Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-04

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:Paul Moser, Bild in Volkskunde Kisslegg.jpg

Bitte wiederherstellen unter Ticket#2017022510007223 ist die Freigabe eingegangen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Vermerk und ergänze ggf. den Originalfotografen. De728631 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Mayford Rylander Yakubu

(Formerly called as Inusah Yakubu) [born on January 12, 1996] in Bogoso,Prestea Huni-Valley...)

undeletion request. undo the file name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryderland (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Wikimedia Commons is not for articles, and Wikimedia is not a social network. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:流星之絆的Hayashi rice (3253007002).jpg

Which is suitable judgement in this case? --Benzoyl (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The summary above is incorrect. The file was Kept by Natuur12 on 27 December 2014 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benzoyl. Hedwig in Washington did not consider it on June 7, 2015. I then deleted it as noted above. The only things in the image are copyrighted food packaging. If you remove all of the copyrighted items, there is nothing left. The test of de minimis is whether an ordinary viewer would notice if the copyrighted items was removed or blanked. This file is far far from passing that test. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • When I kept the file there was a great number of batch DR's containing packaging related nominations and a lot of the files were borderline because they were below com:TOO or that the packaging is DM. I kept a lot of borderline files merely because a valid argument against deletion was brought up and the situation was too complex too deal via large DR's. But I should have taken a closer look at Commons:De_minimis#Japan back then since the copyrighted work needs to be incidental in Japan in order for DM too apply. Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per explanation by Natuur12 and COM:PACKAGING. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pierre Yves Gomez2.jpg

This file has been originally tagged for Speedy, but I noticed the uploader username matches the Flickr user name, therefore, I determined the uploader is very likely to be the copyright holder, and I leaved that in the edition summary. Despite that, Jcb speedied ignoring that. Even, there is an ongoing DR, where the uploader could have a chance to prove his authorship, but, again, this file has been out of process speedy deleted, and should be restored in procedural grounds. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment From Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions: In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier. --Discasto talk 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the speedy deletion is for obvious copyvio, but read my above message above: Uploader username matches the username at Flikcr, therefore, is very likely to be the same person, enough reason to reject an Speedy tag. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - the license review at Flickr failed. This is why both Elisfkc and Ww2censor tagged it for speedy deletion, the regular procedure. The only thing out of procedure that happened was your revert of Elisfkc. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
For that reason Elisfkc opened a normal DR. Also, you didn't mentioned if you believe or not the uploader and the Flickr user are the same person as I claimed above, just mentioning the NC license (that is right, but if the copyright holder decided to release his file to Commons under an allowed license, I don't see any problem at least here); If you don't believe Rolandbes and Roland Bessenay are the same person, follow the normal DR process instead of speedying, just because the Flickr review failed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not how it works. File has been published at Flickr with an incompatible license. If you want to claim that the uploader is the same person as the Flickr user, you are the one that needs to provide evidence for that. Anybody can create a Wikimedia account with the name of a Flickr user. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You know very well COM:AGF, and by claiming «Anybody can create a Wikimedia account with the name of a Flickr user», you're assumming the uploader assumed bad faith. In the other side, yes, authorship must be proved, and this is why OTRS exists; telling the user to prove authorship via OTRS is better than accussing him for copyvio, and the ongoing DR is the right place to discusse that, DR that you ignored. Another way to get proof of authorship is requesting him to change the license, but, CC licenses are irrevocable, and this is effectively a problem. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't recall the exact image but if I saw it did not have a free licence, then it was tagged for speedy, not a DR, so long as it was a recent upload. Actually, I can't find the source now, unless you have a link, so it would be useful if closing admins recorded the flickr url in their closing notice. Ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The Flickr link is here (NC restriction, your assessment was correct) - Jcb (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Now I remember. Obviously not a selfie, so he is not the author and therefore unlikely the copyright holder, so it was an obvious speedy. Of course he may not understand copyright issues himself. Sorry but unless you can get the Flickr user to verify the copyright status of the image it must stay deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 No, the subject is not the uploader. The subject is Pierre Yves Gomez, and the user who uploaded the photo (very likely to be the photographer, therefore the copyright holder) is Roland Bessenay (Rolandbes at Commons, see the relationship?). And, as you mentioned «Sorry but unless you can get the Flickr user to verify the copyright status of the image it must stay deleted», this is why I pinged Rolandbes bellow. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment What I can't really understand is the drama (unless it's part of an orchestrated witch hunt against Jcb). Jcb did his job and Amitie is free to request the undeletion providing the permission by the uploader. Until the permission is obtained, the picture is not visible. Once it appears, the image is undeleded. Why so much drama? --Discasto talk 17:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support It is now CC-BY-SA on Flickr. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ralph Allan Lee Shortey.jpg

Mugshots are not copywritten and are part of the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackp0larbear (talk • contribs)

Is this claim from a legal authority? Then why did you write that this is licensed under a Creative Commons copyright license? Thuresson (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, except for the Federal Government and three states, but not Ohio, mug shots are copyrighted. This cannot be restored without a free license from the copyright holder -- either the photographer or the Cleveland Police Department. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Mugshots are copyrighted in nealrly all states, so OTRS permission is needed for this one. --Daphne Lantier 19:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:TeamP0ison.png

Hi, I'm requesting the logo for the hacking team TeamP0ison that I made to be undeleted. I have no idea why it was removed, other than a vague notice saying it was a copyright violation. I made the logo for the team in MS Paint and everything in it was created by me. Thanks. --Vryobnoxious (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this file useful for a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The uploader placed the logo on TeaMp0isoN. According to that article, the group engages in various illegal and quasi-legal activities. In order to have the logo restored to Commons, User:Vryobnoxious must prove both that he or she is its creator and also that it is authentic -- that is, that it has been approved by the members of TeaMp0isoN. The latter seems unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Daphne Lantier 19:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Trilogy wiki.png

The title image or Rude Boy USA was deleted however, I am the creator of the image and it should be there.

Trilogy wiki.png is the name of the file.

I am also the author of the sample chapter who wants it to be available to anyone who wants to view it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammuriah1 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 April 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that book cover images must be accompanied by a free license from the publisher using OTRS. We do not keep PDFs of fiction that are intended only for promotional purposes, see COM:ADVERT.

I also note that you have made an edit to Rude boy and substantial edits to Rude Boy USA. That is a serious violation of WP:EN's policy on Conflict of Interest. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Daphne Lantier 19:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2logo.jpg

this photo contains logo of cairo and ain shams university make by me and i want to restore it,thanks--Mohamed1900q (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

i not design the logo but i combine 2 logo of 2 university to be in 1 photo --Mohamed1900q (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the logo creators/copyright holders is needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jacques Military.jpg

I have written consent from the person who took and posted this photo to use it on Wikipedia. I am new to this and I'm not sure how to go about posting it but I DID get consent from the person who owns/is in/posted the photograph to use it.

 Not done: Please have the copyright holder send permission via OTRS. --Daphne Lantier 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jacques Anthony.jpg

I have written consent from the person who took and posted this photo to use it on Wikipedia. I am new to this and I'm not sure how to go about posting it but I DID get consent from the person who owns/is in/posted the photograph to use it.

 Not done: Please have the copyright holder send permission via OTRS. --Daphne Lantier 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jacques Military.jpg

I have written consent from the person who took and posted this photo to use it on Wikipedia. I am new to this and I'm not sure how to go about posting it but I DID get consent from the person who owns/is in/posted the photograph to use it. Here is a link to their response:

https://twitter.com/JAnthony812/status/848590976201437184 And this one is him correcting his spelling error: https://twitter.com/JAnthony812/status/848591030949752833

 Not done The original photographer needs to send their permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jacques Anthony.jpg

I have written consent from the person who took and posted this photo to use it on Wikipedia. I am new to this and I'm not sure how to go about posting it but I DID get consent from the person who owns/is in/posted the photograph to use it. Here is a link to their response:

https://twitter.com/JAnthony812/status/848590976201437184 And this one is him correcting his spelling error: https://twitter.com/JAnthony812/status/848591030949752833

 Not done The original photographer needs to send the permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bye bye havana film poster.jpg

this is an original artwork by the filmmaker who has given his permission for use and stated that this artwork is in the public domain, please undelete. sorry didn't mean to make a duplicate post

Please ask the copyright holder to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 20:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hatsune Miku

The Files

were cropped not to be fully deleted but only revisions of them (See Category:Commons:Files with deleted versions to be restored) --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see much value in the part that remains, i.e. two persons seen from behind, kneeling on the ground. The crops are out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per COM:EDUSE -- no educational value in these crops as Sebari says. --Daphne Lantier 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Cory-silverberg-photo.jpg

This file was speedy deleted by Jcb with the summary «Copyright violation: src = https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/Cory-silverberg-photo.jpg», but,

  • This file has been uploaded to Wikipedia in 2013, and the source is clearly stated: Flikcr; the source file at Flickr have Exif and big resolution (2000x3008 px). The Exif mention it was taken the April 19, 2009, and, according to the information provided by the Flirk API, the photo has been uploaded the June 9, 2009. At Wikipedia, it was resized at 1500x2056 px, but the Exif was removed (maybe during the resizing process, not necesary, however).
  • The "source" provided by Jcb as rationale is a horizontally cropped photo at Amazon AWS, smaller (1000x650 px, even smaller that the file uploaded to Wikipedia) and wthout Exif, and, as no page in context was provided, is impossible to determine the date of publication of that specific file at Amazon. The photo in context can be found in Amazon.com, but his books has been published in 2013, the same photo is found there but smaller and without Exif.
  • Finally, Google Image Search didn't returned any results for the photo (original and croped) prior to the date of uploading to Flickr.

Therefore, the deletion summary is invalid and the deletion itself was totally inapropiate and should be restored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Flickr review failed. Pinging @Wdwd: - Jcb (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Why you're claiming Flickr license failed and pinging another admin if the license at Flickr is CC-BY? Another way to leave away your responsibility for your administrative actions? --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I pinged the admin who nominated it for deletion. The Flickr review fail is visible for any admin in the history. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Then, is very likely the file became categorised under Category:Flickr images needing human review, right? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It did. The human who reviewed it, Wdwd, tagged it first as needing permission and then one minute later tagged it for speedy deletion. Daphne Lantier 00:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The Flickr bot review failed because the version transferred here by Fastily is 1,500 × 2,256, while the version at https://www.flickr.com/photos/come_as_you_are/3610213213/in/set-72157619491110612 is 2,000 x 3,008. I would  Support restoring it and perhaps uploading the original full size version. Daphne Lantier 22:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the file was transfered from en.wp to commons on March, 30. 2017 via FastilyClone. Because of the failed bot review I made google image check, found different file versions on different web pages (one mentioned) and start a speedy deletion. Sorry, in this case i didnt check it accurately on flickr, the speedy deletion marking was incorrect. The objection of Amitie 10g is comprehensible. I will restore the image.--Wdwd (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion, mistaken.--Wdwd (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jutta Gustafsberg.jpg

There were two files added by me and removed by you, the other one is this File:Jutta Gustafsberg closeup.png. I updated a page for my customer and asked which photos they wanted to donate to Wikipedia. They added the photos to Google Photos, see [1]. In Jutta's photo [2] they have a text: "CC-BY-SA Kuvaaja Elise Kulmala / Magnet Photography" . So can you please put the photo back and if you cannot do it please tell me what is the proper way to include the license information to a photo if this was not enough? --Jjanhone (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Natuur12. Files have CC-BY-SA licenses as noted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Pinging @Natuur12: who first closed the deletion request as "deleted" but then restored the file. CC-by-sa is fine but we would need to know the version of the licence which is not indicated at Google Photos. The latest version issued by Creative Commons is 4.0 so Mrs Kulmala should select this or a previous version.
Another problem not related to the licensing is your editing/uploading on behalf of a customer. If you get paid for your contributions at Commons or Wikipedia, Wikimedia's terms of use require that you disclose this affiliation and the name of your client. You can do this either by making a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. At least at Commons you don't seem to have done this yet. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: See Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy. And regarding the missing version number. We usually keep files if a version number is missing. I believe Clindberg wrote some educational posts about missing version numbers. If you want I can look them up. Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Thank you for the information. I'm going to look for this essay on version numbers myself, so please don't bother to search it. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:20150711 Misiryeong Tunnel Construction Record.jpg

This file is my own work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misiryeong (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 April 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Your image is a derivative work and infringes on the copyrights for the two books. In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of each of the two publishers must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, OTRS permission from copyright holders is needed. --Daphne Lantier 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hernan Aguilar directing the film Madraza.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: no copyright violation {{PD-self}} Nanernan (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The photograph is used at Imdb without a free licence. You provided a higher resolution here, but there is still no evidence that you are the original photographer. E.g. your upload did not have any EXIF metadata. Likewise, you should not have uploaded the same image under a different name: File:Hernan aguilar.jpg. Doing so again may get your account blocked at Commons. What we need when images have been published before without a free licence is a confirmation sent by email from the original photographer, even if you are the photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not without a permission. --Yann (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SmythReport.jpg

Deleted as "Not a work of the US federal government. Copyrighted by Henry De Wolf Smyth."

Had the nominator or closing admin bothered to read the Wikipedia article on the subject, they would have known about this. See Smyth Report. "reproduction in whole or in part is authorized and permitted" (p. iv) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"reproduction in whole or in part is authorized and permitted" is not compatible with COM:L. So unless the work fell somehow into PD, we can't restore it. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support Had the original uploader bothered to do some research they would not have used the PD-USGov tag. Smyth was merely commissioned to write the work but was never an employee of the US government. This would have been necessary for the report to not be copyrighted. Neither could the report have been a work for hire because this would also have required Smyth to be employed by the Manhattan project. As an independent contractor, Smyth was entitled to have his report copyrighted (page 3). However, his 1945 copyright was not renewed. I have searched the catalogues of copyright entries for 1973 [3][4] and 1974 [5][6] and there is no renewal for Henry DeWolf Smyth or the report's title. {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored it and fixed up the source/author/licensing info. --Daphne Lantier 21:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vitamin She Teaser Poster Directed by Faisal Hashmi.jpg

This is the official teaser poster of the film which makers uploaded on web and on their official facebook page also.

--Criusblack (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but it does not mean that the image is freely licensed and it certainly is not your "own work" as you claimed. Unless material you find on the web has an explicit free license such as CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA or is very old (generally pre 1880), it probably is not acceptable for Commons. The poster can be restored to Commons if the producer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim's statement. OTRS permission needed. --Mates (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Grand Place Christmas Tree 2012.JPG

Deleted before FOP in Belgium: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grand Place Christmas Tree 2012.JPG. The RedBurn (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it got undeleted and then deleted again. But does it mean that File:GrdplaceNoel79.004.jpg should be deleted too? And can a natural christmas tree really be considered a work of plastic, graphic or architectural art? The RedBurn (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject "tree" is not really a tree -- it is an abstract sculpture of pink rectangular solids that resembles a tree. It clearly has a copyright and equally clearly is not covered by FOP because it was not permanent.

On the other hand, File:GrdplaceNoel79.004.jpg appears to be a natural tree. While it could be argued that the arrangement of lights has a copyright, I think that would be stretching and I think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Unfortunately freedom of panorama in {{Belgium}} does not allow photographs about temporary sculptures. The deletion request was closed correctly. Taivo (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Get Even white black.jpg

We are The Farm 51, developer studio and OWNER of this logo. We want to use it in the article about our products, please stop deleting it.

Best regards Dawid Biegun PR Maganer The Farm 51

 Oppose If any image or media have been published before without a free licence, we need a permission by email from the copyright holder. Owning a copy of the logo does not make you or your company the copyright holder unless copyright was actively transferred to you from the artist who created the logo. This process is required because we have no other possibility to verify the licence. After all, anyone can create an account at Wikimedia Commons and claim to be the owner or creator of file XYZ. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify the free licence for your logo. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After Commons gets OTRS-permission from copyright holder, the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SHi-ON-logo.png

To Whom It May Concern,

The logo is one of my artworks and designed by using Adobe Illustrator. I have sent the permision email to OTRS from mail@shayanamani.com. My personal website, shayanamani.com which the logo is available on it, is a good proof for my ownership!

Your quick action is appreciated to undelete the file.

Bests, Shayan

ticket:2017021110003333. This seems to be a personal logo. What about the scope? Yann (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree. I find no WP articles and no significant hits with Google, so I don't see any reason why we should keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Out of COM:SCOPE. --Mates (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:FINAL LEGIONARIOsmall.jpg

I sent the documents for it and it was deleted, this is a mistake

@Edhgarza: So why are you requesting for this file to be undeleted? If you meant that you sent OTRS permission, please be patient, it will take weeks or even months to process your request. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kazan submarine.jpg

This image of Kazan submarine roll out ceremony is owned by Russian Ministry of Defense and is available to use by any one through their website and their official twitter account , so I would ask you to undelete it . Thanks.--Memit9 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it did not have a source or license. Saying "Russian Ministry of Defense" both there and here is not enough -- you must give the URL of the page on which it appears. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Zanders.png

Hi Wikipedia-Team,

since Zanders has a new logo since over 1.5 years already, I'd like to delete the old one still shown in the article about the company (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanders_Papierfabrik). The aim is to have the current logo in the article and therefore I tried to upload it . How can I replace the logo without copyright problems? If a redirection to the company website is necessary, than take the logo from the website http://zanders.de/de/.

