. Dazu braucht es eine gewisse Erfahrung, die hier (hoffentlich) mit der Admin-Position nachgewiesen wird. Dass dabei die Bewertung von Grundsatzfragen wie "Projektumfang" auch ausschließlich durch Admins geregelt wird, gehört eben dazu. Übigens gilt für de:Wikipedia:Löschregeln genau dasselbe: "Frühestens nach sieben Tagen entscheidet ein Administrator auf Basis der vorgebrachten Argumente, des Seiteninhalts und der bestehenden Richtlinien, ob die Seite gelöscht wird." Also was ist hier merkwürdig? De728631 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Es spricht ja nichts gegen eine sachliche Diskussion, aber es wurden leider sehr viele ad hominem Argumente vorgetragen. Das ein LA nichts feines ist leigt auf der Hand, aber es muss nicht gleich Anlass zur Empörung geben. Ein Benutzer hält den LA für eine Kampagne und/oder Angriff gegen irgendein ein Wikipedia Büro (Wusste gar nicht das es mittlerweile so viele gibt, Coole Sache!) der andere musste sich wegen mir Übergeben (kotzen[sic]), was soll man dazu sagen? Nicht sachlich, nicht hilfreich, kein respektvoller Umgang, unkollegial und gewiss nicht im Sinne von COM:MELLOW. Zwei Wochen hatte Bernd und Co. Zeit darzulegen wer "Relevant" (in COM:SCOPE) ist, das bessere Kategorisieren sowie individuelle Bildbeschreibungen währen wünschenswert. Ich habe sogar in der DR einem Benutzer angeboten die klar Relevanten durchstreichen, dem ist niemand nachgekommen. Ich glaube De728631 hat oben recht gut ausgearbeitet welche Fotos in COM:SCOPE fallen (Danke!), ich hätte auch nichts dagegen jene wiederherzustellen. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Steinsplitter, ja ich kotze gerade, bin angepisst weil Du mir einfach Zeit stiehlst, weil ich jeden Bild nachjagen muss, ich finde es gut das Du Bernds Qualitätskontrolle bist, aber bitte schreib zu dem Bild was Du dran auszusetzen hast und nicht einfach eine Liste hin spucken und dann andere die Arbeit überlassen, siehe oben genau De728631 und nicht Du hast die Liste gemacht. Bitte Bernd macht Fehler wie jeder der viel macht, aber bitte keine Massenlöschungen, da kommt keiner hinterher und bei Deiner Liste sind viele Bilder die mit etwas mehr suche im Internet als relevant zu erkennen sind. Also bitte Quaitätskontrolle sehr gerne, Fehlerkontrolle hervorragend stehe sehr gerne dahinter, aber bitte kontrolliere was Du tust etwas besser oder im Zweifel lass es. Und ja ich glaube das Du Dich auf Bernd eingeschossen hast, denn ich sehen nicht das Du anderen Benutzern so hinterher putzt. Ist aber auch gut, denn wenn Du damit fertig bist und nichts mehr findest wissen wir das Bernd in die Spur ist und können uns wieder den eigentlichen Aufgaben -Wissen zu schaffen- zuwenden. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Du schreibst "ich hätte auch nichts dagegen jene wiederherzustellen." ich würde mich freuen wenn Du sie wieder herstellen könntest, um mit etwas Arbeit abzunehmen.
Tut mir leid, ich bin neu auf Commons, habe allerdings einige de.Wikipedia-Erfahrung. Ich wusste nicht, dass auf Commons normale Benutzer keinerlei Rechte und Administratoren unbeschränkte Macht haben. --Stobaios (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ teilweise wieder hergestellt: Nach Analyse von De4711. Sollten weitere Dateien anscheinend in scope sein (laut Dateinamen und ensprechenden Quellen), bitte gesondere UnDRs stellen. Die ad-hominem-Angriffe hier gehen aber auf keine Kuhhaut. Ideal lief das ganze Verfahren sicherlich nicht, aber das ist absolut kein Grund für persönliche Angriffe. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:JK CBK IK NK.jpg

Jawed Karim, Christine B. Karim, Ilias Karim and Naimul Karim standing before Wild Goose Island in Glacier National Park, 2007

--Iliaskarim (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted as a copyright violation. Since you are depicted in the photograph it is highly unlikely that you are also the photographer. We need a written permission by email from the original photographer to restore the image. That aside, the image is not suited for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons other than being used on your user page. Commons is an educational media repository so we do not keep random personal images of non-notable people. De728631 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Too bad :) Iliaskarim (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per De0815. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2015-02-09 Ilse Paul im Wikipedia-Büro Hannover.jpg

Ilse Paul ist eine Benutzerin, die gerade in der Wikipedia geschult wird. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Potential user page image for de:Benutzerin:Ilse Paul in Hannover. De728631 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016-05-19 Leibniz Bibliothek Schaumburg-Lippe Tagebuch (15) Anne May, Alexander vom Hofe, Heinrich Prinz von Hannover.JPG

Heinrich Prinz von Hannover ist nicht relevant? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per nom. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Smithsdetectionlogo.png

Greetings,

This is a brand logo of the company we represent. They own this logo and it has been provided to us to make modifications to their page.

--Dantabaran (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we have no way of knowing here who you actually are, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. Note that permission to use the logo on "their page" -- their Wikipedia article -- is not sufficient here or there. Both projects require that material be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. Also 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 is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Permission needs to be sent by email as Jim has explained. De728631 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Boutir.png

I have asked for permission to put it in Wikipedia thus it does not violate the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarc (talk • contribs) 04:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is most likely referring to File:Boutir Logo.png. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aquarc:  Oppose Two issues: There is no evidence that the logo in question (visible here) is under a free license (although a case could be made for a simple logo, similar to the old Best Western logo). And there are concerns about whether this logo is in-scope per our rules. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 OpposeThere's a third issue: "permission to put it in Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Commons and WP both require that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody, not just for use in Wikipedia, so any permission you have is not sufficient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Insufficient permission. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-07-06 Andor Izsák 72. Geburtstag (468), Simon Benne und Henry Korman in der Villa Seligmann.jpg

Simon Benne ist Buchautoren. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Neutral Mediale Rezeption eher gering vorhanden. Buchautor heißt nicht viel. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support w:de:Andor Izsák ist relevant, Henry Korman ist KZ-Überlebender, eine klar relevante Person, über ihn liegt eine Biographie vor. Ich habe bereits in der Löschdiskussion darauf hingewiesen, Steinsplitter hat das ignoriert und dennoch gelöscht. Es ist eine Schande. --Stobaios (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Stobaios (Andor Izsak ist auf dem Foto allerdings nicht zu sehen, es handelt sich wohl um eine Aufnahme von dessen Geburtstagsfeierlichkeiten.) Steinsplitter hat die Dateien nur nominiert und überhaupt nichts gelöscht, bitte keine unwahren Behauptungen aufstellen. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-02-17 Museum für textile Kunst, Hannover (16) Sammlerin, Designerin und Museumsleiterin Erika Knoop.JPG

Museumsleiterin und Künstlerin Erika Knoop relvant? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Neutral Person hat keine mediale Rezeption. Das Museum selbst auch eher schwach rezipiert. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Das Bild wurde hier bereits abgelehnt. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per voriger Ablehnung. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Das Museum ist relevant und registriertes Mitglied im Museumsverband Niedersachsen und Bremen [23][24][25]. Museen sind Orte freien Wissens, es ist nicht einzusehen, dass ein Foto einer Museumsleiterin gelöscht wird. --Stobaios (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Und was ist mit den Bilder von der Galerie Koch

Was machen wir mit den Herrschaften? Soll ich ihnen schreiben das sie nicht relevant sind? Tschüß und guten Nacht, ich denke ich bin mit der Liste erst mal durch (soweit es Namen zum Titel gab) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 23:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Dem OTRS liegt seit dem 27. Januar eine Mail mit der Freigabe der Bilder durch die Galerie vor, Bernd hat sich gekümmert und mir eine Kopie weitergeleitet. --Stobaios (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Im übrigen ist die Galerie Koch relevant, siehe Artfacts.

 Not done: Wird ggf. durch den OTRS-Prozess wiederhergestellt. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016-01-07 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover, (1128)a Kulturdezernent Harald Härke im h1-Interview.jpg

Was ist mit diesem Herren, er wurde bei der Besprechung der Löschlisten mit okay getitelt aber noch nicht wieder hergestellt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 23:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2015-05-24 Boulefestival Hannover, (316) Anna und Jürgen Piquardt.JPG

Auch wenn ich bei "Festival der Sinne" über das ach so tolle Essen fast gespuckt hätte und sicherlich nicht 2018 den gleichen Fehler machen werde 35€ für so einen Fraß auszugeben. Hat er leider einen eigenen Artikel wenn ich mich nicht irre. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2015-02-03 PENvolution, Hannover, KUBUS-Lunch-Concerts, Quartet Berlin-Tokyo, (119) Hans-Christian Euler.JPG

ist das Quartet Berlin-Tokyo oder Euler relevant? Ich denke schon oder? -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Gründungsmitglied im Orchester des 18. Jahrhunderts, Violinist im Niedersächsischen Staatsorchester Hannover, Leiter und Dirigent des Ensemble Musica Viva Hannover, Dozent für Violine und Kammermusik der Moderne an der Hochschule für Musik und Theater Hannover [26]. Discographie bei Discogs. --Stobaios (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 Neutral Erneut recht wenig Rezeption online, hauptsächlich auf Webseiten seiner Wirkungsstätten. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
More Links: [27][28][29]. Eine Google-Buchsuche liefert jede Menge Nennungen in der Literatur: [30]. --Stobaios (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Stobaios. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Cпеціальні операції «Бумеранг» та «Хвиля».pdf

File was deleted per COM:PRP. I'm understand that not all understand Ukrainian language of document and Ukrainian Laws but anyway, again, it's very clear case, this document created by Ukrainian Government (Ministry of Internal Affair and Security Service) during execution its responsibilities (it's very important, it's not intellectual property created by government-owned company, it's not printed memoirs of Minister, it's document of Government), it's plan of special forces operation against of Euromaidan; and in this kind it was published by Head of Parliament Commission that investigating government crimes against of Euromaidan. These kind of documents are NOT subject of Ukrainian Copyright Law at all.