Thanks a lot in advance!

Tobias --Hesselacht (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I don't understand. The subject logo has been deleted. That is against policy, as we always keep obsolete logos for historical reasons. Therefore, I think that the subject logo should be restored -- it is probably PD-text logo, so that should not be a problem. If Hesselacht wants to upload the new logo, that's fine -- call it File:Zanders logo 1917.png or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:MPI FS 2017HBA SHOW 157.jpg

Hi,

We have followed all of the guidelines and rules for uploading and creating the page for Hollywood Beauty Awards. Despite sending in all permissions before the deadline date given, someone named YANN took down our logo and images due to ‘copyright’ issues. There is no copyright issue because we OWN these images. We are the creators and producers of the show. These images belong to us.

Please let us know as soon as possible how to proceed.

Thanking you in advance.

Best,
Pamela Price
Vice President & Executive Producer @ Hollywood Beauty Awards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Latftv (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 April 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) 21:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment ticket:2017032410021583 - Reventtalk 21:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Yann. I think it is very bad practice to allow people to jump the queue by bringing requests here. The length of the OTRS queue is a real problem, and it doesn't help to allow some people to jump it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Maximum Energy Professionals

I am hoping to get my article on Maximum Energy Professionals undeleted. It was denied due to lack of notability, but I am trying to aggregate more sources to demonstrate notability. I want to revise the article I had written with these new sources and was unaware of its deletion until logging on to do so. If possible please restore the article for 'Maximum Energy Professionals' so that I can edit and resubmit for consideration. --MEP energy123 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment There has never been a file named File:Maximum Energy Professionals on Commons. You have not had anything deleted from Commons. You mention an "article" above -- Commons hosts media files, primarily images, and does not host articles. Are you making this request in the correct place? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Procedural closure This is Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia. We don't have articles here and you never uploaded a media file of this name. I have, however, restored your draft article at the English Wikipedia: Draft:Maximum Energy Professionals. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:As the youngest korean musician, Carnegie Hall Recital. 2015.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: No, this picture from fliker: https://www.flickr.com/photos/138717670@N04/ and it is not problem for the photo updated before user blocked. This photo has legally used for common using. Tablemaker is unfair playing now in the wikipedia and wikimedia. The person on the photo is a public figure and the article has public confident with strong press references. Lunnn1675435 (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment This file is very small and has incomplete EXIF data. The original source is probably [7]. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The fact that "The person on the photo is a public figure and the article has public confident with strong press references" is completely irrelevant. There is nothing unfair about this deletion -- it was a routine deletion of a copyright violation.
The uploader claimed that he or she was the photographer and the image appears on Flickr with a free license, but, as Yann pointed out above, the image source is probably http://polymusic.wixsite.com/terrahan/gallery?lightbox=dataItem-ii5i57u4 which is not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: the photo have been previously published and credited to Ben Chasteen if he send an OTRS permission then we will restore the file. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vmhs.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I think it's in accordance to BAnQ's guidelines. I may also have forgotten to link this : http://www.banq.qc.ca/outils/droit_auteur_avis_integrite/?language_id=1 Bavarianfish (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose "Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ) allows, without special authorization, use of content from its Web portal for educational, private study or research purposes, provided the source of the images and/or texts is clearly indicated."
Commons requires that its content be free for any use by anyone anywhere, see COM:L. The BAnQ guideline is far from that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of files under Category:Azadi Tower

Mohammad Reza Shah commissioned the Council of Celebrations to construct the tower. Hossein Amanat was employed by this council. Therefore, according to Article 13 of the Copyright Law of Iran, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production. As the tower was constructed in 1971, copyright has now expired. Shahzad (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Azadi Tower. Yann (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 OpposeThe question here is whether he was actually an employee of the government or simply employed by the government as an independent contractor. Given the circumstances of the nationwide competition, I think the latter is much more likely -- no established architect would enter a competition that required him to become an employee of the government. While Amanat was not then an established architect, the government would not have framed the competition in such a way as to exclude established firms. Unless you can prove that he was actually an employee of the government, I don't think we can restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose (Non-admin comment) See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Details of Azadi Tower. Employer/employee are not defined in Iran's Copyright Law, and here the relationship seems no more like employer/employee than an artist selling a painting to a collector. A financial transaction does not automatically make someone an employee. ~ Rob13Talk 16:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Princess Irene and Carlos Hugo wedding.jpg

This file was deleted by INeverCry on the right grounds of not having a source. It left, however, an extracted image: File:Xavier and Sixtus Henry of Bourbon.jpg. I've fixed the source and verified the license. It's fine. Would it be possible to restore this picture. I'll take care of sourcing and license verification. Best regards --Discasto talk 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I have restored the image and updated the source and also the license. The CC icon at this page links to Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chas Gerretsen and Caribinero, Chile, februari 1974.jpg

In 2012 I created a page on Chas Gerretsen and uploaded an image, taken in Santiago, Chile in 1974: “Chas Gerretsen and Caribinero: mutual suspicion.” A bystander took the photograph with Chas’s camera and film. Chas, with three of his cameras around his neck, looks with cautious suspicion at the Caribinero and the Caribinero returns the look, holding on to his Uzi submachine gun with both hands. Chas’s fourth camera was given to the bystander to take the picture. This image is timeless as it depicts the mistrust between the press and those in power. The b&w negative is archived in the Nederlands Fotomuseum in Rotterdam. The image was deleted today. Reason: Historical Image:” the subject could not possibly have photographed himself.” Chas tried to get in touch with some acquaintances from 43 years ago who possibly might have pushed the button on his camera that day, to no avail. I asked Chas if he had any other photos of himself during his working life (1968-1989) in the jungles of Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam and Chile or during his time in Hollywood. His reply was that the majority of the photos of himself were taken by bystanders unknown to him. In 2016 I tried to change the date on the caption from August 1973 to February 1974, I had learned from Chas that the picture could not have been taken in 1973. This image had been on English Wikipedia Commons for 5 years without objection from anyone. On March 23, 2017, immediately after creating a Dutch page on Chas, the image was nominated for deletion. The question I now ask, are historical images to be lost in perpetuity because of the lack of identity of an unknown person who pushed a button on the request of the subject? --Pfmoni (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chas Gerretsen and Caribinero, Chile, februari 1974.jpg - copyright sticks to the photographer, not to the depicted person - Jcb (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Briefly, yes. The copyright is held by the actual photographer, so such images cannot be kept on Commons. Although it is little comfort, the image will not be lost forever -- it will probably be restored around the turn of the next century. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support There is absolutely no copyright issue here. The subject is at least co-author, so he is allowed to release the file under a free license. Please wake up to real life, and stop inventing copyright problems when there is none. Yann (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It has not been shown that a subject of a photo is partowner of the copright. I assume that professional photographers would strongly object to a law that would allow the photo subject to give away copyright for free. Thuresson (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Christa Simmons.jpg

There are my files and the property of Miss World Guyana where I an the National Director. Please undelete all images removed for copyright violation or let me know what you need to convince you of ownership

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majesty gy (talk • contribs)

 Not done: @Majesty gy: Please send a permission by e-mail to OTRS. Necessary information can be found on the linked page. --Mates (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Stealth Key inside.jpg

The argument placed for deletion, that the picture belongs to www.urbanalps.com/en, is true but there is a misunderstanding. We are UrbanAlps AG, we created that picture. How can we show wikipedia that we own the rights and are happy to share them?

Thanks in advance, Alejandro Ojeda Managing Director of UrbanAlps AG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro.ojeda1981 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: @Alejandro.ojeda1981: Please send a permission by e-mail to OTRS. Necessary information can be found on the linked page. --Mates (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:88x31.gifについて

こちらの件についてですが、著作権の侵害となっていましたがホームページを拝見しますと、フリーの書かれていますので撤回します。--市原 (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is so small that it is useless. The source page named in the description is marked "Copyright(C) 2004- 2017AISE Inc. All Rights Reserved." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Noces Belgian poster.jpg

Hey, Secondarywaltz Regarding the film posters of NOCES - MICHAEL BLANCO and LE MONDE NOUS APPARTIENT I'm a production assistant working directly for the film producer whom allowed me to put the file in CC to have a better wikipedia page to inform people about the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.100.219 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 April 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)

Please have your boss see OTRS about this, noting that Commons does not only serve Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The copyright holder needs to send a permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Portage la Prairie - City Collage.jpg

Hello, my photo collage of the City of Portage la Prairie was unfairly deleted. The photo - which is my complete work (which I referenced as my OWN WORK) - showcases my hometown's attractions on its Wikipedia page and enhances the community's promotion. Please undelete this photo as I put a lot of work into it. I referenced it as my own work, so I'm not sure what more you'd like me to do. Please help...thanks!!!

--Manipogo500 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. The first is that we generally require that the individual images in a collage be uploaded separately. I think we can waive that in this case. The second is that I think that the image of the welcome sign infringes on the sign's copyright and will require a license from the sign's creator using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:"The Amazing Nina Simone" Documentary Film - Film Poster.jpg

This media comes from http://amazingnina.com/presskit.html which is The Press Kit for the film "The Amazing Nina SImone". At the bottom of the page, the site states that all images in the Press Kit are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which states: "You are free to Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format”. Jllman (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Who should be credited for the 1950s photo in the movie poster? Thuresson (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. While the source page does have a CC-BY license, the poster image is the only image on the page that is not credited to its photographer. Since we aren't given the name of the photographer, we cannot comply with the terms of the CC-BY license. I think that in order to keep this, we need an OTRS confirmation that the movie's producer has the right to freely license the image and the name of the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is quite arrogant. We will never know what are the agreement between the photographer and the film producer, and that's none of our business. All we need to know is that the copyright owner of the poster agrees to publish it under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I came across this argument several times, and it should be settled once and for all. We don't have to know the internal working of a copyright owner, as long as the permission is credible and valid. Making a film poster requires much more than a photographer. A lot of people can be involved, eventually including a scenarist, a fashion stylist, a costume designer, a hairdresser, a makeup artist, a special effects artist, a photographer, a graphic designer, etc., each with their own creative input. Are we going to ask what agreements they each have with the producer? No. So why asking here? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I raise the issue because I have seen it happen more than once that a poster such as this one is made with little regard for copyright. My best guess is that it is 50/50 whether the film-maker actually has a license to the photograph used on the poster. It is notable, I think, that it is the only image on the page that is not credited to the photographer. Once again, Yann, I think this is a cultural difference. You can't imagine that anyone in Germany would ignore copyright here, while I, knowing American habits, can not only imagine it, but think it is likely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is Europe vs. the USA since I was thinking of film posters like en:File:Aliens poster.jpg. It is rather small vs. big producers. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support I tend to agree with Yann in this. What more information do you expect to get from OTRS permission? It would still look like "I, producer or whoever representing Re-emerging Films/production team of Amazing Nina Simone, hereby affirm that our company owns the rights to poster and permit publishing it under CC-BY-SA 4.0; the original photography was provided by XY" – that is already written on their official page so why bother, as Yann said the photographer is likely not the author of that poster, it is the production who should be credited. Even if they sent us some kind of deal with somebody over that photography (which is very unlikely and I agree with Yann that it is not our business to want it) you still won't be able to verify it unless you want them to come and meet you with notarized copy of that deal. It is just about where is the line between trusting the client's license statement and disbelieving. I think that a statement on official site which source for the image/poster is above this line. --Mates (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a question for you. The same image, without the poster information, appears on the same page with the same license. If I were to upload the plain image, it would surely be deleted as license laundering because there is no evidence at all that the owners of the site have the right to freely license a fifty year old image under a CC-BY license without naming the photographer. Why is it that their making the image into a poster changes our handling of it? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several possibilities: they may have got the license from the photographer, or her/his heirs. Or the image is in the public domain for some reason. Who knows? Yann (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If it was just a picture it would be different. It is a poster for a movie. The permission from the photographer only won't be enough even if it came. Anyway I do not think that the picture of Nina Simone in that poster is an original. It was surely cut from somewhere else, maybe from to film itself (I did not see it) – I found similar looking Simone's picture at here: [8] with definitely different background. If they had the right to adapt the picture into a poster they surely might have been given cc-by-sa license. Furthermore there is another like 50 years old picture (from 1969) just below credited to Gerrit de Bruin. That's, of course, no evidence for anything about the poster photo but it proves they might have obtained several old pictures under free license. If you trust them with the one that is credited why don't you believe the poster? Regards --Mates (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mainly as per Jim, the photo existed much before the film, therefore it have a copyright holder different from the film owner(s), we can keep it if it is in PD for a specific reason, otherwise it is like accepting a license coming from a third party. This don't mean this is a copyright violation (they may have bought the right) but licenses coming from third parties are not allowed here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support At the very least, this should be restored to have a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The source has a valid free license. Please feel free to create a proper DR if this needs further discussion. --Yann (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:JUNPUT beach in the morning.jpg

Deleted as copyright violation (details in deletion summary).
This file, transferred to Commons from en.wikipedia, was uploaded by the original uploader as an 'own work'. He also mentioned in the file description: Previously published on facebook https://www.facebook.com/sambit.mohanty.399/media_set?set=a.515451525141861.112935.100000310540741&type=3 (a very common thing on en.wiki to see a 'previously published' field - was this field mandatory?). The original uploader has some activity both on Commons and en.wiki and has uploaded several files in both projects, including File:JUNPUT BEACH.jpg - a similar upload. His username on WMF wikis also looks similar to the facebook name, and this is not a SPA uploader (check his WP contributions). Hence I don't think this picture is a copyvio, I believe it's as an own work of the original uploader, and I think it should be restored. CC Roland zh (I think you are the one who tagged it as copyvio, based on this notice) --XXN, 20:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @XXN: Even Commons/Wikimedia native contributors are required to send a permission to OTRS if they uploaded a file that they had published somewhere else before. We have to contact @Sambit 1982 with this. --Mates (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Camello y campamento, Al Bastakiya, Dubai, 2009-11-23, DD 8878.jpg

Hi, This was deleted for lack of FoP, which looks quite ridiculous to me. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al Bastakiya-Dubai8878.JPG. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, the removed picture can be seen here. If required I could offer a tigther crop, but I don't really think that it is necessary. Poco2 09:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone has a clue about the age of the buildings? I guess it could be several centuries, but I am not that familiar with architecture in Dubai. The tent seems newer, but is IMHO ineligible in the sense of a no-FOP issue. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support Indeed, very rediculous nomination. Diego's estimate is 130 years old, and I agree with that estimate. So FoP won't apply here. COM:DM is not about the portion of a non-free material used, but whether that non-free material is essential to the subject. I don't know though if the buildings are indeed restored, but in my opinion it seems that restorations don't have copyright since it will just reuse the design of the original architect, which means there is no originality in restorations. Maybe we should discuss it at COM:VPC. Also, this image was a valued and quality image, and if there was really a copyright problem with it, it should have been discussed in the said nominations before promoting it. This adds more to my confidence that there's no copyright problem here, but paranoia of the said user who nominated this image for deletion. --★ Poké95 02:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support Camels are not architectural works. The buildings in the background, specially after they were cut, play no essential role in the image and de minimis does apply here. Poco2 09:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support Per Commons:De minimis. I do agree with Diego and Pokefan. --Discasto talk 10:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per all above. Buildings are as old as Poco said in deletion request which can be easily found on the internet ([9] or [10]). --Mates (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Dr.Hannelore.Furch.Nov.2014.jpg

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung des Bildes, da ich es für "Vereinswiki" http://vereins.wikia.com/wiki/Hannelore_Furch und andere wiki-portale verwenden möchte.--Hannefur (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This was opened again on April 8 -- we need only one request per image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pdcperu.png

I am part of the political party mentioned and I have the authorization to modify the content in wikipedia. The logo belongs to the party and no copyright is being violated. Please undo deleting it.

Thanks

Choy82 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Choy82

 Oppose Unfortunately, we do have people here who make false claims in order to get images onto Commons that they have no permission for. Therefore policy requires that an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. Note by the way, that "authorization to modify the content in wikipedia" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anyone anywhere, not just WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Parquenacionalnahuelbuta.png

Esta collage de imágenes son creación de mis fotografías propias tomadas en este parque , por lo tanto solicito que se me retire la plantilla inmediatamente.

This collage of images is the creation of photographs that come off in this park, therefore I request that I remove the template immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnzlndrs (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 April 2017‎ (UTC)

 Comment The file has not been deleted, so this is not the correct place to raise any questions about it. However, please note that as a general rule, we require that each of the images in a collage be uploader separately to Commons, so the file will probably be deleted unless that is done or source information is provided for all of the images. We occasionally waive that rule, but I do not think that is appropriate here since all of the images are very small. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Логотип Всеукраїнського об'єднання «Свобода».png

The file was deleted incorrectly. According to {{PD-UA-exempt}} file is PD as "d) symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations " --Yakudza (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

PD-UA-exempt is not limited to government works. It includes daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information, works of folk art, transport schedules, TV and radio broadcast schedules, etc. and "symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations". It does not read "symbols and signs of government enterprises, institutions and organizations", so no such symbol is protected by copyright in the Ukraine. The question remains though if the hand symbol is also creative enough for copyright in the US, and I would think it is. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Although I have read the English version of the law, I am skeptical that it actually does not allow copyright for non-governmental corporate and organizational logos -- that would be a significant break from the usual copyright provisions. I would like it very much if one of our colleagues who is fluent in Ukrainian would read the relevant passage and comment. Ahonc, you are the only UK speaker listed among the Admins -- I glanced through the 4s at Category:UK, but I don;t recognize any other names. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, Ukrainian copyright law stetes that 'symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations' are not copyrighted, not saying that it applies oly for governmental ones. that's why, I think it should apply to all organizations. But the tenth article in Copyright law also has a note that projects of such symbols are copyright until their official adoption. So, if logo is officially adopted it is not copyrighted, but if this is only project of logo, it is copyrighted.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The file been deleted on the results of the nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Логотип Всеукраїнського об'єднання «Свобода».png. But, in making the decision was wrongly interpreted the current legislation of Ukraine in the field of copyright. The current law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" establishes a list of works that are not protected by copyright. According to paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Act, is not subject to copyright state symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations; symbols of territorial communities; symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations. Thus, the law exempts from copyright not only symbols of government organizations. It is not subject to copyright symbols of all organizations duly registered in Ukraine. Similarly, interpreted existing legislation in the Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine "On Application of legislation for the protection of copyright and related rights", see paragraph 19 1. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pakistan N-10.svg

It seems this file was deleted accidentally upon completion of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pakistan national shields. –Fredddie™ 22:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

OOPS! - Jcb (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Restored - Jcb (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Laurent_Seydoux.jpg

It's my picture and the guy on it gave me the authorization to put the picture on his Wiki page.

--SamuelDubuis (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi SamuelDubuis,
The copyright owner (probably the photographer) has to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a permission via OTRS. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dr.Hannelore.Furch.Nov.2014.jpg

I need the picture for other WIKI portals--Hannefurch (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hannefurch,
Who is the photographer? He needs to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a permission via OTRS. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ulbricht Passport.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Prevailing consensus was keep.

In scope. PD-USGov.

There exists no policy-based rationale for removal. Despite numerous requests for one to be cited, no parties were able to provide one.

As David Gerard, Richard Norton and myself explain in previous discussion: were this government document to contain sensitive information, it would have been redacted by the U.S. Federal Government prior to their wide public dissemination of this record.

If individuals wish to take exception with methods by which U.S. Federal Government agencies release their own documents to the Public, that is fine and said individuals are entitled their opinion. However, that is not a valid reason for deletion. --dsprc (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

To assist discussion, those interested in reviewing the Governmental work in question, may find it linked below:

  1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160806114427/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Ulbricht_Passport.jpg
  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20150529204928/http://antilop.cc/sr/exhibits/GX-134.pdf --dsprc (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no basis for this statement:
"yet you are giving control of them to the government,"
Licensing a copyright requires an explicit written agreement. There is nothing in the passport application or the law that I know of that freely licenses a passport photograph. In order to keep this, you will have to provide a cite for your claim. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
IMO most mugshots don't have a copyright. There is no originality, and it is an automated process by a machine. We accept pictures from CCTV footage, so they should be under the same category. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The process is different from country to country and from document to document. My driver's license photo was taken by a machine, but as I said above, in the USA passport photographs are supplied by the subject. None of my passport photos over the years have been taken by a machine and all of them have copyrights. There is no reason to believe this image does not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The individual is voluntarily operating in concert and at the behest of the Federal Government in the joint-production of a public document as prescribed and required by legislation. Thus, they are an agent of the Federal Government. Should individuals desire to not operate as an agent, production of this portion of the document may be facilitated by other agents at a Passport Acceptance Facility, Acceptance Fairs, U.S. Consular or other such offices. Further, the individual specifically authorizes creation, publication and release of this material as a public domain document of the Federal Government pursuant to CFR 15, 37, 48 et al. (And for example, detailed in regulatory filings such as SORNs etc.) Exemptions to above are provided under CFR 48, requiring specific and explicit language in a Contract, and additional prior written authorization from the Agency. It's highly unlikely the Dept. of State would provide a convicted felon such an exemption in this case. However, one is more than welcome to produce the Contract and exemption notice should they exist. --dsprc (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You cite 3 different CFRs, which is not helpful. Please give us a specific cite to a regulation which allows the Federal government to take the copyright away from the third party photographer who clearly has not given any written consent to losing his copyright. Note that just because the government handles a copyrighted work, it does not become PD. Coins are a particular case of this, but there are others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to restore. --Yann (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Request from Jahiro Cardona

Soy quien ha subido originalmente las fotos a estos dos correos y no se porque me las han borrado, solicito el favor de restaurarlas de nuevo hacen parte de la biografia del maestro Simar. 1. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3n_J_Simar 2. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Jean_Simar Jahiro Cardona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiro Cardona (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 April 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You have claimed that you are the photographer of all of these images. While that is perhaps theoretically possible, even for the 1917 image, it is so highly unlikely that they all have been deleted. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer or his heirs. It is possible that the copyright for some of these has expired, but that must be proven for each image according to the rules of the country involved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Not enough information for restoration. --Yann (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The iHunch analysed (2017) Wikipedia technical.pdf

This file was submitted to Wikimedia Commons on March 23 2017 with the permission of the copyright holder and was responded to as outlined in the message below. I attempted to restore the image to the iHunch article and have breached copyright by doing so. I apologise for that.

Yours sincerely

Michael Findlay Squadraport (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ticket:2017032310002097.

 Comment There is no permission for the file in this ticket. Anyway, there is always a long backlog in OTRS, so please wait. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Toysruslogo 2007.jpg

This file was deleted by INeverCry as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toysruslogo 2007.jpg. The nominator Kopiersperre stated: "above COM:TOO, the version before was fair use". However, it definitely does not meet the threshold of originality as it is plain text. The file being marked as fair use on the English Wikipedia is only evidence that the incorrect license tag was applied there. The closure was simply incorrect, and the file should be restored. ℯxplicit 02:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. It is a USA company and USA law does not allow copyright for simple text, even if the font is complex. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Laurent Seydoux.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2017041010013008 allows to use this file under CC BY-SA 4.0. Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please notify me when I can add OTRS template. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shalby hospitals.png

Hello,

I am requesting you to please undelete this file. This is a logo of Shalby hospitals and I have put that logo on behalf of Shalby Hospitals. You can check this logo at their website as well.

Please do needful. Tasol.namee (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Mates (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vitral_Templo_Maipu.JPG and File:PlacaVDS.JPG

Deleted ignoring Chile has FOP. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Vitral Templo Maipu.JPG is a view from inside of a temple, so I doubt FoP Chile applies.
File:PlacaVDS.JPG restored. It is a small resolution image, so feel free to renominate on another rationale.
Ankry (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The first is, as noted, an interior image and the FOP exception is limited to outdoor works. The second is text, which is classified as a literary work, not an artistic work, and therefore not included in the FOP exception.

WIPO translation of Article 71F: "...monuments, statues and, in general, those artistic works that adorn squares, avenues and public places on a permanent basis..."

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: While, you may be right in the second case, it should go through proper DR. no-FoP deletion reason is clearly invalid here. IMO, it is disputable whether this is a literary work or just purely informative text (I do not know Spanish, however, so cannot judge here). Ankry (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The FOP apply only if the work is actually protected under the Copyright Law of Chile. I could reseach for the author and the date of creation of the vitral. If it is not attributed to a single architect (it is Anonymous or Pseudonymous or by an organization), this may be already in the PD.
And for the plaque, need some research. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I  Support undeletion of the first image. The stained glass window was designed by Adolfo Winternitz (d. 1993) but since it is a window you can see the same image from outside the temple too, so FoP should apply. As to the text plaque, this is hardly a literary work because it only states that Víctor Domingo Silva was born "under the roof of this house". The text content is probably too simple for copyright. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There already was a discussion about such a case (in Switzerland). I don't know Chilean law, but if FoP is restricted to outside, it probably doesn't apply into such a case. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This is why I mentined I'll research. The "Templo Votivo de Maipú" is so close to me, but I have no time to schedule a visite and get the information. I'll keep updated you. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer, no consensus to restore. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:DJ Seip 3.jpg

Herewith i request the undulation of the following file: DJ Seip 3.jpg

It was deleted without reason or proof of copyright infringement. I am the photographer of the image: Niclas Riccardo Königsbüscher. I am also the person in the photo: Niclas Riccardo Königsbüscher. And there fore i am also the copyright holder of this image. If a request to validate this made, please feel free to email me at the following email address: info@djseip.com.

Furthermore, i believe there needs to be a better process in handling copyright issues as this was a deletion without any valid reason of it being copyright infringement.

--FrankKoch (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - file uploaded without camera data in EXIF and previously published elsewhere online: OTRS needed. I also doubt your own work claim, the photographer is the one operating the camera. Furthermore we may need to have a look at the article you wrote about yourself at English Wikipedia, because you are not supposed to write an article about yourself. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jcb. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

This is a government photo and therefore not subject to copyright.

This is a government photo and therefore not subject to copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironywrit (talk • contribs) 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It was not created by the U.S. government, it was created by the State of Alabama. Each state in the U.S. have different laws. In this case, Alabama doesn't release their photos to the public domain. --★ Poké95 06:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for File:File:Kay Ivey - Governor.jpg. @Ironywrit: Only works made by employees of the federal US government and those of a few select states are in the public domain. Alabama is not one of them. For the same reason I deleted File:Ivey-governor.jpg which was the same image. Do not upload this again because it is copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Fredrick Wangabo Mwenengabo briefing the media on the status of human rights in Congo

This my personal picture that I took myself with my camera. It is also the picture on my facebook. Kindly consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick Wangabo Mwenengabo (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Fredrick Wangabo Mwenengabo: Thanks for stating that the picture was previously published on Facebook. Per standard practice, OTRS permission is required from the copyright holder (which you say is you) when an image was previously published on an external website. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: From Facebook, no permission. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ceccobelli Leda.jpg

I have been authorized by the Artist Bruno Ceccobelli, who asked me to publish the file Leda in his biography in wikipedia italian and English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastianelli1976 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Bastianelli1976: It seems that Bruno Ceccobelli is the subject of this image. If that's the case, then he is not the copyright holder of the image. The copyright holder of this image is the photographer. Unless this is a work for hire, please ask the photographer to send an email to the OTRS. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via OTRS. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dominic_Buxton_Headshot_2016.jpg

I believe this file shouldn't have been deleted, as the permission was sent off about a week ago via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It has just got to be reviewed by a volunteer. (I can't figure out how to sign it, otheriwse I would) Any advice/help is appreciated. Thank you --10th April 2017 Mrdominicbuxton (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Dominic Buxton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdominicbuxton (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please wait for the permission to be processed. There is quite a backlog, so it can take sometime. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Beverley Nielsen.jpg

This photo is owned by the Liberal Democrats West Midland Mayoral campaign. We took the photo and have used it on our other social media accounts, such as twitter. We have given free and open permission or the photo to be used across the internet, including Wiki common.

The photo on wiki common is meant for here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Midlands_mayoral_election,_2017&action=edit

As stated in the original delete comments, WE OWN IT there is NO COPY RIGHT BREACH! Permission HAS BEEN GIVEN!.

Deletion of this photo, while the other candidate’s photos have not been deleted, is continuing political sabotage. The photo breaches non of the terms and conditions and non of the linked discussions have been relevant or true. Example We do not maintain the WM election page, so there is no conflict of interest, our accounts are not used by multiple people, they are 1 account per person, “differencing in writing style” as marked out for a reason to delete the photo is what is globally known as DYSLEXCIA! A registered disability.

Pleaser restore this picture with all hast. This has become a ridiculers joke now that Wiki Common is allow members to political sabotage lawful political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecsatan (talk • contribs) 10:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Tecsatan: It seems you haven't read the closure of the deletion request of this image. This image is deleted because it is a crop of a photo previously published on an external website (in this case, Twitter). Per standard practice, OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder (and it's not you nor the Liberal Democrats, it is the photographer who's the copyright holder). This is done to protect the copyright of the photographer and to protect the reputation of Wikimedia Commons. Lastly, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: This is really simple... This photo was taken by Beverley's team, on my own mobile phone. I am the copy right owner. As was pointed out before to you, ITRS does not apply here. Please stop sabotaging our political campaign. This is a criminal offence! The photo is used on her twitter account because... we own and control her twitter account... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecsatan (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tecsatan: I don't know who the heck are you talking with, but I am not Nordic Nightfury. I am Pokéfan95. Sorry, but if a photo was taken by someone else, you are not the copyright holder, even if the camera used was yours. Unless this is a work for hire, Beverley's team (you say) must send an email to the OTRS, as they are the copyright holder, not you. Furthermore, we are not sabotaging your political campaign, and in fact we are not interested in such politics. From your recent comment here, it seems you are going to send us a legal threat, which is prohibited per the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, and you will be indefinitely blocked from editing if you attempt to do so. And for the last time, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. ★ Poké95 11:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Well, that would be useful, but it still don't solve this copyright issue. Tecsatan admitted above that it was not them who took the photograph, it was Beverley's team. An OTRS permission is still required in this case. ★ Poké95 11:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyway, owning a photo doesn't automatically make you the copyright holder. To hold copyright of a work, you must be the one who created the said work, or had an agreement with the original author which transfer the copyright to you. ★ Poké95 11:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Pokéfan95: If they upload the original image with full EXIF data, and that's there is no copy on the Internet, it is quite a proof. @Tecsatan: As it was previously published elsewhere, Commons policies require that you provide a formal written permission (or that you upload the original as mentioned above). Regards, Yann (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Pokéfan95 You seem to misunderstand. The team are My team. Please review https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-nicholas-schemanoff-77553042/ I am the exectuive board member for all outgoing commons. The photo was taken on my device. As stated above. All images for the campaign has been freely made avalible. There is ... and I am not sure I have stated this cearly enough.... NO COPY RIGHT ISSUE HERE... I am and have however now reported this to the UK police on the grounds of electroal fraud and willa slo be notifying the press as this has become stupid.

When you refer to team and we in polatics it its because it is not politically wise to refer to indivudals beyond the canadidate themselfs in assoshitationw ith any materials. SO let's make it more simple for you, an image I took, on my phone, with I have given permission to be used, of canaidate, is being removed and taken down without any good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecsatan (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


@Tecsatan: You should have made it clear that you are the one who took the photo and that Beverley's team is yours. :-) Anyway, since you said above that you are the copyright holder, you have two options to have this image undeleted: 1) As Yann said above, upload here the original image with full EXIF data from your camera. 2) If you don't want to upload the original photo for some reason, you may follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. Your request there may take a long time (weeks or months) though, so if you choose this option, please be patient. I hope this is clear and simple for you. Again, per standard practice, a photo which was previously published elsewhere needs either an original photo with EXIF data which was not published anywhere or an OTRS permission from the copyright holder, which you say is you. Thanks, ★ Poké95 23:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, since you said that you control the Twitter account where the image was previously published, you have one more option: post at that account saying that you are releasing the image under a free license. Some examples of free licenses are CC-BY-SA-4.0, CC-BY-4.0, FAL 1.3, and GFDL 1.3. Make sure you have read these licenses (if you have a lawyer, make them read the legal text and have them explain it to you), and include the version number too (3.0 is different to 4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 23:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: GFDL is a software license and isnt recommended as an appropriate free license for use on image files. Gnangarra 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Tecsatan, first, your continuing accusations of political sabotage are ridiculous. Yann is French, Pokefan95 is Philippine, and I am American. None of us has any interest in a mayoral campaign in the UK. We are simply carrying out policy. If you continue to make threats such as "reported this to the UK police on the grounds of electroal fraud" you will be blocked from editing on Commons.