In discussion I did not saw any argument why it could be copyrighted. Per COM:PRP it should be «significant doubts» about to delete. Again, government documents are not copyrighting in Ukraine. These documents could be subject of Public Information Law, Confidential Information Law etc. but NOT Copyright Law.

Moreover, Admin that deleted file say «as a general rule we do not keep PDFs of documents». It's not true, Commons using also by Wikisources projects and in most cases PDF files on Commons are base source of Wikisources text.

Artem.komisarenko (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Considering the lengthy discussion in the DR, "it's very clear case" is hardly true. Also, as I noted in my closing comment, it is a PDF file that does not appear to fall in Commons scope even if there were not a significant doubt about its copyright status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  1. So, you delete this because you do not want and/or you do not able read Ukrainian but saw some say "I have doubts". Without any adequate Law-based argumentation. I'm understanding that Wikipedia is English project and white people don’t give *** about us but I'm call on basic fairness. Do not want read our Laws — do not judge.
  2. About PDF. Most of Wikisources projects have no local storage and store its PDF on Commons. It's primary place for it. Commons — is not just a yet another photo-hosting. It's store also books, multimedia, even data.Artem.komisarenko (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I have already noticed in DR that not all document issued by government institutions are free. Here we do not know who is the author of the document, in DR there was at least three versions: Security Service of Ukraine, MIA and Parliamentary Commision. Until we do not know enough data about document, we do not know its status.--Anatoliy (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's definitely lie and you know it:
  1. It's document, plan of security forces operation, of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Security Service published by Head of Parliament Commission that investigating its crimes. I've written about it and you read it.
  2. Document was censored just like a most of published documents of CIA where also there are no authors in most cases.
  3. What is enough data? Public Information Law clearly say: Public Information — ... any method ... any media ... any document ... any way — any, any, any, any if during execution of its responsibilities by government. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support This document was first published by Ukrainian MP Hennadiy Moskal here. In this comment for media he states that respective authors are міністр МВС Віталій Захарченко (Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaliy Zakharchenko) for «Хвиля» and Антитерористичний центр СБУ (Anti-Terrorist Centre of the Security Service of Ukraine) for «Бумеранг». Both are government organisations and thus their works should be in public domain per {{PD-UA-exempt}}. I don't see any reason why we should not trust this information, at least from the copyright point of view. And of course PDF files are within scope of Wikimedia Commons as they are explicitly mentioned in COM:SCOPE: Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts: Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason. — NickK (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    Government organisation is not the same that government authority. So, I asked to provide number and date of this document, then we can ask full document by request.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    This document is part of investigation and was published partially. Number, data and more than 20 pages of this document was censored. Just like a most of CIA documents by the way. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support Reviewing this discussion and the original deletion request, I don't think there is a reasonable doubt that this is a document prepared by the government as per the analysis by NickK above. It was, after all, published on the webpage of a government official citing government sources. I also consider this to be clearly in-scope per Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats as "a scan of a document of historic or other external significance". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk)

 Support Let's say Madonna publish a new song on its copyrighted music blog, stating that she received it from Micheal Jackson, who gave it to her on Christmas holidays to release it with CC0 license. Let's say I mirror that CC0 file on my website. Now,

  • if Madonna is the real copyright holder of that song, she can't sue my website for copyright infringement because when I started mirroring the file, it was CC0 released;
  • if Micheal Jackson is the real copyright holder of that song, he can't sue me for copyright infringement because I downloaded a CC0 file published by Madonna, so he can't touch my mirror until he has proven that he is the real copyright holder; also, if this happened and I broke the law continuing to mirror that file after the judge has aknowledge that it has been stolen from MJ by Madonna, I could in turn sue Madonna for fraud and easily win.

From the project scope point of view, I think this file satisfy all the requirements. I think that using whatever language you used in your previous posts and not linking the deletion request (DR) of the file is not polite at all, too.

Ogoorcs (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016-09-23 Kunstpreis Worpswede 2016, Hotel Adlon, Berlin (175) Faty Hamdy.JPG

Faty Hamdy, französische Künstlerin. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Scheint so gut wie keine öffentliche Rezeption zu dieser Künstlerin zu geben. (Zumindest nichts, was Google finden konnte.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Ist auch nicht bei fr:Faty Hamdy zu finden. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the two above comments. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Chainsaw protection Test rigg.gif

Hi,

This is a picture I have taken myself and should not be a violation of any kind. The brand Avertic that is shown in the picture is owned by the company Engtex www.engtex.com and the company´s CEO Mr. Patrik Johansson has no objection that this picture is free to use. If you want to check this please contact Patrik, you can find his contact detail under "Contact" at Entex webpage.

Kind regards, Johan

--Doris5 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is far too small to be useful for any educational purpose. It is not even clear what is shown. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. You must take a bigger and better photo about the chainsaw. You do not need permission from Patrik Johansson for that. Taivo (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Wellcome Library images of sculptures by Malvina Hoffman

Per this discussion on my user talk page: Page 125 of the book Races of Mankind: The Sculptures of Malvina Hoffman suggests the creator of the sculptures transferred copyright to the museum. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't have the dates of the photos, and to look old and to be old is a bit different. But even if we assume this for the photos, the copyright on the sculpture stay, and it is unclear if the museum agree that someone win money with an image of an artwork, not yet in PD, owned by them. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
So, the only issue you have is the copyright of the statues. They are copyright of the FMNH, commissioned in 1929 and installed for public exhibition in the Hall of Man from 1933 until the exhibition closed in 1966. From this we know that the FMNH claimed copyright of the works from at least 1933. The works should be considered public domain by age by 2004 at the latest. Institutions cannot claim copyright for an ever renewing period, and as copyright was transferred at the time of commission, a 70 year claim has to be dated from creation or the equivalent of first 'publication'. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
So for regarding this DR the tag for the photo is {{PD-US-not renewed}} and for the sculpture this is {{PD-anon-70}}? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
PD-US-not renewed is most likely for both types of copyright, as the evidence we have is that the photographs were the museum's own. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Striking the 2004 calculation. With no renewal of copyright any date calculation is irrelevant. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks you. Well seeing this, new since the DR, I tend to be convinced that we don't need an extra-permission. I think it should be ok for both files. But if we think this way then the license given by Wellcome is not relevant and in any case a source of confusion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Everyone might want to look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malvina Hoffman's "Martinique Woman" IMG 3811.JPG, which is from the same series — some sculptures from en:The Races of Mankind series were registered for copyright but some appear not to have been. I couldn't find "Martinique Woman" after searching several years of listings, so declared that particular one {{PD-US-not renewed}} (because it wasn't even registered). When searching, keep in mind that sculptures from The Races of Mankind are inscribed with late-1920s copyright notices but were not "published" (exhibited to the public) until the early- to mid-1930s and so were registered and listed in the Catalog of Copyright Entries in the 1930s. --Closeapple (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: It seems there is quite a consensus to restore them. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bini the Bunny Headshot.jpg

This photo belongs to me - I gave Daily Mail permission to use it. You can also see it on Bini's official page on his cover photos: https://www.facebook.com/binithebunny/photos/a.154648044682762.36160.103037159843851/527443390736557/?type=1&theater Thanks. . --Gluckson (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose We will need to know on what basis you licensed it to The Daily Mail -- usually newspapers take exclusive rights to photos, which would prevent your freely licensing it here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Gluckson uploaded two new photos about the bunny. One of them is practically the same as first file here. Taivo (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:رئيس الاتحاد العام الجزائري للشباب.png

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thisletter is written in response to your deletion of my picture

The picture in question is: File:رئيس الاتحاد العام الجزائري للشباب.png

The claim of copyright infringement is inaccurate and should be rejected because the complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question, is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights. I am the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that i have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law.

I ask that Wikipedia, upon receipt of this undeletion request, restore the material in dispute, unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions about this notice, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerly,

--UGAJ BNE (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is obviously a screenshot of a copyrighted television program. I see no basis for restoring it without a free license from the producer of the TV program. Commons Administrators are required by our policy to delete copyright violations on sight. The fact that none of us are representatives of the copyright holder is completely irrelevant.

I suggest you change your attitude. If you continue along the lines of the message above, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Hello James

Why you have delete Obsido X

all informations are real, and it is for many thousend people who like to know more about this social media. when you dont knwo something that is not the point to delete it.

here company based in switzerland.

i dob't knwo where you come from, but i think usa... andwe have many, many thousends of usa people on this socialmedia, and in the world we have not only the CIA Facebook .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemueller81 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Mikemueller81: If you are referring to the page, then it is out of our project scope, since we don't accept articles. Please place your content on the English Wikipedia (and abide to their policies and guidelines). If you are referring to the image, it was deleted because of copyright violation. It was said in the deletion comment that there was an explicit copyright notice. If you want this image to be restored, make sure it is within our project's scope, then request the copyright holder (commonly the author) to send permission to the OTRS via email. Finally, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically add your username, link to your talk page, and a timestamp. This is to let know others who posted the comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thx for your answer,

Now what we do? We are owner of this Socialmedia, and in few month this social will come in all television channels. For this we need a correct info text. You can login on [...] and you will see it is realand nothing who are not compatibel with wikimedia. The Company Obsido X is based in Zürich Switzerland, registred, and the Logo Obsido X (Picture ) is in Mark Register on my name. We have yesterday only small informations put on wikimedia, we will this every time update. The webpage url you have, and in APP store you will finde Obsido X for iOS and Android. Traffic you will have also more when people click on wikimedia about Obsido X.