Commons is careful of copyright. User:Tecsatan could be anyone. We get many false claims here, so when an image was not actually taken by the uploader, or when the image has appeared elsewhere on the Web, we require that the actual photographer must confirm the license using OTRS. Unfortunately, OTRS has a considerable backlog, so it will be some time before the image is restored. And, of course, that clock will not start until you stop making false accusations here and have the photographer send the necessary license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Diva-in-washington.jpg

In the DR, it was clearly stated that the uploader took both photographs used in this montage, so there is no reason to delete this as "unknown copyright status". --Didym (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The uploader says, "Ich habe weder das Rednerpult noch das Porträt einzeln hochgeladen. --Ralf Roleček". So the first question is, where did the portrait come from? The second question is, why is this fake image of User:Raboe001 behind a DoD podium in scope? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"das sind meine eigenen Fotos, steht doch dran. --Ralf Roleček", I don't have any doubts this is own work as stated, also considering the uploader has uploaded far more than just one portait of User:Raboe001. @Ralf Roletschek: kannst du kurz erklären, warum diese Datei in den Projektrahmen fällt? --Didym (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Die Fotos und die Montage habe ich ganz bewußt für einen Vortrag gemacht, den schon über 50 Commonsianer und etwa gleich viele Politiker gehört haben, insgesamt 6 mal. Er entstand ursprünglich auf Wikiversity, ich bin aus rechtlichen Gründen damit zu meiner privaten Seite umgezogen [11] - da ist auch zu sehen, wann und wo ich diesen Vortrag gehalten habe. Das Rednerpult fotografierte ich auf dem Flugplatz Washington-Dulles bei der Rückreise von der Wikimania, es ist als Gag für Touristen in einem Andenkenladen aufgestellt. Das Porträt entstand 2 Tage später beim Landtagsprojekt Bayern in München.
Politiker haben Angst, daß ihre Bilder mißbraucht werden, wenn sie frei für Jedermann verwendbar sind. Diese Montage ist dafür der Aufhänger. Mit meinen Politiker- Sportler- oder Künstlerporträts dürfte ich solch eine Montage nicht herstellen, von RaBoe habe ich die Zustimmung dafür. Immer wieder hatte ich dieses Bild bei Landtagsprojekten als Tab offen, um zu zeigen, was eben mit den Politikerbildern nicht geht. Bilder wie dieses kann ich nur auf meiner Homepage hosten, deshalb und wegen der viel schnelleren Reaktionsfähigkeit (die schon nötig war) ist der Vortrag jetzt extern. Das sind alles Politiker der Bremischen Bürgerschaft, auch wenn es nicht so aussieht. Die umfangreichen Kommentare, die ich zu den jeweiligen Fotos mache, habe ich offline auf einem Blatt Papier, da man vieles in schriftlicher Form mißverstehen könnte.
Dieser längst überholte "Projektrahmen" stammt noch aus der Zeit vor InstantCommons. Commons ist nicht nur für Wikimedia da sondern eine Ressource freien Bildmaterials. Das 1001-te Penisbild ist im Rahmen, sowas nicht? --Ralf Roleček 18:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support Prolific uploader who claims to have made both source photos. Is there any serious reason to doubt those claims and not to AGF? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. I am not convinced about the image being in scope, though. Ralf's reasons are invalid. If he likes to get COM:SCOPE changed, he can try to do so using the appropriate channels. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ist ein Foto eines Vortrags auf 3 Wikimanias nicht im Projektrahmen? Ich plane genau diesen Vortrag gerade offiziell für Montreal, Diva vor der Kamera. Da https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload nicht funktioniert, muß ich wohl ein modifiziertes Bild hier hochladen. --Ralf Roleček 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support per the comment directly above. If an image planned to be used in a Wikimania presentation isn't in scope, I don't know what is. --Didym (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support Agreed. It is a pity it took so long for this to be explained. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:JUNPUT beach in the morning.jpg, second request

See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-04#File:JUNPUT beach in the morning.jpg. Ping User:Yann, User:Mates, User:XXN.

I would like to reevaluate this decision. My reasons are:

  • OTRS cannot easily verify Facebook accounts.
  • The image was not "published" by most senses of the word. It was a limited publication among friends and family.
  • Asking users to use OTRS for Facebook posts is a bit much. OTRS exists to stop copyright fraud (e.g., "I represent Arsenal F.C. so I'm publishing its intellectual property"), not for the sake of covering users with red tape.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: As per Magog the Ogre and Yann. --Mates (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Erawan Shrine, Ratchaprasong, May 2015.jpg

It is not a copyright violation. I took this photo when on holiday in May 2015 and then uploaded it myself very soon after I created the page on the 2015 Bangkok bombing, hence the photo went viral. Cantab12 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For the purpose of evaluating the image, I have temporarily restored it pending the outcome of the discussion. De728631 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The file was uploaded from a Facebook page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a link? I'm having a hard time finding this on Google anywhere and I don't see any hint at Facebook in the file history either. I'm getting four hits with TinEye, all of which are either Wikipedia mirrors though or were posted later than the Commons upload, so these are not indicative either. De728631 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I assume that Carl said that this file was uploaded from Facebook due to the FBMD tag on its metadata. I too can't find it on Facebook, but this seems weird. @Cantab12: Can you please overwrite this file with the original photo straight from your camera (I think this one is an iOS device, based on the resolutions)? Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Береговий_Сергій_Георгійович.jpg

The file was uploaded by the sister of the deceased soldier, the rights to the image are just from the relative natives of soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyahu (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright rests with the photographer and not with the subject depicted in a photo. Unless we can establish that it was the soldier's sister who also took this photo, we need permission from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thuresson (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Old kyoto logo.jpg

I am the Founder, Owner, and CEO at Kyoto eSports and I am attempting to upload our logo to put on our Wikipedia page. However, someone keeps deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.120.157.114 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: You should then write a free license release to COM:OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 21:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Requesting undeletion of File:Pittsburgh-HD-Radio-Emergency-Alert-System-Test.ogv

This File is NOT a violation of someone else's copyright due to the original file being on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyOMqqNDAZk which is MY YouTube channel Bbabybear02. I wanted to share it here to show that some HD Radios have EAS options. Everything shown in the video is what I made. The license has been changed on Youtube to Creative Commons - Attribution meaning I have given Wikipedia permission to use my video. I am requesting an undeletion.Bbabybear02 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

License seem OK, but what about the scope? --Mates (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Scope is to show the EAS(Emergency Alert System) used on newer HD Radios that could have life saving information for people of a particular area, in this case Pittsburgh, so this falls under educational content. Bbabybear02 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I can hear just an interview about some basketball matchup or the main content is that sign saying "test alert"? --Mates (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I undeleted this file after a request at my user talk page. Please be aware that the file is in use in article space at English Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Ok, I was not primarily opposing. I just was not sure what the video is supposed to show. Thanks for resolving it. --Mates (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: resolved by Jcb. --Mates (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Carmine Esposito.jpg

Esta imagen File:Carmine Esposito.jpg ha sido autorizada expresamente por su dueño para su uso en esta Wiki.

Nnaviaji4580 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Nnaviaji4580: La imagen ha sido publicada ya en Twitter. Entonces el dueño de https://twitter.com/karmine2010 debería enviar un correo a COM:OTRS para autorizar la publicación. Ruthven (msg) 21:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Labscope for Windows (30192942961).jpg

AS explained in the deletion discussion, and as is clear from the description (which also links to [12]), the copyright owner of this image is the copyright owner of the depicted software. They made the image available under an open licence. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - as stated in the DR already: I see no authorship or license information on the picture of the flower in the description. Not here and not at source - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether deliberately or otherwise, you're being obtuse. The image has an open licence; the image is made by the owners of the software Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You provided not evidence or even indication for that claim. Jcb (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I think we can assume that the image was posted by Zeiss and that they intend to license the screen images as well as the photograph. However, nothing in the image is in focus, and there is nothing particularly useful about an image of three screens with a badly out of focus microscope in the background, so I think the image itself is out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support Freely licensed image (CC-BY 2.0, see the flickr version), deleted as part of a mass nomination of screenshot images without properly noting that this has been freely licensed by the software company. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Mike Peel, did you read the DR? No information is provided on the picture of the flower. This is the copyright issue. Jcb (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the whole point of the photo to show what they are looking at through the scope? My assumption is that it's a live image, and hence also owned by Zeiss / covered by the license. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support Like Jim, I think we can reasonably assume that the image was posted by Zeiss and that they intended (and were able) to license the screen images as well as the photograph. I do, however, think that this is potentially useful for an educational purpose. The fact that the microsope and two of the screens are out of focus is the result of a deliberately narrow depth-of-field choice by the photographer, a very effective one in my view. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support Barring any evidence that Zeiss is not the creator of the image or did not properly license the photograph on the screen, I think their CC-BY release is sufficient. If any claims are made against Zeiss in the future (regarding this or other photographs showing other images) we can easily revisit this file  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Most people think there is no copyright issue. If someone thinks it is useful, then fine. --Yann (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:1924. Merz Magazine Layout by El Lissitzky.jpg

Unfortunately the Decision was faulty, because the title page was created solely by El Lissitzky (1890–1941). That Kurt Schwitters (1887–1948) was the editor of the magazine, does not make him a co-creator of the title page. He is rightly named with regard to the magazine as a whole, but should not be in the author field of the information template but only in the description field. So please restore the file and its uses, but change the author to El Lissitzky and put Schwitters into the description field. --h-stt !? 18:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support In this case I think the original file description was misleading by crediting Schwitters as the author. The filename however stated that Lissitzky was the designer of this cover page. De728631 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: If it is a corporate copyright, it is in the PD 70 years after publication. --Yann (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Against the wind poster.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's the movie poster and I own the copyright 花天亮 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@花天亮: please send permission to OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is a movie poster; it is very unlikely that this poster would be available under a free license, since it would affect the profit gain of the movie company. As Jeff said above, OTRS permission is required from the copyright holder(s) of this poster. ★ Poké95 12:15, 13 April 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:Value Chain Infographics of the Online Payment Processing Involving Payrexx.png

Template:OTRS ticket references this file.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hubert Girault.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket references this file.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome NL.png

Template:OTRS ticket references these files.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MartinHiller.jpg undelete

Hi, I am requesting undelete for this image as the image was sent to me directly from the subject and the image was provided by the photographer. The photograph does not violate copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameswhunt (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Jameswhunt: This image was previously published on an external website, so per standard practice, OTRS permission is needed from the photographer. Also, the subject of the image is not the copyright holder, unless it is a work for hire. Thanks, ★ Poké95 06:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a license from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bogdan Zadorozhny, Writer and Entrepreneur cropped.jpg

Hi there,

Formally requesting undeletion as the copyright holder, Bogdan Zadorozhny, had contacted Wikimedia and provided a Declaration of Consent.

I appreciate your assistance.

TorontonianOnlines (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Unless this is a work for hire, the subject is not the copyright holder. The copyright holder is the photographer. Please ask the photographer to send an email to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 06:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a license from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

United States Air Force Memorial

Hi, Following this discussion, it seems that there is no copyright issue here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United States Air Force Memorial.

Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I don't understand. The cited DR was correctly closed as deleted. Both the arcs and the sculptures at the bottom have copyrights as sculpture. The discussion of these as architecture is a red herring -- they are clearly not architecture. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure I agree with Carl, he was talking about the Disney entrance arches, which are arguably bridges. They are quite different from these free standing single-ended arcs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand you here. According to WP, a bridge is a structure built to span physical obstacles without closing the way underneath [...], for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle. And then in the DR, Tim1965 says any image on Wikicommons which shows the arcs and only the arcs is non-copyrightable and suitable for Commons, as these would below de minimis level of creativity. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per http://www.airforcememorial.org/about/spirescopyright. - Reventtalk 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MyDeal Logo.png

Hello,

This logo was deleted (for the second time), despite it being used for the company's Wikipedia page. I have the full rights to use this image since I work for the company. Please re-advise this deletion, as we have the full rights to use it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samblack291 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Samblack291: Please send permission to OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This image was deleted because the article on English Wikipedia where this image was used is not approved, hence this image is out of our project's scope. --★ Poké95 02:38, 14 April 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:SeekingBlue finallogo.png

I would like to know why was this file deleted as i got permission from the author to upload it and also it was a company logo. I was not done with the creation of the page also and it got taken down. If i did upload wrong, i would like to know the correct way to upload it again. User:sufyanxtreme 20:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

To have the permission from the copyright owner verified, please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from an authorized official of the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Labranda Hotels und Resorts.jpg

Das Logo wurde von uns erstellt Own work --FTI GROUP (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No prove the account represents authors of the logo. I think it does not meet criteria for PD per COM:TO. @FTI GROUP: Wenn Sie der Autor sind, senden sie bitte eine Genehmigung zur E-mail Adresse permissions-de@wikimedia.org. Das Schlagwort findet sich auf Commons:OTRS/de. Danke --Mates (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Bitte beachten Sie auch, dass nach deutschem Recht, das Urheberrecht nicht übertragen werden kann. Die FTI Touristik GmbH mag zwar die Nutzungsrechte an dem Logo haben, aber eine freie Lizenz kann nur direkt durch den Inhaber des Urheberrechts vergeben werden. Das ist/sind in dem Fall der oder die ausführenden Designer. De728631 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires OTRS license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Zweig - Tolstoï.djvu

Hello, I usually participate to wikisource and not familiar to import files to Commons. I have not seen notifications and I change preferences today for that. The file is in the public domain and the author has died in 1936. I have not filled in time the permission correctly. Thank you Martinpeacher (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Zweig - Tolstoï.djvu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinpeacher (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Zweig died in 1942 but we would also have to consider the lifetime of the translator since the translation from the German original to French created a separately copyrighted work. As to the deletion of this file, it did have a CC-zero tag but was deleted by Ellin Beltz as "missing license". Could this have been mistaken "no proof of permission" or did EugeneZelenko mix up CC-zero and the Public Domain Mark? On a technical note, for some reason there seems to be no original backup for djvu files in the Commons cache because all I can access as an administrator is some php index file. So I can't tell who translated this version and what was the full title of the book. If it was Trois poètes de leur vie translated by Alzir Hella, it is in fact still copyrighted. Hella died in 1953 so his translation is protected until 31 December 2023. De728631 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You need a DJVU reader to properly open the file. Page 10 says "Traduit de l'allemand par Alzir Hella et Olivier Bournac", eg. translated from the German by Alzir Hella and Olivier Bournac. Thuresson (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking this. So,  Oppose because Hella survived his co-translator Bournac and the translation is still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Because the work is still in copyright without permission from the copyright holder. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The translation is still under copyright. Restoration would require a free license from the heirs of each of the translators via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Предварителният доклад на Скайлер - 1876.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The historical document, who translated to Bulgarian, should be restored. 185.73.237.229 11:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Prosfilaes. Please fix the author and source. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:سوق مطرح من الداخل.jpg

I took this photo with my own camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mohammed Abdullah Hassan: please send permission to OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016DrAmmar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is copywrited from Dr Ammar Drwammar (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose ...so your point is? This image was deleted because this image can be found all over the web, and OTRS permission is required from the copyright holder in this case. --★ Poké95 12:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Wigwam Va Dept. of Historic Resources.jpg

Reason: As the file name indicates, the image is a public record of the Commonwealth of Virginia - Dept. of Historic Resources. Hoppyh (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may or may not be correct -- the information given in the file description is not sufficient to establish it -- but it is irrelevant. Virginia is not one of the states whose works are free of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made inquiry with the Virginia DHR staff. Hoppyh (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Their options are to send permission to OTRS or make a new law freeing some or all Commonwealth works.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:YigalArnon&Co. updated logo.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:YAlogo.png

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Apache Pine Wooden Watches Logo.png

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. Please fix author and source. --Yann (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Nick Di Paolo.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Signos 1989.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hhl-prof-meynhardt-0217.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The author seems to be Michael Bader, so not OK. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Juliette Fretté.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission from subject, while author is Elizabeth Granli Photography. --Yann (talk) 11:29, 14 April 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 and File:Isadore (Issie) Coop.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket contains valid permission for these files.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. One duplicate, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jack Coop. --Yann (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:WoolfAndTheWondershow IMG 0506.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Alex Moreno Platinum Award.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Author of content has granted permission for anyone to use these files. Here is link to approval by author http://alexmoreno.com/free_use.txt -HenkLarss (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose for two reasons. First, as a general rule the subject cannot license his photographs -- the copyright is held by the photographer and must be licensed by him or her. Second, the license given on the cited page is not sufficient for Commons as it does not state that it is irrevocable, allows commercial use, and derivative works. It is always best to name a CC license -- in this case, CC-0 would match what I think he is trying to do. Please have the actual photographer(s) send a free license using OTRS.

Also note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to re-upload an image that has been deleted. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Please use COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sean Ringgold.jpg

This is the latest image of Sean Ringgold. His wikipedia will be updated to reflect the most up to date information of his bio, image and likeness.

  • @Universalenvision: This image was deleted because it is a copyright violation, possibly this image is all over the web. See COM:PRP. Please ask the copyright holder (which is the photographer) to send an email to the OTRS. Note that Wikipedia-only permissions are strictly not allowed, images here have to be available under a free license. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:NickC1.jpg

I believe this image, listed for deletion by Reddogsix and deleted by Christian Ferrer, was deleted in error as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:NickC1.jpg. The reason for the deletion listing was because the image, uploaded by Steponmenyc, attributed copyright to www.stephaniemarieoberle.com, and the deleting admin cited the image on Playbill.com, http://static.playbill.com/09/fb/bc788a93424dbeb1126f5a6268b9/skivvies-march-26-04-hr.jpg, as the reason. But @steponmenyc happens to be Stephanie Marie Oberle's Instagram handle and I don't see any evidence to suggest the uploader and the Instragram user aren't the same person. Also, Playbill.com cites Stephanie Marie Oberle as the copyrightholder for this image, so that alone is not a valid reason for deletion. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I had no idea and I imagine a new user is less likely to be aware. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed my deletion was not as regard to the deletion request nor about its rationale (an attribution in the EXIFs) but was a speedy deletion because I found a prior version (with google-search images by dates), also not cropped, on the web and without an explicit free license. Therefore I agree with Yann. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:My alinebob.jpg

Hi The file has been deleted by Ellin Beltz without deletion request. So, the file has been checked by FlickreviewR but the licence has changed in flickr after some days. So, there is a rule that states that a license change is not retroactive. [13] --Panam2014 (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

File was deleted after no license. I didn't do the original tagging. I personally have no objection to restoration of file, but when I saw it, there was no license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image you used the "Public Domain Mark" (PDM) as a license which is still visible at Flickr.This is not accepted as a licence at Commons because it is actually not a licence at all nor is it irrevocable. The Public Domain Mark is just an indicator that something is thought to be in the public domain. At Commons, however, we need to know why it is in the public domain. Unless the Flickr user explicitely states that they waived all rights for an image they created themselves, or that the image is out of copyright due to old age or other verifiable reasons, PDM is not acceptable. See also the template text at {{Flickr-public domain mark}} which automatically flags a file for missing permission. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz and De728631: In this case, why was the file validated? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: FlickreviewR validated it as having PDM and no license, thus not allowable here.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The image had and has a PDM which is not a free license and is not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Review of Armenian Studies Cover.jpg

Hi, Image deleted for the wrong reason. This is very much in scope. At the very least, this is useful to illustrate an article about the magazine, and certainly more subjects. Any peer-review publication is in scope on Commons, and this is one. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Review of Armenian Studies Cover.jpg. The cover is only fact, so {{PD-ineligible}} should apply. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Agreed. It can illustrate an article about the magazine and, potentially, articles about the authors named. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:KMP-Hauptseite.JPG

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:David H. Holtzman 2016.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:WoolfAndTheWondershow IMG 0440.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ritratto di Pippo Baudo.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ritratto di Lino Banfi.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:"Natività" di Giuseppe Antonio Lomuscio.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Zapatero retrato.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I am waiting on clarification of license choice.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Libya Comic Con Main Event Logo V.2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i did not break any copy right laws or regulation Yako99sadek (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Both were deleted as "Non-free logo (above threshold of originality)". Please read COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Heritage.JPG

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission added. --Yann (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:AviationHouseLogo.png

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Permission from a Gmail address. Yann (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Probably not in scope anyway. The company doesn't even have a website. --Yann (talk) 20:10, 15 April 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

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Image source is Alex John's Flickr stream. Yann (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission from photographer requested. --Yann (talk) 20:15, 15 April 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

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Permission from subject. Small image without EXIF. Yann (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Margit_Osterloh.jpg

Moin liebe Admins, unter Ticket#2017031610015882 wird angefragt was zu tun ist, Es fehlte die Lizenz richtig? Bitte um Wiederherstellung Lizenz ist im der Mail angegeben und auch die Nutzungsrechte. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Moin Ra Boe. Die Lizenz war cc-by-sa-4.0. Es fehlte allerdings der Nachweis der Freigabe durch "Reto Schlatter". Falls das Ticket nicht direkt von ihm kommt, bitte nochmal beim Absender nachhaken. De728631 (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Moin De728631, mhh den Namen kenne ich, allerdings ich aus diesem Ticket, ich frage noch mal nach, Als Fotografin wurde mir "Beat Sch...." genannt. Ich danke erst mal und melde mich wieder. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Alles klar, Raboe001. Nur zur Info, Beat ist in der Schweiz ein Männername. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh danke, das habe ich nicht gewusst. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is here that we have conflicting authorship information (by the uploader and through the OTRS ticket). The undeletion is declined for now as no response was yet received for ticket:2017031610015882 after the question regarding the authorship from 1 April 2017. This can be reopened as soon as this has been resolved.

Vorläufig abgelehnt wegen der nicht übereinstimmenden Angaben zum Fotografen und da es zu der Rückfrage vom 1. April 2017 bislang keine klärende Antwort gab. Sobald sich dies klärt, kann ein neuer Antrag gestellt werden. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Silver Fern Sunburn.png

Request temporary undeletion

The administrator who pronounced this image 'out of scope' did not bother to elaborate, and the deletion nominator herself/himself was ambivalent on the topic. Given that determination of scope is in this case not a concrete thing but a subjective judgment, and having myself read 'Commons:Project scope' at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope, I do not agree that the image in question is out of scope. Further, because the image is wholly related to a New Zealand issue, I request that a panel of New Zealand administrators consider my request for undeletion, rather than the deletion nominator, who is apparently Australian, or the administrator who approved the deletion request, who is apparently Dutch. Since the most likely argument in support of keeping the image deleted will be that it does not have 'educational value', which is also a subjective concept, I maintain that the image is "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject", meaning the images collected in the Commons category 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_national_flags_of_New_Zealand. In additional support of my contention that the image possesses educational merit I offer the PDF at https://flagoptions.com/wp-content/uploads/Silver-Fern-Sunburn-NZ-flag-design.pdf. A Google image search for 'silver fern sunburn' will already return this image, even though it has only been available to the public for a matter of days, so it is reasonably likely that the image will eventually find its way to the notice of a journalist and be noted in print and/or on the Internet. Should that occur in future I will regard it as justification for repeating an undeletion request, should an administrative panel of kiwis uphold the deletion.

--NZ Flag Maven (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This was discussed previsously at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Silver Fern Sunburn.png. This still remains a fantasy flag that has never been published or talked about anywhere else. It was not an option in the recent NZ flag referendum: "even though it has only been available to the public for a matter of days, so it is reasonably likely that the image will eventually find its way to the notice of a journalist and be noted in print and/or on the Internet" Thuresson (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thuresson: I have nothing against Swedes, but I have politely requested that only kiwi administrators judge my undeletion request. In regard to your comments, however, I would first reply that the image is in fact published with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License at https://flagoptions.com/public_html/newzealand/annes-designs/. I would then point out that the 'Commons:Project scope' page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope makes no mention of any requirement for an image to be "published or talked about anywhere else" in order to be in scope, and that in any event the publication or mention of an image outside of Commons can by no means determine its educational value. I would then mention that you have improperly conflated the category of 'flags from the recent NZ flag referendums' with the category of 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand'. The scope of proper inclusion in the former category is irrelevant for considering the scope of proper inclusion in the altogether different latter category. Should you or anyone else not immediately grasp that error, consider that if the proposed flags category can only include designs from the long-ended referendums, then no new proposed flag can ever be added to it (reductio ad adsurbum). I would also add that every proposed flag that the world has ever seen was a 'fantasy flag' until it was formally adopted. All of the flags that were rejected in the NZ flag referendums are fantasy flags. All of the flags in each and every proposed flags category anywhere on Commons, for which neither you, nor the the deletion nominator, nor the administrator who deleted my image have any objections, are fantasy flags. 'Fantasy flag' is an immaterial and intentionally derogatory term, simply mud that you have thrown in the vain hope that it will stick. Like the deletion nominator before you, you have invented imaginary criteria for determining whether my image is in scope for its category, and you have offered no valid objection for my undeletion request.

--NZ Flag Maven (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - fake flags get deleted when not in use, it's ridiculous to blow up a DR to 21 kilobytes over this - Jcb (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, for any kiwis who haven't already sussed it out, Jcb here is the Dutch administrator who deleted my image upload. Apparently she or he sees no ethical dilemma in adding a 'thumbs down' to my undeletion request too, voting twice, as it were. If you have arrived here because of the 'calling all kiwis' notice that I left on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Kiwi_administrators:_request_for_judgments_from_all_available_New_Zealand_administrators, you will already know that she or he also tried to dissuade you from even coming here to add your say. Jcb has not deigned to defend her or his statement that my image is 'out of scope' with any actual reasoning from the 'Commons:Project scope' page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope, neither at the time of the image deletion, nor here, nor at the noticeboard, but instead has only elected to add to the insults already thrown my way for having the nerve to question the rationale for the deletion. I have thoroughly addressed Jcb's rubbish at the noticeboard, as you probably already know, so if you are not the sort who believes that the administrator is always right, I invite you to review the materials here and at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Silver_Fern_Sunburn.png, so that you may make an informed judgment as to whether my image upload and my arguments in support of it have merit. Kind regards, --NZ Flag Maven (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Mate, I am not a Kiwi (nor an admin, but there's no policy nor guideline saying that non-admins aren't allowed to close such uDRs), but Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual and international project, and since Kiwis/New Zealanders (apologies if I get that wrong) are fluent in English, I don't see any reason not to let non-Kiwis to judge here. I am a Filipino, and obviously English is my second language, but we Filipinos are fluent in English (In fact, in the 40s till the end of the dark/Marcos era, Americans are visiting the Philippines to learn English. I am not joking!) COM:PS says that an image must have an educational purpose to be kept on Commons. For proposed/fictious flags like this, they must be used on atleast one article on any language Wikipedia (like the English one). Two administrators weighed in their opinions here, and I assumed that they looked at the file usage and found none. If you don't trust my judgement, mate, feel free to make another undeletion request, but I expect a new rationale for this image and I also expect that you state an article in Wikipedia where it can be possibly used. Then after that, this image can be restored. --★ Poké95 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Raymond Richie Dalmau.jpg

The person in the photo wants Richie Dalmau's article in wikipidea to be updated and improved because that article contains erroneous information and he wants his photo belonging to the athlete's personal Linkedin to be added. For that reason I request that the photo be restored. If you can not restore the photo please explain how to do it the right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenterprisesolutionsllc (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eenterprisesolutionsllc: Please consider a less promotional username and have the photographer or rights holder contact OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Direction Lourdes official film poster.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Permission added. Yann (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dr Pankaj Naram.jpg

Note: This is true - "I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright."

For this reason, I understand normally uploading the file directly is sufficient. In this case, the file does not have any EXIF data because I took the image from my phone and then cropped it on my computer in order to remove one person from the shot, and only retain the subject of interest. I can understand why administrators of Wikimedia might question it, because so many images are submitted and there has to be some way to signal ones in question. But in the case of my image, although I cropped the original file so the image I am submitting is a smaller file size and does not have EXIF data, I can affirm that I created the file myself, that it hasn't been previously published, and that I am the sole owner of its copyright.

I have submitted both the above explanation and following information to OTRS via email:

"To whom it may concern, I hereby affirm that I am Vinay Soni, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work, as shown here: in the attached images [Dr_Pankaj_Naram.jpg], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of this 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. Vinay Soni Copyright holder April 16, 2017 ___

In likewise fashion, I am also the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work, as shown here at these three links: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Pankaj_Naram_Swami_Omcar_at_Ganga_River.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Pankaj_Naram_Swami_Omcar_in_Mumbai.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Pankaj_Naram_Swami_Omcar_and_Baba_at_Ganga_River.jpg And I also have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of these works. I agreed 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." _____

Please help me to restore the image in question: File:Dr Pankaj Naram.jpg

--DrIndia (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeff G. - thank you very much for your speedy reply to my post and OTRS ticket, as well as your proposal of undeletion. You continue to impress me at Wikimedia, by how much you do! --DrIndia (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as perJeff. --Yann (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Opicaponebial1.png, File:Opicaponebial2.png, File:Opicaponebial3.png, and File:Opicaponebial4.png

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Palais de Venise Nice.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Puces de Nice work in progress 2016.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Le paradis sur terre 200x160 cm encre acrylique sur toile.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Palissade tramway Nice 2016.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Le peche originel-spray et acrylique sur toile -130x97 cm - 2015.jpg and File:Snake Dog Acrylique sur platre 2015.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SWS Logo komplett ohneClaim rgb grau.png

Unter Ticket#2017022710006042 wird um die Wiederherstellung gebeten, fehlte nur die Erlaubnis oder auch die Lizenz? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Die Lizenz war cc-by-4.0, allerdings wurde als Rechteinhaberin die Sarah Wiener Stiftung angegeben. Diese Stiftung hat ihren Sitz in Erfurt, d. h. es ist hier deutsches Urheberrecht zu beachten. Die Stiftung mag zwar alle Nutzungsrechte erworben haben, aber das Urheberrecht kann in D nicht übertragen werden, und nur der Inhaber des Urheberrechts darf eine CC-Lizenz vergeben. Das heisst, wir brauchen die Erlaubnis des Künstlers. De728631 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined as there was no response to the last email on 1 April 2017 by the OTRS member regarding ticket:2017022710006042. Hence, we still do not know who is the author of this logo which is eligible for copyright.

Abgelehnt, da es bislang keine Antwort zur Nachfrage vom 1. April 2017 gibt zur Klärung der Urheberschaft des Logos. Da das Logo Schöpfungshöhe besitzt, muss dies geklärt werden. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Aktivistin.ch ZVV Preisaufschlag für Männer.jpg

This image was taken by myself. Released to public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSB (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The same image has already been published at this website without a free licence. If that is your blog, please post a note there that you released this image into the public domain. Otherwise we need a confirmation by email from the original photographer as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Copied one paragraph by SSB from my user talk page for reference. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi!
I am the photographer who took this photo and released it to public domain. Please revert the deletion. I don't understand why I should ask someone else who used my own picture I released to public domain for permission to use my own picture I released to public domain on Wikipedia. It is a picture taken from me and shared with the people running that website. Please? -- SSB (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hallo SSB, wir haben hier leider keine Wahl. Es gibt eine Regel bei Commons, die besagt, dass Material was schon vorher ohne erkennbare freie Lizenz veröffentlicht wurde, bei Commons extra bestätigt werden muss. Anderweitig haben wir nämlich keine Möglichkeit die Autorenschaft und die Freigabe zu prüfen. Bitte sieh dir COM:OTRS/de an und schreibe eine E-Mail an Commons, dann wird die Datei wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi De728631. Merci für den Hinweis. Da vergeht einem ja fast die Lust, eigene Bilder anderen zur Verfügung zu stellen ;-) Da ich den von mir erstellten Artikel, für welchen ich jenes Bild benötigt habe, wahrscheinlich auch in Zukunft pflegen werde, reicht es dann für die zukünftige Übernahme dortiger Bilder, wenn ich sie bitte, z.B. im Impressum eine Commons-Lizenz mit Attribution für alle Photographien anzugeben? Die Genehmigung für mein eigenes Bild versuche ich demfall einzuholen. Und wenn möglich halt grad mit der Frage noch Interesse am generellen Verwenden der CC-Lizenz -- SSB (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ja, wenn die Bilder vorher schon irgendwo mit Creative Commons Namensnennung und Autorenangabe oder sonst einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden, dann können wir sie 1:1 ohne großen Aufwand übernehmen. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined per De728631 and as I am unable to find a related OTRS ticket or a release under a free license at the source site. Please go ahead and contact our support team using the address permissions-de@wikimedia.org to get this file restored.