You can also help us to create this on wikimedia. [...] is our mail of this socialmedia . regards michel Müller and CEO Leandra Müller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemueller81 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop spamming. Commons is not the right place for advertisement or articles in general. --Magnus (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope. --Yann (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Microsoft Word 2010 logo.png

I think that this file should be undeleted because I haven't copied this image from the internet. I have captured this image using the snipping tool on my desktop and this is not a copyright violation as it hasn't been copied from the internet. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about copying the image from the internet for. The deletion reason given is "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Non-free logo (above threshold of originality)" which is correct. The logo you uploaded is a more complex graphic which qualifies for copyright protection (whilst the more simple logos at Category:Microsoft Word don't). It's a slam dunk correct deletion. I would ask that you urgently acquaint yourself with copyright, licensing and threshold of originality policies here before uploading any more work, and that you read the deletion log if/when your work is deleted. Nick (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously (c) by Miscrosoft. --Yann (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Florian Choquart.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: User:Scoopfinder/undel Scoopfinder(d) 12:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BAF Shaheen College Dhaka Green Thumbs Logo.jpg

This logo is my won work. So please undelete it. --Somrat1999 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAF Shaheen College Dhaka Green Thumbs. Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sotos2.jpg

This photo was taken by me and I approve of its use on Wikipedia. It is a picture of my son who has been diagnosed with Sotos syndrome. --Wikifan256 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you want your son's photograph seen all over the world identified with this difficult condition? Both children and their parents can be very cruel to children who are different.
I'm not sure this image is useful for any educational purpose. He appears to be a normal kid -- he might be somewhat bigger than usual for three and a half, but that is impossible to judge well in this image.
You say "I approve of its use on Wikipedia". The CC-BY-SA license you put on the image means that it can end up far outside of WP -- medical texts, tee shirts, etc. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am ok with this photo seen all over the world. As far as how he appears, are you an expert in this condition? He has been diagnosed clinically as well as with dna testing. Multiple pediatric geneticists have said he has the very distinct facial features of Sotos syndrome, making it a useful image for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan256 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. That would not be my choice for my child or grandchild, but given the express request of the child's father I will  Support undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 22:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Undelete stack of files

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Отрок_12

Hi guys! Files was deleted, though almost all of them have liciense that allows to use them in formats like wikipedia. One that doesn't (shawarma) is unclear, though i used it cause i dont think it any retrictions currently on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Отрок 12 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That is entirely incorrect:

  1. File:Russian Shawarma.jpg - NC License and 197 x 246px size makes it useless
  2. File:Покровский Монастырь, Москва2.jpg - © Журнал Фома. Все права защищены, 2000—2017
  3. File:Покровский Монастырь, Москва.jpg - no free license at source and 525 x 349px size makes it useless
  4. File:Mm-20005-20pre(1).JPG - © 2010. Все права защищены and 525 x 348 px size makes it useless
  5. File:Night 02 Right01(1).jpg- All content and images on this site are protected by copyright.

So, we have five images, four of which explicitly forbid use on Commons and one of which is silent about it (explicit permission is required). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

CLAUDIO_MACCONE_PHOTO__October_9__2012.jpg

Dear Wikipedia.

The photograph in the subject was given me by dr. Claudio maccone with the request to upload it in his wikipedia web page. I'm asking to have it published, according to the request of the owner, Claudio Maccone; should I prove me right?

How can I have Claudio Maccone certify he asked me for the publication of the photograph?

Regards --Nicolo.antonietti (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nicolo.antonietti: The subject, Dr. Claudio Maccone, is not the copyright holder of the image. Unless if this is a work for hire, the photographer is the copyright holder of this image. Please ask the photographer (or the subject, if it is a work for hire) to send permission to the OTRS via email. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Please also note that "the request to upload it in his wikipedia web page" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose. As our colleague says, the actual copyright holder (almost certainly the photographer) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Roemerberggespraeche-april-2014-yasemin-shooman-ffm-778.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Original deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roemerberggespraeche-april-2014-yasemin-shooman-ffm-778.jpg.

Reason: The original deletion request rationale did not apply: The photo was shot at a public discussion. Therefore, there is no need for any "accreditation" or something else to publicize the photo, in particular (but not limited to), if the depicted person is a scientist or politician (both applies in this case).

Subsequently, the photo was deleted as a "courtesy" (I guess, because that was the only striking argument, and the deleting administrator, user:Yann did not elaborate at all, so it's difficult to say, what his/her reasons were). That sets a dangerous precedent: "Courtesy" could be extended to anyone requesting a picture to be deleted, just because he or she doesn't like the picture. That distorts visual neutrality: There are favorable and unfavorable images of almost every person, why should only the favorable and/or authorized pictures be admissible? To whom are we gonna extend courtesy? What, if there is an unfavorable shot of en:Paul Nuttall or en:Robert Mugabe. What, if their office requires the "courtesy" the photo to be deleted? Kängurutatze (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Neutral A better photo is available at Category:Yasemin Shooman. Thuresson (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No doubt, and I wouldn't wanna exchange that photo for the one in that category. I just don't want us bowing to articles' subjects for deletion, unless other policies support their request (be it legal or wiki-internal). --Kängurutatze (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Although we don't generally delete images solely because of the subject's request, this image is poor quality and we have the much better image File:Yasemin-Shooman.jpg. I also note that both Yann and Turelio, very experienced Admins, requested deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thus, @user:Jameslwoodward, basically, your argument is pretty personal, "very experienced Admins", that's, according to social network analysis, very normal, but not very rational. "Poor quality": Haven't seen that picture, but probably, that's true. Where is the policy that outlaws "poor quality" (I mean, there are plenty of "poor quality" pictures on commons, they all should be deleted?)? Suppose I want to delete this picture. I mean,common, it's poor quality, not even a public event. Deletable?) --Kängurutatze (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The subject image is of poorer quality than the one you cite, but, more to the point, the one you cite is unique -- a notable person doing something unusual -- so it would not be deleted for quality even if that were precluded by the fact that it is in use on five WPs.
Of course it is personal. Commons Admins make subjective decisions all the time and that is inevitably personal. The fact that three editors with over a million actions on Commons among them think that the image should be deleted counts more here than the opinion of an editor with 23 actions.
"Where is the policy that outlaws "poor quality"" -- see the fifth bullet at Commons:Project scope#Examples.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, cool, Jim, you have a 136000 !"actions" across all Wikimedia projects, but on the Danish Wikipedia only two, thus your arguments on the Danish Wikipedia don't count or count only very little, right? The policy you point me to does not give any reason to delete this picture, but it does give a reason to delete the other picture of Shooman: "advertising or self-promotion". The other picture was earmarked by Shooman to be published in her Wikipedia article. So there would be a reason to delete that picture on these grounds. Now, I am not advocating that, because the policy is infeasible: You will inevitably have tons of promotion pictures in Wikipedia. What I am advocating is that persons should not be able to purge pictures of themselves that might not support their self-promotion. BTW: Since I cannot see the picture, I don't have any idea, if it is not so similar to the picture on commons, that it would have no additional value. Does it also have product placement for Hewlett-Packard in it? --Kängurutatze (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Now, I do understand, that there is always some discretion for administrators, so there is always something personal in a (un)deletion decision. But I'm used to sysops orienting their decisions at Wikipedia or legal policies. Can you please point me to the generic policy that supports arguments of the type: "the subject doesn't want it" (absolute no-go in my view, opens all doors for personal propaganda) or "we have a better alternative": If that's true, look at Category:Scarlett Johansson in 2016. Tons of pictures of poor quality blatant example. Now should we blaster the deletion requests with thounds of requests pointing to the alleged poor quality of a picture? --Kängurutatze (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
First, yes, anywhere but Commons and, perhaps, WP:EN, I absolutely defer to local experience when discussing local policies and procedures. There is no way in the world that I would go on WP:DK and have an extended argument over local policies with three editors with deep experience there.
Second, as I said in my initial comment here, we rarely delete images at the request of the subject, but we frequently delete poor quality images when there are much better ones available. Where's the problem? One instance in this direction does not somehow void the hundreds of cases where we did not delete as requested.
Third, feel free to tag for deletion images that you think are poor quality and for which we have much better substitutes -- there are always hundreds of thousands of images out of our 37 million that should be deleted.
Finally, "product placement" is simply not true. I can't imagine that Ms. Shooman has been paid by HP to use its notebook and have it pictured with her. Your comment is arguably libelous.
First, then you are obviously much humbler than I am. While I am all for lurking to test the terrain and customs, I don't defer to local experience, I prefer cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism. And I trust written rules more than than informal ones.
Second, in which sense is said image "poorer"? Fewer pixels? Worse lighting? Worse shooting angle?
Third, okay.
Finally, "product placement" was, of course, mean sarcastically. It most likely just so happened that there was an HP laptop. But, nevertheless, even inadvertent product placement advertises the product (Agreed, that the effect will be negligible in this case). --Kängurutatze (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
"Other stuff exist" is not good argument, specially here. We have thousands new uploads and many deletions every day, yet a lot of copyrighted and out of scope images pass through reviewers (if you want to help, you are welcome). So we certainly have thousands of poor quality images which could be deleted, if any one cares to review and nominate them. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion. If anything, I think we are too tight about making courtesy deletions of people of middling notability. For someone who is really famous -- a head of state, member of a famous band etc. -- I'm not inclined to make a courtesy deletion. Also, if someone starts out right away with legal threats, screw 'em. But other than that, if we have a better image anyway, I'm inclined to accommodate them. Typically for such people there are only a handful of free-licensed images available, so those few that exist can take on quite a life. It can be really rough on someone if one of the few that is out there is uncomplimentary. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel. I tend to agree with you provided that we can be reasonably sure that the request has actually come from the subject of the image and, as you say, it is reasonably polite. Most of the time the request is from an IP user and I reject those. The notion of editorial independence, as expressed above, can be carried too far. Even a well respected historian is not going to choose unflattering images of the subject if he or she has better ones available. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - per discussion - Jcb (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ed Gein, the Musical Theatrical Poster.jpg

My company DaviesRussell, LLC (domiciled in Wisconsin) in which I am the owner of, owns the rights to this image. I am the creator and owner of it. I have all rights and privileges to use it as I deem necessary under law. Thank you.