Abgelehnt entsprechend De728631 und da bislang kein zugehöriges OTRS-Ticket zu finden ist oder die Freigabe unter einer freien Lizenz bei der Website zu finden ist. Um die Datei wiederherzustellen, sollte bitte unser Support-Team über die Adresse permissions-de@wikimedia.org kontaktiert werden. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bo & Gustavo Catilina, Belgian film directors and musicians.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Done, but permission incomplete. Yann (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks, permission complete.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:USFinances.pdf

This file was created by myself, and as you could easily see in a reverse image search, there are no other images on the Internet that match my creation. However, it was targeted for Copyright violation and removed with zero evidence. Johnsnoa (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several problems here:

  1. We do not keep PDFs of images.
  2. Such tables should be created in Wiki markup, not as images.
  3. There is no source named, and the presentation has a copyright. If it were entirely from the CBO, then it would be PD, but that is not the case. If you yourself created the page, you must say so.
  4. I'm not sure it has any educational value. It is sloppily done -- "revinue" -- and is undated. I doubt that anyone will want to use a presentation that is undated and contains obvious errors.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bethlen Margit 02.jpg

Please restore the image as the source explicitly says the author is unknown ("Szerző: azonosítatlan"). This info was changed by Hungarikusz Firkász, who did not provide a source to strengthen his claim that the photographer was Oszkár Kallós who died in 1955. I am waiting for his answer. There is no criteria to speedy delete that image, so if you are not convinced, please launch a deletion request, instead. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ellenzem a kép visszaállítását. A kép egy változata itt található. Egyértelmű, hogy a törölt képnek és ennek ugyanaz a szerzője, azaz Kallós Oszkár. Attól, hogy a forrásoldalon azonosítatlanként jelölték meg a szerzőt, nem jelent semmit, főleg ha máshonnan kideríthető a személye. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ne töröld a hozzászólásomat! Ezt mégis hogyan képzeled? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: not covered by CSD, no clear copyvio. Converted to a regular DR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And File:MihalyKárolyi1948.jpg, same issue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Victorian Vanguard Orig.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - file will be redeleted after 24 hours if no further action is taken - Jcb (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Taher Nagati breakdance kairouan.jpg

Hello. excuse me ? do you have the right to delete my photo i took with timer on the camera ? ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS? I PROVED YOU I JUST TOOK THIS PHOTO BY TIMER, I ALWAYS TAKE MY PHOTOS BY MYSELF IT JUST WAS NOT MY CAMERA THATS IT

JUST BECAUSE YOU 'THINK' I DIDNT TAKE THAT PHOTO BY MYSELF DOESNT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DELETE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GUYS I WANT MY PHOTOS TO BE UNDELETED AND I WANT IT TO STAY THE WINNER OF WIKI LOVES AFRICA


OTHERWISE I WILL LEAVE THIS WEBSITE FOREVER AND WILL SPEAK ABOUT IT BADLY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaherNagati (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that you somehow touched your Caps lock. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@TaherNagati: You had seven days to explain that at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taher Nagati breakdance kairouan.jpg and seven other deletion request pages after you were notified of them by User:Touzrimounir on your user talk page. An admin will attend to your demand after attending to the polite requests here. Oh, and not everyone who reads this page identifies as a guy, so...   — Jeff G. ツ 21:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Hi. Sorry about caps lock, i was mad because i won in wiki loves africa community selection and they deleted my photo.

yes I had seven days and seven pages, i gave all proofs that i took these pictures. i'm waiting for response and hope its fast because if they don't verify, i'm gonna lose my prize!

thanks! --TaherNagati (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Making threats won't lead you anywhere. Please come back when you have calmed down. --Yann (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Taher Nagati backflip great mosque kairouan.jpg

Hello. excuse me ? do you have the right to delete my photo i took with timer on the camera ? ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS? I PROVED YOU I JUST TOOK THIS PHOTO BY TIMER, I ALWAYS TAKE MY PHOTOS BY MYSELF IT JUST WAS NOT MY CAMERA THATS IT

JUST BECAUSE YOU 'THINK' I DIDNT TAKE THAT PHOTO BY MYSELF DOESNT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DELETE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GUYS I WANT MY PHOTOS TO BE UNDELETED AND I WANT IT TO STAY THE WINNER OF WIKI LOVES AFRICA

OTHERWISE I WILL LEAVE THIS WEBSITE FOREVER AND WILL SPEAK ABOUT IT BADLY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE--TaherNagati

(talk) 22:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Making threats won't lead you anywhere. Please come back when you have calmed down. --Yann (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ensembl.png

File to undelete: Ensembl.png. This file does not violate copyright. According to official legal information on the website, "For example, the official Ensembl logo may be copied and used on external websites for purposes such as to identify official collaborations with Ensembl or to link to either the main Ensembl website (www.ensembl.org) or an Ensembl mirror site. The image may not be modified in any way except to reduce it in size as required." You can find this statement here: http://www.ensembl.org/info/about/legal/logo_policy.html. --Alex the evil (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The image may not be modified in any way — see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Sealle (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jacques Anthony.jpg

This is a photo that was given to me by the owner of the photo and I then transformed into my own work. It IS NOT the original photograph nor is it copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAH Law (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @IBAH Law: Definitely not. Transforming a copyrighted, non-free work doesn't make that derivative work your own work. Furthermore, because the original work is non-free and copyrighted, you don't have the right to apply copyright to the said derivative work. All works are automatically protected by copyright by the time of their creation. Also note, that owning a photograph doesn't make you the copyright holder, unless if you are the one who created it. You must ask the copyright holder to send an email to the OTRS for this image to be restored. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jacques Military.jpg

This is a photo that was given to me by the owner of the photo and I then transformed into my own work. It IS NOT the original photograph nor is it copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAH Law (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @IBAH Law: Definitely not. Transforming a copyrighted, non-free work doesn't make that derivative work your own work. Furthermore, because the original work is non-free and copyrighted, you don't have the right to apply copyright to the said derivative work. All works are automatically protected by copyright by the time of their creation. Also note, that owning a photograph doesn't make you the copyright holder, unless if you are the one who created it. You must ask the copyright holder to send an email to the OTRS for this image to be restored. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:10-1562-th4.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Its not copyright protected Aminsafinejad (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose ...and what makes you believe so? A work is automatically protected by copyright by the time it was created, unless it is below the COM:TOO or there is an acceptable COM:FOP for that kind of work (like buildings). This image was probably deleted because it was previously published from another website, and per standard practice, OTRS permission is required from the copyright holder, which may not be you. --★ Poké95 05:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sunrise-on-Caswell-Beach-Oak-Island-NC.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by ZUFAr

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS No ticket:2017041710007262. Best Regards, Niklitov (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Conditional restore, as per Niklitov. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Luis Otero (Magician).jpg

This file is public domain you can see it in Luis Otero public facebook fanpage https://www.facebook.com/luisoteromagia/?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandourbina (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose The fact that an image appears on a public page does not change its copyright status. Facebook pages are not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence that photo is public domain. Thuresson (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Perez Hilton- Issue 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is the front cover of Contrast Magazine's first issue and was used in the Wiki article as a reference and the photographer, Jon Seneca has given permission to use. His email is jon@jonseneca.com. 72.216.236.135 01:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Permission for who to do what? Thuresson (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Permissions from the copyright holder need to be sent by email as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Duaca.jpg

Estimados

Recurro a uds, con la finalidad de solicitar la restuaracion del archivo File: Duaca.jpg

dicho archivo es de mi autoria, la tome con un iphone 4s, --Duaca (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)es:Duaca[1] adicional soy el creador del sitio Duaca.

se despide atentamente, y esperando su pronta respuesta

Usuario: Duaca

References

  1. ↑ Duaca

 Comment This image is a collage including File:Iglesia San Juan Bautista Duaca.jpg which was uploaded by Duaca with a full set of Iphone 4 EXIF, so I'm inclined to believe the claim of authorship. Duaca, can you please also upload all the other individual images from this collection, i.e. the statue with the light effects, the road sign, the truck and the image of the road traffic? This way we can verify that you did actually create all these photos too. De728631 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Guillaume Fédou officiel.png

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment May be OK, but small image without EXIF, and PNG, so probably screenshot. Could ask for original. Yann (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: So asked.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I would ask the original image before accepting the permission. Please create a DR if any issue arise. --Yann (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jose Rosas Aispuro Torres GobDGO.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Claimed to be from the Mexican government, doesn't match OTRS ticket. Yann (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. Please ask again if more information is provided. --Yann (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Christopher A. Alexander personal photo.jpg

I do not understand why the file was deleted BEFORE double-checking whether it breached copyright or not. A letter from the owner of this photo will be presented in less than 24 hours from now. Meanwhile please restore the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please have the photographer or rights holder contact OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Baltvilks. policy requires that obvious copyright violations are deleted on sight. Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. Most of that work is done by ten Admins, so we have nothing like enough time to give personal service.

You say "a letter from the owner of this photo...". The owner of a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not generally have the right to freely license it -- that right almost always always belongs to the photographer.

If a free license has been sent to OTRS by the copyright holder, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:QR609347110.png

i was add something in this page, and upload a QR code like this: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QQ%E4%BA%A4%E6%B5%81%E7%BE%A4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lannsoros (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support Category:QR Code Diagrams has several generic code diagrams that can be used for illustration and this is another one. I think it is in the scope of Commons. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Projeto de pesquisa - Karolina Bergamo.pdf

Hello. I have followed instructions that were given at the deletion request decision for this file, and I do believe it is OK now for undeletion.

  1. The file is now mentioned on our research institute website, here (search for Karolina Bergamo). This website license is compatible to the Commons.
  2. The file is also stored directly on our research institute website.
  3. The file was in use on Wikiversity in Portuguese, before deletion, as this file is part of a research group we have on Wikiversity.

A message to the OTRS community has been sent out for this file prior to deletion. I believe this file should be restored, as it complies fully with rules of this project. Thank you. --Joalpe (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: License OK at source. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Logo of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat.jpg

--We request the Logo of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat be undeleted due to the following reasons:-

  1. We are the original School Board of Governors of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat and I am the Chairman of the School Board, writing on behalf of the Board, to update the content of the School information in Wikipedia. The old logo was officially replaced some 18 years ago.
  2. As the school will be celebrating its 70th years anniversary on 16th June 2017, we felt that it was necessary to update the information and logo on Wikipedia on behalf of the schools, students and the alumni across the world to see.
  3. For further confirmation of this updated logo, we hereby forward the link to the official website of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat and our new school's website with the new logo on the school buildings as below:

SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat Website: http://www.smjk.edu.my/school/about.php?schid=13&schidx=289&page_type=pageid&pgid=A

Official Convent Datuk Keramat Website (under construction, newly created on 15.4.2017. The alert from Josve05a sent by wiki@wikimedia.org was two hours ago): http://www.conventdatukkeramat.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionleebh (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we frequently have people here who make false claims in order to upload unfree material, and we do not know who User:Lionleebh actually is, policy requires that for this image to be restored, either (a) an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the organization must add a CC-BY or other acceptable license to the source page. Since OTRS has a significant backlog, the latter will be much faster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


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

User:Jenotc

Image was uploaded in cooperation with the person himself who owns all the rights. It was given to me to put it in Wikipedia. Mr. Kalnins himself is the sole rights keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenotc (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I own all the rights to the photo. The same way I own the rights to my fathers homepage. Please stop all unlawfull actions in denying the ownership rights and undelete the photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenotc (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 April 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)

@Jenotc: Which image or photo are you writing about, of all your deleted uploads? Please have Mr. Kalnins contact OTRS directly to grant permission. Also, please sign your posts and don't top post here.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:8aaa.webm

please undo deleted my vedio --105.129.219.106 13:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also (same uploader):

please undelted is vedio — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.144.196.52 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You have given no reason why these apparent copyright violations should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ingeniero Agustín Carpio.jpg

The file was deleted on the grounds of "unlikely to be own work"; however, I work with the person depicted in the photograph and it was taken by me, digitally enhanced for contrast later. I stated this and never received a proper explanation, yet it was deleted anyway. Please undelete it, as it's the only good photograph we have for this article. An email can be sent to puertociencia@ingenieria.uner.edu.ar for comfirmation that the photograph belongs to us. --DesRug (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The reason the image was deleted is that it is very small. The easiest way to get it restored is to upload the file again, using the same file name, at full camera resolution instead of downsizing it. The alternative is to have the actual photographer send a free licenser using OTRS, but OTRS has a significant backlog, so that will take several weeks or more for the reatoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:PowerCube (Type B).png

Request for undeletion of the PowerCube Type B image

Hi Veertje, I do not see how this file violates any copyright, since it was made by ourselves. You are most welcome to contact info@allocacoc.com for any queries/confirmation - they will be more than happy to confirm that the file is indeed created by ourselves at Allocacoc.

Greetings

Arthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimpens (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at https://m.dhgate.com/product/new-power-cube-allocator-adaptor-usb-ports/249419533.html. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim; OTRS permission is required from the copyright holder in this case, per standard practice/policy. Ping Alimpens ★ Poké95 07:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Brown Fish Owl 2.jpg

Above file was marked as copyright violation but, I have photographed it. So please undelete. I also take copyright seriously and I understand its importance and seriousness. Before deleting, you should let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaval Vargiya (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dhaval Vargiya: Please email permission to OTRS, and include details on your relationship with mokarsagar.org.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Well, you are already notified on your talk page before it was deleted. Maybe Jcb was as fast as c. Anyway, as Jeff said, per standard practice for images previously published on another website (except those owned by the WMF), OTRS permission is required from mokarsagar.org. ★ Poké95 07:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Smart Ring.png

This file was deleted stating I did not own the copyright. I own the copyright for this file. (Shidosuru (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC))

 Not done Liar. You copied those images from the web, and that doesn't make you the copyright holder. Furthermore, reuploading your previously deleted files is strictly prohibited, and if you do that again, you would see that you are unable to edit on Commons. Nothing more to say. ★ Poké95 07:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Category:Obras de Guillermo Silveira

Category:Artista Guillermo Silveira. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It is a policy at Commons that category names should always be in English except where proper names, taxa, etc. are the only part of the category name. That said, we don't need a subcategory for works that are still non-free. If images of works by Silveira should appear under a free licence, we can categorise them in the main category. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Andreas Suchanek (Autor).jpg

Moin liebe Admins, da es immer wieder Probleme gab, stelle ich hier nur noch Anträge, wenn schon fast alles geklärt ist. Meiner Meinung nach kann diese Bild wiederhergestellt werden, da die Genehmigung unter Ticket#2017021310005382 vorliegt. Vielen Dank Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Moin, @Raboe001: bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Stempel und ggf. alle weiteren Ergänzungen. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Fernando Holiday.jpg

Fernando Holiday.jpg/Foto feita em local publico e de minha autoria e cedida a Wikipedia com uso livre

E na minha pagina de discussão o autor do pedido não fez assinatura (Érico Wouters Jr). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urielpunk (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@DarwIn, Érico, and Waldir: can you please check this request? De728631 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The deletion request did not specify an alternative owner of the image's copyright, so it's unclear whether the claim of it being a non-free image is valid. All I can infer is that the uploader had provided a free license template in the file page, and the EXIF data does appear to match the information provided in the deleted image page. Furthermore, a google image search reveals no other versions of this image.
The EXIF data does contain a copyright tag, with the contents "Obra registrada e protegida pela Lei do Direito Autoral. O titular do direito obra fotográfica somente autoriza o seu uso mediante licenciamento específico fomalizado por contrato. É proibido qualquer forma de utilização, tais como: ceder, copiar, editar, adicionar, reduzir, exibir ou difundir publicamente ou praticar qualquer tipo de comercialização. A violação de qualquer destes direitos exclusivos do titular acarretará a sanções previstas nas leis 5988 de 14/12/75, N° 9.610 19/02/98 e arts. 184 e 186 do código Penal. MTB0082295/SP", but this seems to be a generic copyright message, and if the author was indeed the uploader, then this licensing is superseded by the release of rights implemented by the publication of the image with a free license template.
Given the above, I would be inclined to  Support undeletion, and a proper deletion discussion (with adequate evidence of copyright violation) if necessary. --Waldir talk 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree and second Waldir. There was no reasoning for the deletion in the nomination. Furthermore, the nomination seems to have been done by someone impersonating Érico, for what reason, I can't foresee. But I would strongly recommend a checkuser on that account.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: EXIF information is consistent with other uploads by Urielpunk, who I presume is "Uriel Baesso do Prado" referred in the EXIF info. Nevertheless, I would recommend Urielpunk to write OTRS with proof that he is "Uriel Baesso do Prado", to avoid further trouble. -- Darwin Ahoy! 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ipsschool.png

File:Name of the file to ipsschool.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjangir (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done So... why do you want this file to be undeleted? None? Okay. --★ Poké95 06:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ngv design, michele de lucchi, first chair, 1983.JPG

Here this file was deleted with the reason "the photograph were not taken by the uploader as claimed". The photograph was actually shot by me (see more files by me in the category of the museum), and it is an utilitarian object, so no eligible for copyright (see similar case here). I asked the admin to rectify and restore the file, but he did not reply. The policy of Commons is quite clear about utilitarian objects (including cars, furniture, and yes, chairs), so if Jameslwoodward wants to rewrite it, he is free to start a discussion over, but for the moment he should strictly apply the rules, avoiding to apply his personal ideas instead, and wasting the time and the work of other users. Moreover here is a category full of chairs by designers. It makes no sense to delete one out of a hundred. Rules have to be applicated the same way in order to meke it clear to uploaders what they can take pictures of and what not.