Warmest regards, Dan Davies danny.daviz@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShannonJosephDoyle (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because we do not know who ShannonJosephDoyle actually is and we, unfortunately, get vandals and fans who make false claims in order to get images kept on Commons, policy requires that in the case of copyrighted posters, an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Akhandadhuni Prajeesh Malayalam Film Poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this film poster made by my self for my short film. Copy righted by my self Prajeesharimbra (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because we do not know who Prajeesharimbra actually is and we, unfortunately, get vandals and fans who make false claims in order to get images kept on Commons, policy requires that in the case of copyrighted posters, an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Speaking Up for Animals.jpg

As this picture was actually requested by the author and was actually made for her website, I fail to see a copyright issue! She wants her book covers shown online.

Same goes for all the other files you kindly deleted. Rz7dd4 (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the author to contact OTRS to provide permission. Jcb (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have requested that the author sends you express permission.Rz7dd4 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Sister Species.jpg

Again, the author herself has requested that this book cover be shown, and is already available on her website. Whilst I appreciate the need to be very careful, this appears to be a bit of overkill.

Rz7dd4 (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the author to contact OTRS to provide permission. Jcb (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The cover photo comes from stockhphotos.com whose licensing terms include: "No images licensed from StockPhoto.com may be further distributed by Licensee to third-parties other than as part of final works prepared by Licensee as permitted by this Agreement". Thuresson (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have asked the author if she can confirm this. Rz7dd4 (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Primate People.jpg

Whilst I admire your zeal, the book cover belongs to the author, and she has specifically requested that it ought to be included.Rz7dd4 (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct file name is File:Primate people.jpg. Jcb (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please ask the author to contact OTRS to provide permission. Jcb (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The author Lisa Kemmerer is not the photographer of the cover photo, the name of the photographer is Keri Cairns.

I am unsure how you can know that. However, I have contacted the author, and no doubt she will confirm or not in due course. Rz7dd4 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

In Search of Consistency.jpg

The author owns and took the picture used here. It already exists in the public domain. She has requested it be added on her wiki page, which she has asked me to author. Please undelete.

Rz7dd4 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the author to contact OTRS to provide permission. Jcb (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have requested that the author sends you express permission.Rz7dd4 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Christa Maar .jpg

Moin zusammen, bitte das Bild wieder hochladen, damit ich es in OTRS freigeben kann. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Raboe001: ✓ Done --Didym (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 Comment It is likely that the image will be deleted because the EXIF calls out a photographer that is not the uploader with All Rights Reserved. However, it has not yet been deleted, so this is not the right place to request anything. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Danke ich schaue mir das mal an, ich kann es leider nicht erkennen wenn es gelöscht ist. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Erledigt bitte schließen -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ra Boe. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Alex John.png

The use of the elected image. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147978134@N06/32968039735/in/dateposted-public/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtaschen (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Painfully obvious Flickrwashing. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Alois Mock 1986.png

Bitte hochladen, Freigabe erhalten Ticket:2017020710022884 -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Raboe001: Erledigt, bitte Freigabe ergänzen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ArborLoo de Palets.jpg This is my own work. Pls undelete.

This drawing is my own. There are no copyright issues. It helps to explain how an ArborLoo works. Please be so kind as to undelete it. Bio-CLC (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please send a permission to the OTRS via email. Ping Bio-CLC --★ Poké95 02:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

Logo update

Please undelete this image: File:Jatheon Logo.png

I work for Jatheon Technologies Inc and I was asked by the management to upload a better image of our logo to a Wikipedia page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorvusCoraxHD (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose (File:Jatheon Logo.png) We need a written permission from the copyright holder to confirm that the logo has been released under a free commercial licence. Please see COM:OTRS for details. All media on Wikimedia Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose beyond a Wikipedia page. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission to the OTRS via email. As De728631 said above, the copyright holder must agree that the logo may be used for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative works) beyond Wikipedia (meaning anyone can use it, not just Wikipedia). Ping CorvusCoraxHD --★ Poké95 03:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:HermannWatzlOCist.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: in the mean time, the photographer has been identified and permission granted. See Ticket:2017021710008327 Melchior2006 (talk) 10:35, 17 February 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) 11:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

sorry im Ticket:2017021710008327 steht [GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation], bitte das Bild hochladen damit ich mir es anschauen kann. -- Ra Boe watt?? 11:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001: Temporarily undeleted for OTRS review. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Danke @Srittau: . Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry mein Fehler, es bedarf noch eine Absprachen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2015-07-10 Dritte offene Deutsche Beachrugby-Meisterschaft, Hannover City Cup summer games 2015, Goseriede, (106) Michael Sandow.JPG

Ist ein Bezirksbürgermeister relevant?! Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Finde vergleichbare Bilder auf Commons, da Bezirksbürgermeister auch immer politische Entscheidungen treffen und so in den Medien sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Neutral Wenn man die de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien heranzieht, geht es erst ab OB aufwärts los. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Und deshalb darf man Artikel über Sportereignisse oder über einen Stadtteil nicht mit einem Bild des Bezirksbürgermeisters oder der Bezirksbürgermeisterin illustrieren? --Stobaios (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Wer sagt das denn? Ich habe nur auf Raboe001s Frage geantwortet. Wenn ich dagegen wäre, hätte ich das auch kaum mit "neutral" markiert, oder? De728631 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry für meinen Kollegen, es ist nicht gerade nicht ganz einfach einen kühlen Kopf zu behalten. Zumindest kann ich mich über Gesprächsstoff darüber auf der AdminCon nicht beklagen ;). Ich würde drum bitten die Bilder wieder hochzuladen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Subject may be notable, so in the scope of Commons. De728631 (talk)

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

File:2015-06-21 Auftaktkonzert Chortage Hannover, Internationales Kinder- und Jugendchorzentrum Christuskirche, (109) Wolfgang Schröfel.JPG

hmm ist der Wolfgang Schröfel, Präsident des Niedersächsischen Chorverbands, ist er nicht auch Buchautor? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Autor des Handbuchs Chormanagement in zwei Bänden. --Stobaios (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Subject appears to be a notable musician. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-06-15 Abdou Karim Sané vom Freundeskreis Tambacounda e.V., hier vor dem Laden Am Kleinen Felde 21 in der Nordstadt von Hannover, 02.JPG

Wikipedianer aus Hannover Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ach ja
File:2015-06-15 Abdou Karim Sané vom Freundeskreis Tambacounda e.V., hier vor dem Laden Am Kleinen Felde 21 in der Nordstadt von Hannover, 01.JPG
bitte auch. -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Out of scope, da ja offensichtlich bisher nicht verwendet. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moment, also ich will hier ja nicht über jedes Bild streiten, aber es gibt viele Bilder von Wikipedianer die nicht benutzt werden, selbst bei mir. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Deutsch-afrikanische Freundschaft ist unerwünscht? --Stobaios (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Mit dieser Unterstellung hast du dich komplett selbst disqualifiziert. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, wenn mir angesichts dieses entwürdigenden Verfahrens der Reglementierung eines verdienten Wikipedianers die Galle überläuft.
 Support Zu Abdou Karim Sané: Aktivist gegen Genitalverstümmelung im Senegal [31][32][33], Initiator deutsch-afrikanischer Zusammenarbeit bei Solarenergie [34][35], Mitarbeiter bei Bildungs- und Kulturprojekten [36][37], Kampf gegen Diskriminierung [38][39][40]. --Stobaios (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Potential user page image and apparently a notable person, too. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Stranraer FC 2015.jpg

This image is a logo and free to share --ChrisCollings (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No, it is not. Thuresson (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose It's also not very useful in this small size. In order to restore the logo, an authorized official of the club must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Not a free logo in the first place, and the size and resolution could also be improved if we got a free permission for the logo. De728631 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:LG ‘로보킹’, 구자철 손흥민 선수를 응원합니다 (1).jpg

this image is from official LG flickr account(see also {{LGE}}): https://www.flickr.com/photos/lge/14294563675/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puramyun31 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Not for copyright reasons, but for COM:SCOPE. I don't think it would be within our project's scope. --★ Poké95 02:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
the depicted person is a notable footballer, so within our project's scope. Pokéfan95 seems to want to define the scope as narrow as possible, but it's not. --Puramyun31 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Poké. The subject may be a notable footballer, but a photo of him holding a vacuum cleaner is not in scope and may violate COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
but the purpose of upload here doesn't seems to violate COM:ADVERT because the vacuum cleaner is just trivial and the footballer is the main subject. and see com:assume good faith. why should we be so insular to accept freely-licenced media by company? --Puramyun31 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
If this were the only photo we had of :Son Heung-min, then we would probably keep it. However, we have 21 others in Category:Son Heung-min, both on the field and off, so I see no reason to keep one that is plainly an advertisement..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There are other neutral photos of this person available at Commons so we don't need this one which is clearly third-party advertising. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gary Connery fly with wingsuit without parachute and lands on water.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I found that license for this picture is "Creative common" as has video in youtube. Nickieros (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done "License: Standard YouTube License". Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Man with barcode hair - Japan April 2015.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This type of comb-over is unique in Japan, was in use at the time of deletion, it has public value (which gives it right to be filmed even if I showed the face) but to extra careful and respect the person's wishes in the photo I blurred the face for annonymous value. Even Japanese TV shows pictures of people in public with blurred faces, there is no illegal or breaking rules if the face is blurred. An admin rushed in (maybe couldn't understand the Japanese comments on the page?) and deleted this image when it was perfectly valid and OK. I strongly request that it be undeleted as I think the admin was being unfair, there was no reason for it to even be nominated. It was nominated by a troll who had been uploading copyrighted images. I'm quite frustrated here. Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Low quality and value, clear violation of Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Japan. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Why was it low quality? Where is there a higher quality image of a "bar code" haircut? And it is NOT a violation of that page. Read it. If there is value to society, use on Wikipedia, it is not in violation. AND it was blurred, that consent is for identifiable people. Japanese newspapers/TV always shows people without consent if their face is blurred. Nesnad (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: This is clearly ageist. He is being deleted for his age and your bias against his haircut. There ARE BILLIONS of identifiable Japanese people images without clear definitions of consent or not on Wikipedia, are you gonna delete this one next? In use by a billion Wikis? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_people_of_all_ages.jpg This is madness. Nesnad (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So according to this comment and the one on my user page, I am unfair, biased, ageist, haircutist, and I don't want to look bad by changing my opinion. Any other accusation to throw at me while you're at it? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, let me calm down, I am just really upset. The Japanese user claimed all these horrible things in Japanese (I was a pervert etc) and then suddenly it got deleted which I felt was unfair. I don't mean you are bad at all. I am trying to talk about your ACTIONS. I feel they are unfair and biased. And yes, I have met so many Wikipedia users that won't change their opinion because they don't want to "look bad" and want to keep their power. Sigh. That's the way the ball rolls I guess. Are you going to just say I am calling you names (sorry again wasn't my intent) or reply to my question about how it is unfair when clearly you are showing a bias towards this image which has no reason to be deleted. Nesnad (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The personality rights issue is not that critical as the face is obscured/censored. We cannot tell who the individual is. I have attempted to crop the image so that only the hair is visible and I am left with a 350x269px image which is far too resolution to be worth the trouble. Hence I am upholding the deletion. I would suggest User:Nesnad to try to get permission to comply with Japanese privacy law allowing us to have a higher resolution file. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reopened. Three and a half hours is far too fast for an image that is a close call.