The picture was linked to several wikipedias. After Jameslwoodward's unlegittimate cancellation Delinker made his job, so who's going to restore the image presence as before? --Sailko (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a question of Commons policy, but of copyright law in Italy. It is clear that this chair would have a copyright in France ans Scandinavia. The question of whether it has a copyright in Italy (its origin) is unclear and therefore COM:PRP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support I linked the policy of Commons about objects like this... If we have a policy that is against a supposed copyright law, don't you think we should amend the policy first? Could you please provide any source where it is written that objects like this are copyrighted? If it is so "clear" to you, plase make it clear to all of us too. Do we have to cancel all the images of design furniture, cars and more because someone said they are copyrighted in France and in Scandinavia? By the way the image was taken in Australia. Also I linked a similar case (another design utilitarian object by Memphis), so is it possible to understand what is different between these 2 cases? --Sailko (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Also COM:PRP is questionable, see this comment by the admin User:Clindberg: "We definitely want to respect copyright, but we also want to respect the public domain with equal force". --Sailko (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Do we have any legal precedent of furniture being under a copyright in Italy? If not, I would restore this. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Never heard --Sailko (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


No, to me that is not at all appropriate for COM:PRP. The lack of such knowledge is not a reason for deletion -- that is the type of thing which give legitimacy to complaints of "deletionists" here. COM:PRP is for a *significant* doubt; if we have no information on Italy and this type of work, then we have no idea and it is merely a *theoretical* doubt and not subject to COM:PRP. We need precedent to determine that this type of thing is subject to copyright law in the first place -- if there is no such precedent, that does not give rise to a significant doubt.
The protection of applied art / industrial design can vary greatly by country, so precedents in one country do not necessarily have any effect in another. We really should require some precedents in each specific country before we delete such works. The Berne Convention does not mandate protection of applied art at all -- it simply says that if there is no other protection afforded applied art, then a country is required to protect it via copyright. But if a country has separate protection for industrial design, then copyright may not apply at all. The U.S. is one such country -- it is only works "separable" from the utilitarian design which can be copyrighted.
For the EU, Article 17 of the EU design protection directive said: A design protected by a design right registered in or in respect of a Member State in accordance with this Directive shall also be eligible for protection under the law of copyright of that State as from the date on which the design was created or fixed in any form. The extent to which, and the conditions under which, such a protection is conferred, including the level of originality required, shall be determined by each Member State. So, EU states are obligated to protect *some* designs with copyright. However, the scope of the protection, as well as the threshold needed for such protection, can be different than regular copyright works, and decided by each country (and therefore can vary widely). So, rulings in one EU country really can't be easily applied to other EU countries in this area. We should follow legal precedent, if any -- and if no precedent, I don't think we should assume that full derivative rights should apply, at least not to the level of having a significant doubt. If we want a warning template to indicate the uncertainty, fine, but to my mind not deletion.
For Italy in particular, before 2001 they were similar to the U.S. in that only separable works were protected by copyright. When they implemented the design directive in 2001 however, they also protected with copyright works of industrial design which per se display creative character and artistic value. So, this is a different threshold than normal copyright. Per this article, the exact definition of "per se artistic value" was somewhat nebulous, although significantly higher than the normal copyright threshold. There were a series of decisions which defined it more, though -- in 2012, the court ruled that for copyright protection of designs it is necessary to capture as objectively as possible the perception of a given design work that has settled in society and, in particular, in cultural circles at large, i.e. not restricted to those directly involved in the sale and purchase of design products. In this vein, a significant indicator of the artistic value of a design work is the widespread consensus among cultural institutions that the design work is at the same time the result of and the foundation of artistic movements, even beyond the intention of the author… This construction of the requirement confines the possibility to allow for copyright protection only to a few industrial design works. That definition then would exclude most works of industrial design from copyright, and since it seems to be based on cultural impact, copyright protection may only be created with some hindsight. In the words of the article authors (not the court): Clearly, these courts’ findings will in the vast majority of cases exclude copyright protection for any newly created design, to the extent that only the passing of time will allow to establish (ex post) that indeed a design work has contributed to shape artistic trends and taste. The court did find that copyright protection existed for the Panton Chair designed by Verner Panton (Decision 13 September 2012), the Lounge Chair & Ottoman designed by Charles & Ray Eames (Decision 2 August 2012), and the “Nathalie” bed designed by Vico Magistretti (Decisions of 5 June and 24 July 2012). There is further info here on those cases, including pictures of the products. Furthermore, all three cases were about the sale of knockoffs of the same products, a more usual scope of protection for applied art (protecting against direct competition). I'm not sure there was any indication that such protection extended to photographs of such items. There was another 2014 case here where chairs by La Corbusier were found to be protected by copyright -- though again, the case was against a competing manufacture. If the courts are just now finding that direct competition is an issue, I doubt there was any previous precedent that photos of such works are an actual copyright issue. The Italian copyright law barely mentions applied art, other than to explicitly note that leasing rights do not apply to applied art (Article 18bis), though that law was largely written before the industrial designs were protected there at all. There was a 10-year period from 2001 where existing manufacturers of copying works were allowed to continue. I can't see the deleted image, but it's also quite possible the original chair doesn't qualify for copyright either -- although if it's in a museum, that may be a fairly strong indication it does. But, given that each member state can choose a different scope of protection of such works from regular copyright scope, and I see no indication that courts have ruled that photographs of such objects infringe a copyright in Italy, I don't think we have basis to claim that there are grounds for deletion for that type of photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl above. --Yann (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Yang 170314.jpg

Dear Sirs, Sorry for bothering you but Yang 170314.jpg is my own work and there is no violations of copyrights. This picture is taken in Shanghai last month. I also worked on editing the picture. Therefore I request undeletion of this file. Thank you! Venk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venk kkkkk (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at several places on the Web and is watermarked for http://weibo.com/foryang0909 which is a site with an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore it here, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Crest StJosephsHurlingClub.jpg

This file and design is owned by St Joseph's Hurling Club (of which I am an officer) and its use is permissible on Wikipedia.

--Gearoidobrien (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Two things: one, owning a design doesn't automatically makes you the copyright holder of that design. Unless you are the one who made that design, you are not the copyright holder of it. Two, Wikipedia-only permissions are strictly not allowed on Commons and will be immediately rejected (by the OTRS). You must ask the designer to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS if you want the image to be undeleted. Note that they must irrevocably agree to release their design under a free license. Thanks, ★ Poké95 07:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Joy_Alukkas.png

This file has got grant permission from the joyalukkas team and i taken image from joyalukkas.com the image source details etc has been pointed out in the upload description with in the policies i uploaded.I do uploads and articles writing followed as per the guidelines and policies i hope this was a mistake happend Bibinkerala (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This isn't a mistake, this is intended. Per standard practice, images previously published on an external website requires OTRS permission from the copyright holder. Please ask joyalukkas.com to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS if you want this image to be undeleted. Thanks, ★ Poké95 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:IPT logo 2016 col.png

The rights of the logo was previously referenced a unknown. After clarification with the authors, it has been confirmed to me that the logo is public domain. Could you please bring it back ?

Thanks --Donok11 (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Donok11, 19 april 2017

On what ground is is public domain? Thuresson (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The source page has an explicit copyright notice, "Copyright © 2017 IPT". That is clearly not public domain. In order to restore the file, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Mixed Ukrainian-Russian writing of "Putin Hello" at the fence at Kerch, Crimea, August 2014.jpg

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License added, please check http://kareshki.com/%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%96%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BC%D1%96%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B9/dsc09926/ , Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two copyrights here -- one for the photograph and one for the artwork. As you say, we have an acceptable license for the photograph. There is, however, no evidence of any license for the artwork. The only way the image can be restored is if the artist or artists send free license(s) using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow. But there is no signature so it's a bit problematic to find out who is the author. Furthermore, this is barely an artwork, just a few random words, very little creativity involved.. What it definitely is, that is a vandalism, as painting communal property is illegal in Ukraine. Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support if the photo is licensed. Doubt a copyright would be created by a couple words. Some of the peripheral graffiti might (though even that is a stretch), and even if it was, it would fall under COM:GRAFFITI and {{Non-free graffiti}} I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. --Yann (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Under the Surface by Eleanor Gates-Stuart.png

File:Under the Surface by Eleanor Gates-Stuart.png

This image was my own image and deleted. I did sent a permissions email but it has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleanorgatestuart (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.
Furthermore, reuploading your previously deleted files is strictly not allowed here on Commons. If you do that again, you will find yourself unable to edit Commons. --★ Poké95 06:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Si richiede il ripristino della brochur caricata in quanto redatta dal richiedente... grazie pierpaolo sinigaglia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinipier (talk • contribs) 07:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but you have to ask the copyright holder to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. The applicant cannot just require us to undelete this file, we have our own policies, and you and the applicant have to respect that. Grazie, ★ Poké95 09:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Undelete File:Robert Downey Jr with Master Eric Oram.jpg

OTRS has been received by photographer's registered email address. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC))

 Not done: @Australianblackbelt: The OTRS agent that processes the ticket will request undeletion. - Reventtalk 11:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ty price wikipedia.jpg

--Ty Price (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)i am requesting for my profile to be un-deleted , as i have created it in order to to showauthentication. if you look at instagram or facebook , i have many fake accounts about me.

please help asap--Ty Price (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Your image hasn't been deleted, only proposed for deletion so far. Please address this at the deletion discussion, and you may want to consider some of the categories attached to it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Elliott Moglica, Toronto.jpg File:Elliott Moglica, University of Cambridge, England.jpg File:Elliott Moglica, Ottawa, 2015.jpg File:Elliott Moglica.jpg File:Hasan Moglica (1854-1915).jpg File:Fjala e Tokesorit.jpg

Dear Dear Wikimedia Commons,

Thanks for your time and contribution to Wikipedia.

I'm Edeard Moglica. I noticed someone has deleted these photos: File:Elliott Moglica, Toronto.jpg File:Elliott Moglica, University of Cambridge, England.jpg File:Elliott Moglica, Ottawa, 2015.jpg File:Elliott Moglica.jpg File:Hasan Moglica (1854-1915).jpg File:Fjala e Tokesorit.jpg

Please note that I have uploaded these photo and I'm the author of all the photos. Thus, I contributed these photo to Wikipedia. Also, I have notified Wikipedia that this photo can be used by them. I have decided to gift these photo to Wikipedia. As such, respectfully, I address you to allow these photo to be used by Wikipedia.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Edeard — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.149.38.113 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First four files were considered out of scope. Unless an article about Elliott Moglica is present those are just unused personal pictures. The others could be used for en:Hasan Moglica and sq:Fjala e Tokësorit, respectively. But as long as the former is a piece of art and the latter a newspaper header I would be extra careful about them when handling ticket:2016010510005731. --Mates (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support I agree to keep them all for future use. They are good pictures to me. Also, as previous users wrote, for sure two can be used for pages that are in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.189.94.11 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That IP address 205.189.94.11 claimed to be the author of a Moglica file in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose per Mates and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poet.moglica/Archive.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 Support just noticed this, i'm for keeping them. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.215.120 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That IP address 65.93.215.120 has never edited here before, but has recently edited sq:Wikipedia:Artikuj për shqyrtim/Elliott Moglica. Both are tainted per that archive.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for undeletion. Also, Commons doesn't accept sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. --★ Poké95 01:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Demetrios I. Kantakuzenos Ahnentafel.pdf

It is no reason to delete this file:

I did the genealogy tree from the Kantakuzenos family by myself during three years (2006-2008). It is an extremely large work containing sources from hundreds of genealogy-sites and books. It is absolutely impossible to give all the sources. For each family there is at least one source. I have already indicated the most important 8 Sources in the article by "Literatur", "Weblinks" und "Enzelnahweise".

This file is for 8 years in Wikipedia. Why should be deleted just now? The genealogy specialists have proved it and didn’t found in this 8 years any mistake.

(Dan Rascanu (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC))

 Not done File:Demetrios I. Kantakuzenos Ahnentafel.pdf is not deleted yet. This page is not for appealing speedy deletion requests. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Rascanu: I removed the speedy tag, as I don't think it was appropriate. However, it may have been added due to the images and especially coats of arms depictions at the top, which if you did not draw yourself, the sources of those (and their licenses) should be documented. If any of those are non-free, that could make for valid grounds for deletion unless replaced (though not speedy deletion). I assume they are likely taken from files here on Commons, but... that should be noted, and their authors credited per their licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Systems Theory 5- Efficiency.webm

I have verified with the original author that this file is licensed CC-by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fERCNxW0f14&lc=z13avdbhvp3rvvsuw230cbjqdvnjcv1nd.1492187520097441 --Brylie Christopher Oxley 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Could you please ask to change the license at Youtube? It is still "Standard YouTube License". Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Brylie: ping. Anyway, can you also ask the author to release those other videos in that series under a free license too? Those files would be very useful and sister Wikipedia would be happy. Thanks! :-) ★ Poké95 07:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done License changed. @Brylie: , please add categories to the description page. Thuresson (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kaisersteinbrucher Kirche Innen.jpg

No CV. In Austria you are also allowed to publish images of interior of public buildings, if the artist died less than 70 years ago. --Austriantraveler (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose According to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Austria we are not. See other works in the table, 3D and 2D artworks are PD only in public places. The picture in the middle right needs permission. --Mates (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. Read ist exactly. It's a permanent artwork, so you can publish it. But I asked already an Austrian Commons-Admin, who knows the Austrian law, to undelete it. --Austriantraveler (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Entirely aside from the FOP question, there is no source listed for the five images or the montage as a whole. As a general rule, we require that each of the individual images in a montage must be separately uploaded to Commons. This looks like a postal card; it seems likely to me that the only "own work" here is scanning the card.
Note also that once the issue has been raised here, any restoration before this UnDR is closed is out of process and therefore not valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Austriantraveler: But you have changed the guideline today morning. And according to what Quedel replied to you I doubt your change is correct. Still, as I can't speak in german so good I would prefer if they could post a statement here and clarify your changes to the guideline and its application to this specific case. If they do I won't go against their assumption. --Mates (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Kreuzweg1.JPG

see above. In Austria you are allwoed to publish pictures of artworks of artists, died less than 70 yrs ago., also if it's in a public building. --Austriantraveler (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose According to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Austria we are not. See other works in the table, 3D and 2D artworks are PD only in public places. --Mates (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. Read ist exactly. It's a permanent artwork, so you can publish it. But I asked already an Austrian Commons-Admin, who knows the Austrian law, to undelete it. --Austriantraveler (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note that once the issue has been raised here, any restoration before this UnDR is closed is out of process and therefore not valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Austriantraveler: But you have changed the guideline today morning. And according to what Quedel replied to you I doubt your change is correct. Still, as I can't speak in german so good I would prefer if they could post a statement here and clarify your changes to the guideline and its application to this specific case. If they do I won't go against their assumption. --Mates (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Flying Cranes Recordings Logo 2017.png

The FILE WAS FLAGGED BY ME I AM THE CREATOR STOP DELETING MY file — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smooth (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image appears on the Web with an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, in order for it to remain on Commons an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Mates (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:AlexandraFoederlSchmid.jpg

I have rechecked copyright: AlexandraFoederlSchmid.jpg ist completely free content.

--Cpendl (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose From [14]. "Unless otherwise indicated, this Website and its contents are the property of The University of Oxford" [...] Thuresson (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The image appears, larger, at http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/people/alexandra-f%C3%B6derl-schmid-editor-chief-der-standard with an explicit copyright notice "© University of Oxford, 2015". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Mates (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:muñozgambero.jpg

Español: Solicito que se deshaga el borrado de este archivo, que he subido personalmente. El motivo del borrado es que no se han podido comprobar los derechos de autor, licencia o copyright. Confirmo que esa comprobación no será posible ya que no se trata de una imagen registrada, por lo que puede ser considerada libre. Es así porque ha sido facilitada voluntariamente por el propio protagonista de la información en la que se ha insertado y que es Juan Manuel Muñoz Gambero, cuya identidad puede ser verificada en otras imágenes disponibles en redes sociales como linkedin o facebook. Él en persona me solicitó que realizara esta gestión en wikipedia para comprobar la veracidad de la información, así como para insertar una fotografía suya actualizada y real. El señor Muñoz Gambero, al que me une relación personal, está de acuerdo con la publicación de su fotografía y tiene interés en que todo lo publicado acerca de él, incluida su imagen, sea correcto y actual, más aún en un medio con tanta difusión e importancia como wikipedia.

Mi usuario de acceso es nanytt.

Agradezco su interés y espero que consideren mi solicitud, o no sería posible insertar ninguna imagen del protagonista por no disponer de ninguna con un registro verificable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanytt (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
English: I request that you undelete the deletion of this file, which I uploaded personally. The reason for the deletion is that the copyright, license or copyright could not be verified. I confirm that this verification will not be possible since it is not a registered image, so it can be considered free. This is because it has been voluntarily facilitated by the protagonist of the information in which he has been inserted and that is Juan Manuel Muñoz Gambero, whose identity can be verified in other images available on social networks such as linkedin or Facebook. He personally asked me to carry out this management in wikipedia to verify the veracity of the information, as well as to insert a photograph of you updated and real. Mr. Muñoz Gambero, who joins me personally, agrees with the publication of his photograph and is interested in everything published about him, including his image, is correct and current, even more so in a medium with such widespread And importance as wikipedia.

My login is nanytt.