I looked at this very hard yesterday before it was deleted and decided that it was too close a call for me to close one way or the other. After a day's thought, I  Support keeping it. It is certainly not a problem for personality rights. Given the angle and the blur, even his spouse wouldn't know him. I think it will be useful in a summary of men's hair styles. Given the fact that President Trump uses a similar style, we probably should have such an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that "not even his wife would know him." The person is very recognizable and I'd argue that even most acquaintances would be able to recognize him. I don't know the standards of Japan, but in Germany this would certainly be a violation of personality rights and the Japanese rules sound similar to the rules over here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Srittau, if you want to blur the face more, then do it, but deleting an image suddenly that was in no violation when you don't know the standards of Japan as you said yourself, is a clear example of acting too quickly. This needs to be undeleted especially because you or someone else has not provided a suitable replacement image for this unique and interesting hairstyle that was being illustrated by the image. There is no reason to crop the image more, you guys are acting like this hairstyle is something this man is ashamed of. The only reason I blurred the face was to respect the wishes of anonymousness. We shouldn't be assigning shame to this hairstyle by saying "nobody could recognize him" as if there is some sort of problem with this style. We should blur it enough to make the man anonymous if you all wish (although by the link provided earlier there isn't even a requirement to blur in Japan when the image adds value to society. This was illustrating over three pages on Wikipedia. It was in use. Normally images are discussed more before deleting if they are in use. This is so frustrating. Gosssh. Nesnad (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sebari, why do you ignore me when I point out you even admited you don't know the standards of Japan when you deleted a perfectly OK picture? :( Nesnad (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Mather_IVO_Berkshire,_England_-_1944.jpg

This file: Mather IVO Berkshire, England - 1944 is in the public domain. It was deleted in error. Please restore it.

Thank you,

Sean Mather 16 February 2017 Sdmather (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Sean, in the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer and that the image is under copyright (putting a CC license on the image requires that you own the copyright). Now you say that it is PD.

Your being the photographer is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely. There is no obvious reason why it would be PD. When and where was it first published? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I put it in the public domain, myself. It's my photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmather (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice that according to your user page the subject on this 1944 photo has a grandson named Sean Mather. Would you like to comment on this? Can you give us some more information about your trip to England in 1944? Thuresson (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You carefully avoided the question above. That's not going to get this image restored. Were you the photographer? When and where was it first published? Both of those questions are critical to the status of the photograph. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Prof. Dr. Conrad Heberling

Prof. Dr. Conrad Heberling is one of the most renowned tv-manager in german speaking Europe. He just been honored with the renowned award "Media Manager of the year" of the Academy of New Media in the city of Kulmbach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Chester (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lina Baumberger (grayscale).jpg, File:Chalet Sutermeister.jpg and File:Hans Martin Sutermeister 1961 (cropped).jpg

These files has been nominated by a vandal IP, and some related files has been already nominated and kept. @Natuur12, could you explain why you deleted these files? --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandal IP? Anyways, I believe those photogaphs are to creative for {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (though File:Chalet Sutermeister.jpg can be considered borderline). Plus there is no evidence of a PD status in the US. Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a comment on this particular UnDR, just a general heads up: There is an IP going around nominating all files relating to the Sutermeister family for deletion. Some nominations may be justified, but care should be taken as there is clearly an ulterior motive at play here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree completely with Natuur12 -- one borderline (and borderline quality as well) and two creative -- but even if we are wrong, it must be proven that they were first published in Switzerland. We have no evidence of that here. If they were first published anywhere else, then they are almost certainly still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Natuur12 and Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Antonio Miguel Pérez (cantante).jpg

Also:

Reason: I have permission use it and the picture is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Look this link: https://www.facebook.com/am.antoniomiguelperez/media_set?set=a.268992916871549.100012825282380&type=3 Marjotsy (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It is unlikely that Antonio Miguel Pérez, the subject of the images and the owner of the Facebook page, actually has the right to freely license the images. That right is almost always held by the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Jim. We need a confirmation of the CC licence from the photographer. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the photograph needed. Cannot undelete otherwise. Ruthven (msg) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jacek Krupa.jpg

File:Jacek Krupa.jpg jest plikiem z sesji zdjęciowej do ktorej mam pełne prawo. Został zakupiony. Bardzo proszę o odtworzenie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkowac (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This file has not been deleted so there is nothing to do here. However, it will be dleted unless you provide more information in the file description about why you believe you have the right to freely license someone else's work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:E-Ink Optical microscopy 20x.jpg‬

It's my own picture. The sample was prepared by me, photoshot and published in my own blog in Ru segment of Internet. --TiberiusRufus (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because we do not know who TiberiusRufus is and it has appeared elsewhere on the Web, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As Jim said above, OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder (which is allegedly TiberiusRufus). This isn't done to make any inconvenience (and we apologize for that), but to protect the copyright of the author/copyright holder. --★ Poké95 10:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Austria.jpg File:Austria map.jpg

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/cia-maps-publications/Austria.html

this is published by the CIA Denniscallan (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is most likely referring to File:Austria map.jpg. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support The file data in the {{Information}} template is clearly bogus, but the linked source seems genuine. ({{PD-USGov-CIA}}) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support The University of Texas library copyright notice cited in the deletion is bogus, as the page also clearly states that this map, among others, was created by the CIA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Seeing no objection, I have restored it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Series of Tubes - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg

recording from senate / c-span falls under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government and https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing and as such I believe is public domain

--TimofeiT9 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose From the cited page, emphasis added:

"Under C-SPAN's copyright policy a license is generally not required to post a recording of C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video.""

NC licenses are not acceptable on Commons . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Philip Hitti.jpg

This file has for sure no copy rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moußsa (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Khuri_Hitti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moußsa (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why this is so. Thuresson (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have copyrights until they expire. There is no free license at the source site. Philip Khuri Hitti died in 1978 at the age of 92. He appears to be somewhere between forty and seventy in this image, so the image was probably taken between 1926 and 1956. There is no evidence of where it was taken or where it was first published. While it may or may not still be under copyright, place and date of first publication is essential to determining its status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ivan Kablukov (1857-1942).jpg

Hi, friends

This file is authorized its use in Russian Wikipedia, that's why we decided to use it in others Wikipedia. It is public dominion and regards to a russian scientist. Why it can be used in the Russian Wikipedia and not in others. Respectfully I ask you to restore the file which is necessary for the respective file.Claudio Pistilli (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you link the Russian Wikipedia's file link?
Ogoorcs (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The source has a clear copyright notice. For what reason did WP:RU ignore that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (2).JPG

Relevante Schauspielerin, da vier Jahre Serie bei RTL II. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Already under discussion above. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (1).JPG

Relevante Schauspielerin, da vier Jahre Serie bei RTL II. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Already under discussion above. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2006 0610Cozia0559.JPG

It was my own work. I login very rare in commons and i've missed the opportunity to tag the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianChirita (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 February 2017‎ (UTC)

 Support This 2006 file was deleted for "no source". Although there is nothing in the "source=" line, there actually was no "source=" line in 2006. It's licensed as self GFDL, so it seems to me that instead of deleting this for "no source", we should have simply added "Source=Own Work" and "Author=CristianChirita"

CristianChirita, when it is restored, could you please fill in a little more detail on where this is and check the categories? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I restored this and added a description in English. CristianChirita, could you please add a sentence or two in Romanian? De728631 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2015-04-20 Beate Albrecht, Schauspielerin, Jenseits vom Tag, Haus der Region Hannover (2).JPG

Beate Albrecht wieder herstellen und in ihrem Artikel einbinden und bitte keine Massenlöschungen mehr, dann kommt so etwas auch nicht vor. Denke mal sie ist die Autorin oder? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Beate Albrecht ist Schauspielerin und Autorin aus Witten, GND 131419900, in der Presse wegen ihrer Theaterstücke gegen Rassismus [41][42][43][44]. --Stobaios (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Artikel ist über jemand anderes. Aber  Support per Stobaios. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per Stobaios. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (3).JPG

Wenn das eine Schauspielerin ist, dann sollte sie relevant sein oder, wenn ja bitte auch

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (3).JPG
File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (2).jpg
File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (1).jpg
Wiederherstellen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support Spielte vier Jahre in der TV-Serie w:de:X-Diaries von w:de: RTL 2. --Stobaios (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Scheint überhaupt keine Rezeption in den Medien erfahren zu haben. Google findet im wesentlichen nur ihre Homepage und die Seite von RTL 2. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support Moment, vier Jahre Serie spielen ist nicht so relevant, wie eine Schauspielerin mit drei noch schlechteren Schmuddelfilmen? -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wo habe ich irgendetwas über die Qualität der Serie gesagt. Die Schauspielerin hat aber anscheinend so gut wie keine mediale oder sonstige Rezeption erfahren (zumindest laut Google), trotz vier Jahren. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Sebari, sorry ich meinte Dich nicht, sondern die Rezessionen im Netz. ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Sebari. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Files by Flickr user Josh Schmitt

 Oppose Since the Flickr account appears to be full of copyright violations, I see no reason to restore any of the images below. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Christiane Farqui.jpg

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since change the permissions on their image.

Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

While there is a low resolution version of this image at the USIP website, a large file with a full set of EXIF has been uploaded at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:ITSCi.png

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since change the permissions on their image.

Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Appears to be licence laundering: [45]. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mediation in Latin America.jpg

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since changed the permissions on their image.

Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Image is now available at Flickr under a CC-by-sa-2.0 licence. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: I reopened this, because the account look suspiciously like a Flickrwashing account. Very low views, all files supposedly taken with a point and shoot camera, even images that look like official portraits, small sizes. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You might be on to something there. I did a reverse search and it turned out that the same image is being used by the United States Institute of Peace although without credits. If it was taken by an employee of the USIP it would be PD-USGov, but we don't know that. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also that file has no EXIF data in the USIP page, which makes it even more suspicious. Would you agree to delete the file again? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Note also that the USIP is an independent Federally chartered organization. It is not completely clear whether PD-US Gov applies at all. See http://www.usip.org/legal/privacy for more information. There the USIP explicitly notes that many of the images on its site have copyrights. This one has no credit line, so we cannot know its status. I think the image should be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted again per Jim and Sebari. De728631 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:William Zemp.jpg

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since changed the permissions on their image. Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr account is dubious (see discussion above). This image was cropped and mirrored from a larger photo at the USIP website. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Flickrwashing account. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ankaracenter.jpg

Originally uploaded to enwiki by the author, John M. McGough/Jayzel68. —innotata 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This image was deleted from Commons in 2006 because the author was not the uploader. It's out of focus and unlikely to be used anywhere. I see no reason to restore it here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Isadore Coop, circa 1948.jpg

This file was deleted because the Copyright License, although pending, was not delivered in time. It was delivered earlier today (to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). I would therefore request that it be undeleted.--Jack Coop (talk) 03:03, 21 February 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) 11:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dr-Rahif-Hakmi.jpg

Requesting to undelete this file as the copyright holder has given permission to publish this file under a free license by sending email ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) to OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armadaholding (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 February 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) 00:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2015-09-08 Antonio Umberto Riccò, Koodinator deutsch-italienische Arbeitsgruppe Unser Herz schlägt auf Lampedusa, (13).JPG

 Support Antonio Umberto Riccò ist in meinen Augen relevant, der hat über drei Bücher geschrieben. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Relevanter Autor: [46][47][48][49]. --Stobaios (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The absurdity of this review process is that we can't see what you uploaded, so could you upload the file elsewhere for us to see?
Ogoorcs (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a portrait photograph of Antonio Umberto Riccò. The only question is whether this person is in the project scope of Commons or if he is rather insignificant, so his portrait would not be useful for educational purposes in general. So why would you need to see the image? De728631 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support per Stobaios and Category:Antonio Umberto Riccò. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Gelöschte Bilder von Bernd Schwabe aus Hannover

Moin zusammen, wäre es möglich mir die Bilder zu senden, damit ich sie mir heute Abend anschauen und darüber mit den Fotograf sprechen kann. Wünschenswert wäre die Cloud mit einer Mail mit der Adresse. Sorry für die Arbeit, aber ich möchte es gerne weg haben.
Des weiteren würde ich mich freuen wenn die oben aufgezählten Bilder wieder hochgeladen werden, denn sie sind in meinen Augen relevant. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Diese Bilder oben wurde zurecht gelöscht, sie zeigen in Großaufnahme andere Bilder von Personen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Diese Logo ist sicher geschützt. -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


von links: Oliver Kucklinski vom Bürgerbüro Stadtentwicklung Hannover, Matthias Görn (Vorstand vom Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover sowie Vorstand vom Freundeskreis Hannover), Rapper Spax sowie ein Gast. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Görn ist seit 2012 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Leiter des Niedersächsischen Landesmuseums Hannover. Er bildet zusammen mit der Museumsleiterin Katja Lembke den Vorstand dieses Museums [50].--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Sozialistischen Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters im Rathaus Hannover. Auf Einladung des Oberbürgermeisters hatten sie einen Informationsstand aufgebaut.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wie auf dem Bild genau zu lesen: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN) ...

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN), die beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters auf dessen Einladung einen Informationsstand betrieben.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen, offizieller Aussteller im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Über diese Bilder kann man geteilter Meinung sein, ich sehe darin Vertreter verschiedener Vereine; JARUM e.V, rote Taube auf blauen Grund??, Türkische Jungend Niedersachsen

von links: Reinhold Fahlbusch, Bürgermeisterin Regine Kramarek sowie eine Bürgerin zur Bürgersprechstunde während des Neujahrsempfangs im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Bürgermeisterin Regine Kramarek von der Seite, wer ist der Herr? -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Die Herrschaften auf diesem Foto sind relevant, da bin ich mir fast sicher. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Der Abgebildete ist Hannovers Oberbürgermeister Stefan Schostok, der beim Neujahrsempfang der Stadt Hannover für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Hannovers es sich nicht nehmen ließ, einige der Eingeladenen mit seinem Cellular-Telefon zu fotografieren.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Die Herrschaften auf diesem Foto sind relevant, da bin ich mir sehr sicher. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

keine Ahnung ob Relevant -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

keine Ahnung ob Relevant -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

keine Ahnung ob Relevant -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Personen bei der Kunstpreisverleihung, Kleine Ahnung ob sie relevant sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Künstlerin, tja was soll ich jetzt dazu sagen. Ärgerlich wenn sie mal relevant wird und wir habe das Bild gelöscht ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Miersch, SPD, MdB. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Redner auf der Anti-TTIP-Demonstration, ich halte sie für Relevant. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Designerin und Museumsleiterin -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) ---

Finde keine Filme -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) ---

Bürgermeisterin des Stadtteils. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) ---

Lennart Wiechell vom Münchner Architekturbüro Schmidhuber, entwarf den deutschen Expo-Pavillon für die Expo 2016 in Milano. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Lennart Wiechell, da muss ich länger im Netz suchen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wilfried Lorenz (Politiker), MdB. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC) keine Ahnung. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Wenzel, Niedersachsens Umweltminister--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Stefan Wenzel, Niedersachsens Umweltminister--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hannovers Stadtsuperintendent Hans-Martin Heinemann--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hannovers Oberbürgermeister Stefan Schostock--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Bernd Busemann, Präsident des Niedersächsischen Landtags.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alle relevant, Politiker & Würdenträger des Landes. ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC) ---

@Raboe001: Warum sollen wir diese Dateien jetzt einzeln aus dem Cache der Wikimedia pulen? Hat Bernd Schwabe die Bilder nicht mehr auf seinem Rechner, oder geht es darum, die Dateinamen zuzuordnen? Von Clouds habe ich keine Ahnung, aber ich könnte dir die Dateien als Archiv mailen (zip, tar, 7z). Das wird dann nur entsprechend groß, und passt wahrscheinlich nicht in dein Postfach. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin @De728631: , hat super funktioniert. vielen Dank warte auf den nächsten Schub und die ersten Bilder sind zu recht gelöscht, aber weiter oben die Bilder der Schauspielerin ist jetzt nicht wirklich war oder? Wie und wo kann ich da widersprechen? ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an undeletion request as such but a request for copies of the images for individual review with the photographer/uploader. I'm handling this by email with Raboe001. De728631 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Adam C. Earnheardt NCA.jpg

I own the copyright to this image: http://www.adamearn.com/uploads/3/1/9/3/31935535/published/adam-c-earnheardt-nca.jpeg?1485132631 Please note that I have applied the proper release (CCA4.0). http://www.adamearn.com/welcome.html If you need additional information, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamEKSO (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@TeamEKSO: ✓ Done thanks for the contact  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done and license reviewed by Billinghurst. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee with Ashutosh Mukherjee.png

The following can be seen in the photo graph - left of center front row - Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, center is the Chief justice Sir lancelot Sanderson, and right of center - Sir Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee - this is a photograph of the sitting judges of the Calcutta High Court. As per the reference page number 133 - bottom left - Asutosh Mookerjee (also spelled as Asutosh Mukherjee) resigned in 1924 and Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee resigned in 1926 (page 134) - so this picture is clearly 80+ years old and free from any copyright in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichatt4957 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ichatt4957: please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee with Ashutosh Mukherjee.png and then discuss the license that you believe should be applied and why. Your undelete request doesn't address the reason for the deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Noting that on upload you licensed wtih {{Anonymous-EU}} which is clearly inappropriate for a photograph if taken in India.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

this photo should be restored as it is older than any copyright concerns. This can be clearly proven from the content of the photograph. This is a photo of the sitting judges of the calcutta high court. The three people in the front row-middle from left to right

  • Sir Asutosh Mookerjee (Mukherjee) - left - retired (resigned 1924, as shown on page 133 of the linked document died 1924
  • Sir Lancelot Sanderson (Chief Justice) - middle - died 1944
  • Sir Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee - right - resigned 1926 as shown on page 134 of the above linked document. died 1942

This photo has been taken at least 90 years before !!!

Repeating this undelete request - as the previous was not signed and dated --Ichatt4957 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You used license Anonymous-EU, which says: "For a work made available to the public in the United Kingdom, please use Template:PD-UK-unknown instead.". But I do not understand, which part of {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies here. The license need first publication data. When and where the photo was first published? 70 years are needed from first publishing or if unpiublished, then from creation. But as the photo is made in Calcutta, maybe we can use {{PD-India}} license. All Indian photos created before 1958 are in public domain, but this applies only for photos first published in India. Again first publishing data are needed. How can you be sure, that the photo was first published in India? Or UK? Taivo (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Am I missing something Here? This seems to be very easy. This is a photograph, almost certainly taken in India and, as discussed above, absolutely certainly taken before 1924 when one of the subjects listed above died. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#India, Indian photographs taken before 1958 become PD 50 years after creation, so this was clearly PD in India before the URAA date. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly my point- I am not sure why this was deleted in the first place. This is a photograph from India and only available in India and clearly shot in Bengal, India. And again clearly taken long before to be affected by any dates related to copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichatt4957 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored as PD-India. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (178).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) von links: Reinhold Fahlbusch, Bürgermeisterin Regine Kramarek sowie eine Bürgerin zur Bürgersprechstunde während des Neujahrsempfangs im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Bürgermeisterin Regine Kramarek von der Seite, wer ist der Herr? -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Regine Kramarek and Category:Reinhold Fahlbusch. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (188).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Die Herrschaften auf diesem Foto sind relevant, da bin ich mir fast sicher. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Der Abgebildete ist Hannovers Oberbürgermeister Stefan Schostok, der beim Neujahrsempfang der Stadt Hannover für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Hannovers es sich nicht nehmen ließ, einige der Eingeladenen mit seinem Cellular-Telefon zu fotografieren.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. See also Category:Stefan Schostok. De728631 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (142).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namensraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

von links: Oliver Kucklinski vom Bürgerbüro Stadtentwicklung Hannover, Matthias Görn (Vorstand vom Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover sowie Vorstand vom Freundeskreis Hannover), Rapper Spax sowie ein Gast. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Görn ist seit 2012 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Leiter des Niedersächsischen Landesmuseums Hannover. Er bildet zusammen mit der Museumsleiterin Katja Lembke den Vorstand dieses Museums [51].--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Matthias Görn and Category:Spax (Rapper). De728631 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-01-12 Bunt statt Braun, Freude, Miteinander (1203).JPG

Wilfried Lorenz (Politiker), MdB. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC) keine Ahnung. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Wilfried Lorenz (Politiker). De728631 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-01-12 Bunt statt Braun, Freude, Miteinander (1101).jpg

Stefan Wenzel, Niedersachsens Umweltminister--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Stefan Wenzel. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-01-12 Bunt statt Braun, Freude, Miteinander (1100).jpg

Stefan Wenzel, Niedersachsens Umweltminister--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Stefan Wenzel. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-01-12 Bunt statt Braun, Freude, Miteinander (1044).jpg

Hannovers Stadtsuperintendent Hans-Martin Heinemann--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Hans-Martin Heinemann. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-01-12 Bunt statt Braun, Freude, Miteinander (1040).jpg

Hannovers Oberbürgermeister Stefan Schostock--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Stefan Schostok. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-01-12 Bunt statt Braun, Freude, Miteinander (1022).jpg

Bernd Busemann, Präsident des Niedersächsischen Landtags.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alle relevant, Politiker & Würdenträger des Landes. ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Bernd Busemann. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:20150521 Expo 2015 Themenabend, Deutsche Messe AG, Freundeskreis Hannover, Exposeum, (173) Lennart Wiechell.JPG

Lennart Wiechell vom Münchner Architekturbüro Schmidhuber, entwarf den deutschen Expo-Pavillon für die Expo 2016 in Milano. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lennart Wiechell, da muss ich länger im Netz suchen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Notable architect (Focus, Das Haus, Die Welt), see also Category:Lennart Wiechell. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-04-23 Anti-TTIP-Demonstration in Hannover, (10084).jpg

Matthias Miersch, SPD, MdB. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Redner auf der Anti-TTIP-Demonstration, ich halte sie für Relevant. -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Matthias Miersch. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sir N R Chatterjee.jpg

Request to undelete the above image as source is Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichatt4957 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you the painter? Thuresson (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It doesn't seem that the uploader is the painter. A permission from the painter (the copyright holder) is needed. To do so, they must send an email to the OTRS. Ichatt4957, please don't reupload images that were deleted per community consensus. If you continue to do this, you may lose your editing privileges here on Commons. Consider this as a final warning. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While it is certainly possible that this painting is PD-Old, that is not at all certain as the subject was active in the 1920s and died in 1942. In order to restore it we will need either proof that the artist died before 1957 (India is PMA 60) or a free license from the artist's heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pratto.jpg This image is my property, it is a visual improvement of my artwork made on canvas.

This image is my property, it is a visual improvement of my artwork made on canvas. Please if you value my effort --Tuculet2017 (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tuculet2017: I believe that the concern is that the image represents a screenshot reproduced, and that the underlying image used for the screenshot and other derivatives is not free from copyright. So it would require a clear demonstration of the source of the image. You may wish to explain here in a longer form, or in an email via the com:OTRS process, how you own the copyright of the overall view.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Inma_Cuevas_by_Felix_Valiente.jpg

Hello, I contacted the actress, Inma Cuevas in order to ask about permission to upload this photo tu use on her wikipedia page. She had the rights for that photo and she explained to me that this photo is open for using in any website, article or interview. Let me know which confirmation do you need to undelete. Thanks

--Thorkkan (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Use in "any website, article or interview" is not sufficient permission. Images on Commons and WP must be freely licensed for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Either (a) the photographer or (b) the subject must provide a free license using OTRS. In the (b) case, the e-mail must include a copy of the written agreement with the actual photographer giving the subject the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per above Ankry (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Markdubois2.jpg

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I Clare Dubois, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: attached, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

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

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

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

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

Clare Dubois 1/25/17


Matkatamiba (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done we need an OTRS agent to make preliminary verification of the OTRS ticket first. Ankry (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kaverna.jpg

Please undelete File:Kaverna.jpg per ticket:2017020110010102. Thanks --Mates (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mates: Ankry (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry @Ankry: this is my fault. According to the mail messages the file should show an old picture of a house in Czech village. I could not see the picture before and thought it is this one but it is not. Please consider matching this request as not done and delete again. Thanks. --Mates (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 Not done redeleted per above. Ankry (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Brasão de Itatira.jpg

Gostaria que o arquivo "Brasão de Itatira.jpg" fosse restaurado. Não existem direitos autorais sobre esse arquivo, o mesmo é de uso público pois pertence ao Município de Itatira, como poderá ser verificado no site www.itatira.ce.gov.br.

--Valberto Silva (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

21/02/2016, 12:57 hs.

 Oppose The source given in the file description is http://www.facaconcurso.com/prefeitura-de-itatira-ce-abre-concurso-publico-para-202-vagas/, which has an explicit copyright notice: © 2010 - 2017. The page you cite above, www.itatira.ce.gov.br, also has an explicit copyright notice: © Copyright© . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. One could argue that the file is {{PD-BrazilGov}} but there is no evidence that this particular rendition of the coat of arms was commisioned before 1983. De728631 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jeff Schwartz TransAm.jpg

Hello,

I signed in to check the page for Jeffrey E Schwartz and saw notifications regarding copyright issues for my photos. These are indeed my photos, however it seems that I have missed the opportunity to participate is this discussion.

This picture of the white trans am was taken at the Milwaukee auto show by me.

Other pictures including the main photo of Jeff Schwartz were also taken by me and have also been deleted. The photos of Schwartz's ultima and cadillac were sent to me by Jeff Schwartz himself with permission to use his photos on the page.

I did check the copy right policies and to the best of my knowledge met the necessary requirements.

Could you please advise on the best way to document ownership these photos and any others that I upload to a file? Any assistance is appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdevlin67 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Not own work, published elsewhere in 2012 ([52]). The copyright owner can use the process at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:3D Medical Illustration of Ebola.webm

As Taivo stated in the relevant DR, the source website indicates clearly that the video is under the CC-BY license. @Billinghurst, you deleted the file and closed the malformed DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The file is hosted at youtube and it is not a cc-by licence. What they say at their website differs from what they have at youtube. If they fix it at youtube, or submit an OTRS, and the issue is resolved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that what says the website should supersede the license at YouTube and not the otherwise. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support I agree with Amitie. The explicit license on the source site belonging to the creator of the video overrides whatever appears on YouTube. I do not, however, understand why User:Scientific Animations nominated his own upload for deletion as "not free license". Although the source page has "©2014 Scientific Animations Inc. All rights reserved" at the bottom, the video has the CC-BY-SA logo and the words "In our attempt to offer better visuals to medical content across the Internet, Scientific Animations offers the video on this page under Creative Commons "BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International)" license unless otherwise noted" directly under it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored per Amitie and Jim. I verified the license with a link to the Scientific Animations website. De728631 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SHO-NO3.jpg復活依頼

こちらのファイルはSHO-NO本人に確認し、パブリックドメインにしてもらったものであるため、ファイルを復活してください。 問題があるようでしたら、「shono.contact@gmail.com」にコンタクトを取り、再度そちらで確認してください。

2017年2月22日 17:08 Shono 810 <shono.contact@gmail.com>: > おおおおかっくい～～～ > 嬉しい！ありがとうございまっす！ > > 2017/02/22 16:39 "XXX" <XXXX@XXXX>: >> >> SHO-NOさん >> >> お疲れ様です、XXX（Masoranosora）です。 >> >> SHO-NOさんのウィキペディアページを作るにあたって、 >> SHO-NOさんがTwitterに流した写真（添付）の掲載許可をしているか否かを証明するように言われています。 >> >> 問題ないようであれば改めて問題ないことを返信していただけると幸いです。 >> >> 以上、お手数ですが宜しくお願い致します。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoranosora (talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It is not up to us to prove that the image is freely licensed. It is up to the uploader to do that. This image was taken from Twitter, where there is no free license, so it cannot stay on Commons unless the actual photographer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Uploader did not provide evidence for a free licence. To restore the file we need a permission from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Suica cards

File:Suica Train Card.JPG

There is the penguin-character at edge. Not Main Subject, Not Big. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. The penguin is not de minimis here. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. In order for the penguin to be de minimis it must inconspicuous enough so that an average viewer would not notice if it were removed. In the case, the eye goes there first. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Suica wiki.jpg

There is the penguin-character at edge. Not Main Subject, Not Big. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. The penguin is not de minimis here. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. In order for the penguin to be de minimis it must inconspicuous enough so that an average viewer would not notice if it were removed. In the case, the eye goes there first. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Result

 Not done In both cases, the copyrighted penguin is displayed too prominently to invoke the de-minimis rule. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:雨漏り 注意してください (2243457285).jpg

It's not face. Which part is problem of copyright.

 Oppose. The face is not visible, but feet are still copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Any identifiable part of a copyrighted work is protected by the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Regardless of the face, there is still enough visible of this figure to be copyrighted. There is no freedom of panorama for artwork in Taiwan either. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Elckerlyc zaal.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion was just after a couple of minutes. Normally it must after a couple of days, and not minutes! I was just with the uploader in conversation to fix the parameters of licenses. The moderator who deleted the image has not given the publisher any information about that!! LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:De728631 ;) --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ✓ Done @LIVE NIEUWS: The image was published here without a free licence. Because you seem to be in conversation with the uploader about the issue, I have, however, restored this and given it the usual period of grace. Unless a verifiable licence is added within seven days, the file will be deleted again. The easiest way would be to release the original file under a free commercial licence like Creative Commons by attribution 4.0 directly at the theater's website. This would also require mentioning the name of the copyright holder. Otherwise, the copyright holder needs to send a written permission by email as can be read in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on it! ;) --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed, as the file has already been undeleted by De728631. Please continue the conversation somewhere, if needed. ★ Poké95 08:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

Leon_Drolet.png

This image was provided to me by Leon Drolet himself, the officeholder whom the Wikipedia page is about. He provided it to me for the express purpose of updating his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzebuey (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ask the copyright owner to verify the licence through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Note also that "for the express purpose of updating his Wikipedia page" is insufficient permission. The photographer or the actual copyright holder will have to freely license the image for use by anybody anywhere for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission required. Ankry (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GOT7 海軍服.jpg File:GOT7海軍服.jpg

不懂Why被刪除.... 之前上傳維基共享資源時 那些資料、出處，都有打清楚阿.. 如果沒有，拜託請復原... 還有以下這些圖片也是!!



(I'm from Taiwan )Sheng20241 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Sheng20241 2017/2/24

 Oppose You put a CC-BY-SA license on these. I see no evidence of that or any other free license at any of the sources. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gandiva Foundation.jpg

This photo was taken at GROW program conducted by Gandiva foundation in Melur during Award Ceremony.

The GROW (General Reading Oratory and Writing) initiative aims to conduct creative ventures such as Drawing competitions, Public speaking (Oratory) initiatives and story writing for Govt Schools and for Orphan children to nurture them wholly and bring up their Artistic, oratory and writing skills. Books, Writing materials and drawing supplies are collected and distributed among the students to further inculcate the Artistic, Oratory and Writing skills.

Venue : Clara Olive CSI Polio Home, Melur Date: 17 February 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saagar Malaichamy (talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose All of the above may be true, but that does not change the fact that the image is a blatant advertisement for the program. At the time the image was deleted, the only words on the file description were promotional similar to those above.COM:ADVERT prohibits using Commons for advertising by anyone, even charities. Since, as noted above, there was no source, no author, and no license, there was also no evidence of permission to use the copyrighted image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Missing author and license information, no evidence that it is freely licensed and no explanation provided what is educational value of this particular image. Foundation activity is irrelevant here. Ankry (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Ankry and Jim. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Naya Legend of The Golden Dolphin.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2017021510004021 allow the republication under Commons is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Thanks Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Framawiki: please add the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Marielle Thompson.jpg

This Is A Pics From Here Take It By Her If She Dosen't Agree With It Even Tho Its A Public Pics She Will Tell U — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapelipopette (talk • contribs)

 Not done: "She will tell you if she doesn't agree" is not a valid rationale. The pictures must be under a free license, which -in this case- would require licensing by the copyright holder. The onus is on the uploader to prove that. Moreover, the picture states explicitely on flickr that all rights are reserved. --Platonides (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Toppers Old.jpg

This photo is soley my property — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevobmmd (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose My first reaction is that the quality is so poor that it is probably unusable for any educational purpose and therefore out of scope.

Second is that with the only description "Toppers 1960" and no categories, it is useless anyway because no one can find it among our 36 million images.

Third is to ask if you actually were the photographer in 1960? If not, please remember that owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to make and sell copies of it. The right to license the photo belongs to the photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Manifestation kaypakkaya1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I think it's de minimis. I want the opinion of the community. Ylzkhan (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, for the exact reason that @Jameslwoodward: stated when closing the DR. The supposedly 'de minimis' material is the only part of the image that is in focus, and is mentioned in both the filename and the description. - Reventtalk 04:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The photo is focused on the flag, not on the crowd. If you crop out the flag, the rest of the photo will be blurry. Ankry (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dunkerque - le port.jpg

Hi, I don't understand why this file has been deleted. It is in the public domain, my company owns it, and we provide it for free on our website : ehne.fr. I really don't see why it has been deleted, for the more that I provided the missing informations about date, author and rights. Can you restore this file ? Thank you. Best regards. --Clabexio (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You say "It is in the public domain". If it is in the public domain, why? Can you prove that the photographer died before 1947? Or is there some other reason? You also say, "my company owns it". If you mean that you own a paper print of the photograph, that does not give you any right to license the use of the image by others. That right belongs to the photographer, or his heirs, until the copyright expires. If, on the other hand, you are claiming that you own the copyright, that is inconsistent with your claim that it is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-France. --Yann (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sint Jobshaven 1913.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At the time I uploaded the file onto nl.wikipedia I indicated that it was a picture from Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, a municipal organisation. In the archive of the municipality you can find this picture here indicating "Auteursrechthouders: Anoniem", which means copyrightholders: anonymous. As this picture is about 100 years old, well over the limit of 70 years after publication, which is the normal copyright term in the Netherlands for corporate work, could you please undelete this picture? Hanhil (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support If this was actually published around the time it was created (1912–1920), it would qualify for {{PD-anon-auto-1996}}. De728631 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But there is no evidence at all that it was ever published. The uploader says it was found in the archive. There are many photographs in archives that have never been published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - it's unlikely that Gemeentewerken had an employee who was employed as a photographer. Gemeentewerkers are not typically contracted to do that. This means that, according to the Dutch copyright law, the photographer as a person is the copyright holder and that thie picture is copyrighted until 70 years after his/her death. We have no indication that the photographer would have died before 1947, so we cannot restore the file - Jcb (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Probably the picture was published soon after it was taken; 10 years after my initial upload I lost more detailed information on this picture. In several cases I found other pictures from Gemeentewerken in pre-war publications: in the Rotterdamsch Jaarboekje (Yearbook on Rotterdam) 1923 these pictures are shown as pictures from Gemeentewerken; in the 1931 edition this picture is shown as picture from Gemeentewerken. The Rotterdamsch Jaarboekje normally showed the name of the author of the photographs, as you can see in the 1920 edition; the photographs from Gemeentewerken were shown as pictures from the municipal organisation, not as pictures from individuals and Gemeentewerken has a long tradition of publishing their pictures. Hanhil (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"Probably the picture was published soon after it was taken" has no basis. In 2017, professional photographers will take dozens, sometimes hundreds, of digital pictures for every one published. In 1913, when glass plates and cut film were the standard professional negatives, a professional would take four or five images to be sure he had a good one. Usually, all of those would end up in the archive. Therefore, without any evidence, you have not proven beyond our required test of "significant doubt" that this image was ever published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I would expect this to be publish around the time it was taken. This is not a picture from a family albums, where are not published by default. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, when you go into an archive, you will usually find half a dozen similar images of the same subject taken at the same time. Only one of them will have been published. How do we know that this was the one? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Apart from that, the copyright almost certain belongs to a natural person, not to 'Gemeentewerken Rotterdam', so that it's completely irrelevant whether it was published or not. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - Accurate copyright information is required for a file to declare it as copyright free. There is no evidence of first publication..Its all pointing to "may be", "Likely" answers....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done A openbaarmaking (being published) isn’t merely publishing your photograph in a magazine or newspaper. Something is published if it is made available to the public. I would say that a public archive which anyone can visit counts. It is beyond a significant doubt that this work has been published.

The definition of what an anonymous work is, is listed in article 38 of the auteurswet:

The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.

If the professionals couldn’t find the author it is safe to conclude that the author has not been indicated. Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ongeval thunderstreaks Olland.jpg

I believe this photo was incorrectly deleted. it has a creative commons license. probably wrong listing by myself? I'm new to Wikipedia.

please see: http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/q/id/aa49babc-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84

and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.nl

can someone place the photo back?

kind regards,

Dennis Zwiers

✓ Done The licence is just Creative Commons by attribution 4.0 (not -sa). The file was tagged by bot for missing licence information because you didn't use one of our licence templates. For future reference, please use {{Cc-by-4.0}} or similar templated bits of code to indicate a licenses, or choose a licence from the dropdown menus in the upload screen. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Wang Ziwen 中国电视剧品质盛典.jpg

reason:change licensing it is not published under a free license.It was my mistaken about license — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanhPeters (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 February 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That is not a reason to restore the image. The stated source has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for acknowledging that this image is not under a free license. --★ Poké95 11:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

File:OI Lighthouse Walkway Placard.jpg

Subject file was deleted per Taivo's nomination by Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC) In doing so, Ferrer notes that "the issue is not who took the photos but that there is FoP in USA only for buildings." Inasmuch as the photo in question shows a walkway leading up to the Oak island Light, the following is germane: Per, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama "Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not ‘buildings’ under the definition of architectural works." In the USA, such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely." Ergo, the provisions of FoP do not apply and I request that the image be undeleted.

 Oppose The photo in question prominently shows a sign (probably next to the walkway). The sign - which contains multiple arguably de-minimis photos - does not fall under the FoP exceptions. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The problem here is not the walkway as a type construction (which is not shown anyway) but the text and photographs displayed on the information plate. This placard is obviously not a part of the generic design of the walkway but a separate work. There is no FoP for 2-dimensional artwork like photographs, and no FoP for text either, so the file can't be restored. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Infringes on copyrighted work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Guillaume Paumier - Technologies PNIPAM pour les laboratoires sur puces.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason given as deletion rationale was "unused PDF file". The file description page clearly stated that this was the original PDF version of File:Guillaume Paumier - Technologies PNIPAM pour les laboratoires sur puces.djvu which is used on Wikisource and therefore explicitly in scope for Commons. When it was uploaded, djvu was required for Wikisource so I converted it, even though the quality of the djvu wasn't as good as the original PDF. I don't see a reason to now delete the higher-quality PDF file. guillom 02:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: in scope, as per Guillom. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-02&oldid=478071706"