I appreciate your interest and I hope you consider my request, or it would not be possible to insert any image of the protagonist for not having any with a verifiable record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanytt (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC) [machine translation]
  •  Oppose Agreed. The subject of the image usually does not have the right to freely license at -- that right belongs to the actual photographer. In order to restore the image to Commons, the photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: needs a permission through OTRS. --Mates (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:meisamzamanabadi.jpg

Hi I belive and sure this photo has not prblem in copyright You can check it with photographer - mr amin mohammad jamali - on facebook , Instagram or by mail

Thank you

--Journalistiran (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to have the image restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, permission needed, see OTRS. --Mates (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:EngraverIIIScreenshot.jpg

the file was deleted by mistake. I drew this picture self and it cannot violent any copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim255 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support The official web site [15] for this software link to a Flickr album where this particular image is licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0. Thuresson (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Flickr site CC license is subject to the same error as Maxim255: not understanding derivative works. Maxim255 may or may not have taken the screenshot ("drew this picture self"), but it is derivative of the UI and subject photo. Alphaplugins may have made the UI and taken the screenshot, but it is derivative of the subject photo. The subject photo is this image by James Houston. It is not de minimis and there is not evidence that Alphaplugins has permission to license Houston's images. Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please see Commons:Derivative works. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:КОБЯКОВ Аркадий Олегович.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

Temporary recovery of the deleted material to allow the transfer to the Wikipedia project Кобяков Аркадий Олегович (https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Кобяков,_Аркадий_Олегович&stable=1), in which I intend to transfer the file and link to a fair application for the legitimate use of the project.

Serlek (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Please advise here when you are done. In any case the image will be deleted in 24 hours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Yep, it is here. It was in fact created in 2006. Ура! ★ Poké95 04:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The filename now redirects to an identical file with a new filename, and it has an OTRS permission confirmed. It seems this file may now be kept permanently here (unless if new copyright issues arise). Closing. ★ Poké95 04:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File: Yang Yang at Once Upon A Time Press Conference.png

Hi! Sorry for bothering you but I am requesting undeletion of this Yang Yang at Once Upon A Time Press Conference.png. I have already specified the source and author of this picture. If you need further confirmation, I could also ask the photographer to write an email to you to confirm the copyrights granted.

In fact, the photographer has allowed me to upload her work on wiki using the cc by 4.0 license. I am supposed to upload more pictures by the same photographer later on. So please verify the license ASAP so that I could upload more pictures.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venk kkkkk (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore this image,the photographer must send a free license using OTRS. For future images, the photographer may send now a blanket license to OTRS covering all of your future uploads of her work, or she may send individual licenses for images as they occur. The former is more convenient but requires her to trust you not to abuse her broad permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Please ask the photographer to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. Ping Venk kkkkk ★ Poké95 04:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Yang profile pic

Hello,

I took this picture a year ago and I would like to upload it to commons. Unfortunately, the image keeps being deleted for copyright violation. I would like to understand what is going on and why someone thinks this is a copyright violation. It is a picture that I took myself using my own camera.

Thank you very much,

WW--Weiwu888 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose The image can be found online with a watermark of the Sina Visitor System website that has no free licence by default. Therefore we cannot verify that you are actually the original photographer. If you have access to the profile at weibo.com where this is being used, please add a note that the image has been released under a Creative Commons licence by you. Also, once an image gets deleted you are not allowed to upload it again until the issue has been resolved. Otherwise your account may get blocked. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: can you find File:Yang yang 2106 paris france.jpg online?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't find an exact match but it seems to come from the same series that was posted here. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Instagram user @yangyangfansofficial seems not to care about copyright, see here for proof.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Your typical fanblog. Nuff' said. De728631 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello,

Thank you again for trying to help out, I am new to Wikipedia and I am a bit lost so far. I do confirm however that this picture is mine. The blog you are pointing to is a blog of a friend of mine and I am fine with her posting my pictures. My friend also posted the pictures on Weibo, I assume this is why the pictures can be found online with a watermark.

I am now trying to use ORTS to make sure the picture can be used. My ticket number is ticket:2017042210007574.

Thank you,

--Weiwu888 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sara FM.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This logo is our radio station's official company logo. Betimen (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Betimen: Probably, this logo was deleted because it is above the COM:TOO. In that case, you have two options: one, if your company have a website, your company may state there that the logo is released under a free license. Two: an authorized representative or executive must send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 00:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The middle of this logo contains an artistic rendering of a person's face looking toward the sun. This is definitely above the COM:TOO. Daphne Lantier 00:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Paige Hareb.jpg image deleted and why?

I am the owner of this image and have no idea why it was deleted. You can check the image's IPTC to see that I am the photographer - Kathy Klossner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydancer99 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Skydancer99: "Skydancer99" can be anyone. Since identity theft is common, it is standard practice for usernames not matching/similar to their real names to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. This is done to protect your copyright and Commons. Thanks, ★ Poké95 23:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ofori Classic.jpg

This is not a copyright violation because the pictures provided to media are owned by me, Lamikco Magee (legal wife of Ofori Amponsah). If you need more information please contact me at lamikcot@yahoo.com. --Lamikcot (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Lamikco Magee

  •  Oppose No, we don't need information from you, we need OTRS permission from the photographer. Owning an image doesn't make you the copyright holder, unless you made it. The photographer is obviously the copyright holder here. --★ Poké95 05:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Marjan Davari.jpg

Hi,

We are some of Marjan's students who has been held in prison and sentenced to death with unjust and false charges by Iran Government. She gave us the photo 6 years ago and now she is not able to provide you the Copy-Right evidence for her own photo. So we would like to ask you to un-delete her photo and help us raise the awareness of her situation through accessing her Wikipedia page for all the internet users.

Regards.

Free Marjan Davari Campaign --JamesWeinberg1980 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image was deleted because this image is seen on many websites, thanks to Google. I would like to to note that owning an image doesn't make you the copyright holder, unless you are the one who made it. The photographer is the copyright holder in this case, and COM:OTRS permission is required from them, not Marjan Davari. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Public domain files deleted by Jcb

User:Jcb in their robot-like manner deleted a number of clearly PD files without giving themselves trouble checking whether these are eligible. (It was part of a large deletion requests; other deletions are valid, though I may request more undeletions once I have some info about the files).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Five files by Satreup (talk | contribs)

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Consider that they they are all but File:Paco Puertas Rincón de Madrid 1.png duplicates of files already present in Category:Paco_Puertas, and that they have to stay deleted. Ticket not solved yet. --Ruthven (msg) 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Dupes. Ruthven (msg) 13:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Five files of 5anan27 (talk | contribs)

See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-03#Undeletion_request_for_the_seven_files_of_5anan27.

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Two more files of 5anan27 (talk | contribs) with a different photographer

See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-03#Undeletion_request_for_the_seven_files_of_5anan27.

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:1application.jpg

--Younes fati (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)File:1application.jpg

 Not done: File was deleted (twice now) as CSD F9, requester is a sock. Salted. - Reventtalk 16:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I uploaded a photo of polo morin that I PERSONALLY TOOK and u guys deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarinaMartinez1 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @KarinaMartinez1: Please, start a new request saying which file(s) do you want to undelete and why. The file you mentioned in the topic is certainly not the one. Thank you. --Mates (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Heat of Ramadan New Release.png

The Heat of Ramadan New Release

Hi,

If I work for the author of this book and the copyright is listed in the book to their name, can the file be undeleted?

--Drewkatz (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose No, that's not how it works (I am wondering how you thought this). Per standard practice, OTRS permission is required from the copyright holder, which is the publisher (correct me if I am wrong, it may be the author or something I don't know), for book covers like this. Thanks, ★ Poké95 04:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poké.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pushpendra Khadka.png

This is photo is totally my work, and why do you delete this photo?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushpendrakhadka (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Probably this image was deleted because it can be found on an external website. This was deleted in 2013 by INeverCry which is a former admin and one of the most active and trusted admins of all time, so I would trust his judgement. Anyway, if this photo is a selfie, and you are the subject of the photo, please send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. If not, then the photographer (which is not you in this case) must send an email to the OTRS, instead of you. I also suspect that this image is also out of project scope, and if it is really, then this image may not be undeleted unless it can be shown that this image has an educational purpose. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
After some research, it seems this image would not be out of scope, so the only thing here to make this image undeleted is Pushpendrakhadka's or the photographer (if not a selfie)'s declaration of consent via email in the OTRS. ★ Poké95 05:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
^ what Poké wrote.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Originally found on a website http://kavreli.com/index.php?page=item&id=5 (I can't get this link to work). The file size is 150x150px. OTRS needed. --Daphne Lantier 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Cheat Codes.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{OTRS received}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: :@Jeff G.: Restored and tagged. Daphne Lantier 04:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PoloMG.jpg

Me and Vane (Polo_MorinDF & @TEAMOPOLOMORIN) have the photo/video on our twitters with watermarks.--KarinaMartinez1 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@KarinaMartinez1: Thank you for signing. Please send permission for all file description page URLs you want to be restored/protected via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

ill do it, but can you explain me how does OTRS works?--KarinaMartinez1 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Karina

@KarinaMartinez1: That page I linked explains it how we use it, and the underlying system has article en:OTRS on English Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

yes i saw it, i sent an email. hope it works --KarinaMartinez1 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Karina

@KarinaMartinez1: Thank you. Please ping me when replying to me (so I get alerted) and also please read m:Help:Talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS email sent. --Daphne Lantier 04:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Bowers Museum - more reviews

I am talking with someone at the en:Bowers Museum about an image donation to go with the images they already shared at Category:Bowers Museum. There is also private email discussion in Commons:OTRS at ticket:2016121410033994.

I need to sort these images to separate those which depict nonfree works from those which do not. I am unable to examine these images because they are currently deleted and I do not have the originals. I am posting here to either request temporary undeletion, or to request that someone to give an opinion stating which of these images is a depiction of works in the public domain. At this time, the museum is seeking to provide copyright release for photographs, but not for the works in its photographs.

In this first set, by the file name suggested old age (before 1923) I am guessing that these works could have subject matter which is not copyrighted:

  1. file:Brandy Still, c. 1776-1831 Southern California.jpg
  2. file:Basket, c. 1890, Yokuts; California.jpg
  3. file:Lidded Jar, 1796-1820 China.jpg
  4. file:Basket, c. 1900.jpg
  5. file:Standing Female Figure, c. 400-900.jpg
  6. file:Standing Female Figure, c. 300-550 A.D. Remojadas culture; Veracruz, Mexico.jpg
  7. file:Detail of a Carved Tusk, Qing Dynasty to Early Republic of China China.jpg

These titles suggest the museum's own public spaces, and might not focus on any copyrighted art.

  1. file:Norma Kershaw Auditorium.jpg
  2. file:Main Street Entry.jpg
  3. file:Performers at a Family Festival.jpg

By Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing I think these titles suggest clothing which is ineligible for copyright.

  1. file:Woman's Headdress, 20th Century, Akha culture; Golden Triangle Area, North Thailand.jpg
  2. file:Tunic and Skirt, 20th Century Li culture; Hainan Island, China.jpg
  3. file:Woman's Festival Apron with Symbolic Armor Plates; Probably Guizhou Province, China.jpg
  4. file:Gold Ear Ornaments, 20th Century Fulani culture; Mali.jpg

I do not know what these are. These might be of copyrighted works.

  1. file:Metate in Form of a Jaguar with Repeating Parrot Motif, Costa Rica.jpg
  2. file:Scholar's Study, Ming Dynasty Style.jpg - (contains rug, seems comtemporary)
  3. file:Spirits and Headhunters in the Anderson-Hsu-Tu Gallery.jpg - de minimis artwork but seems okay

I previously checked some images at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-03#Bowers_Museum_-_temporary_undeletion. I listed the headdress in the clothing section above, but the other 4 images in that link are of contemporary sculptures for which a copyright release will not be provided at this time.

I would appreciate either undeletion of all of these so that I can make a review, or otherwise, for anyone here familiar with this sort of thing to advise which images seem to depict free content and could be accepted with a free license for the photos from the museum. Will someone please assist? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I have temporarily undeleted all but one, which had previously been temporarily undeleted and then redeleted. - Reventtalk 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Thanks, I looked at all of them, and I am done. They can be deleted again until and unless I get licenses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: ✓ Done Good luck. - Reventtalk 20:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Files were undeleted and deleted both by Revent. Feel free to make another undeletion request (or reopen this one, if you can beat the bot) once the OTRS permission is confirmed. ★ Poké95 09:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Rembert Dennis.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{OTRS received}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I have restored this pending a successful check of the ticket. If it needs to be deleted again, you can ping me here. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you. There is more discussion about this and related files at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#User:ArchiVol_and_User:Sphilbrick.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File is undeleted by De728631 per an OTRS email. If this file needs to be deleted, you may place there a {{Speedy}} tag at the file description page so that all admins may be notified of its needed speedy deletion. ★ Poké95 09:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

I kindly insist that the image has no license issues because: (a) it is a nearly 100-year-old photograph; (b) it has been published numerous times without any problems since 1980s to my knowledge (but I need to check another magazine that was published in 1934 - I'm looking for the issue at the moment); (c) the image has a valid OTRS ticket and (4) it has been on Wikipedia with no problems for nearly two years. To sum up, this photograph has become a public property. 24 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Files related to Soth Polin

File:Cover Dead Heart.jpg

I don't understand why you deleted this picture on Soth Polin's page. It's an old book cover before the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia in 1975 (the KR destroyed everything, all books, all newspapers, they killed 90% of the writers). There is no right holders. Could you help me to resolve this problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domrey sar (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are always copyright holders for such works. Even if a person is deceased copyright is usually transferred to the heirs. And in case of a book cover, it is not the writer who owns the copyright but the artist who designed the cover. Copyright in Cambodia lasts for the lifetime of the creator of a work plus 50 years, and for anonymous works it expires 75 years after the first publication. Since Dead Heart was first published in 1966, the graphical artist who created this cover would have had to die that same year or shortly after for the image to be out of copyright. So there is a high chance that this is still copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Did Soth Polin leave the country for ever July 1974 Mohachun Khmer.jpg

I don't understand why you deleted this picture on Soth Polin's page. It's an extract of an old Cambodian newspaper article before the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia in 1975 (the KR destroyed everything, all books, all newspapers, they killed 90% of the writers). There is no right holders. Could you help me to resolve this problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domrey sar (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Anonymous works in Cambodia are copyrighted for 75 years after first publication. This applies separately to the portrait photograph and the text. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Last Nokor Thom.jpg

I don't understand why you deleted this picture on Soth Polin's page. It's an extract of an old Cambodian newspaper article before the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia in 1975 (the KR destroyed everything, all books, all newspapers, they killed 90% of the writers). There is no right holders. Could you help me to resolve this problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domrey sar (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose See the first paragraph above. There is always a copyright in Cambodia that expires after a certain period of time. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Cambodia/COM:PCP. --Daphne Lantier 04:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nazar_Nadjmi.jpg

I confirm that the file I uploaded earlier is a photo from a personal archive and it does not infringe any copyright. I am a relative of the poet and heir of his copyright. Please, could you explain me how to unblock the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansaf (talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Назар Наджми.jpg

I confirm that the file I uploaded earlier is a photo from a personal archive and it does not infringe any copyright. I am a relative of the poet and heir of his copyright. Please, could you explain me how to unblock the photo?

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:DZIDZIO Хіти.jpg

We have all rights for this cover image. --Meisonbiz (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Meison Entertainment

Please have the photographer, cover image designer, and production company contact OTRS with permission, or details on how you got permission.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder/s is needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ХА-ХА-ХА.jpg

We have all rights for this cover image. --Meisonbiz (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Meison Entertainment

Please have the photographer, cover image designer, and production company contact OTRS with permission, or details on how you got permission.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder/s is needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:DZIDZIO.jpg

We have all rights for this cover image. --Meisonbiz (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Meison Entertainment

Please have the photographer, cover image designer, and production company contact OTRS with permission, or details on how you got permission.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder/s is needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Erodr app screenshot.png

Hello, The file was deleted since it was suspected of violating the copyright law. I can provide you with evidence that I am publishing it on behalf of MLSDev Inc., the owner and creator of erodr. Therefore, we have full rights to publish the screenshots of this app to the Wikipedia article about it. I hope you will review my request favorably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella Sheldonimo (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So why did you claim that you are the copyright owner? Please use the process described at Commons:OTRS to procee with this. Thuresson (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Warsaw Hub.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There was no copyright violation - proper consent has been sent to OTRS. Abronikowski (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file will be undeleted only after a OTRS volunteer has processed your request in due order. Thuresson (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS must be processed and confirmed. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pipistrel.png

This file should not be deleted because I downloaded it from a Wikipedia page (the file didn't exist in Commons) to use it in the same Wikipedia article, in the translation to Portuguese that I made. Pedrocoiso1 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pedrocoiso1: The file was deleted because you were trying to use it in a fair use manner, which we don't do here on Commons per COM:FU. You copied it from en:File:Pipistrel.png, which is fair use and copied from http://www.pipistrel.si/, which is "Copyright © 2014". The good news is that you could transfer it directly from English Wikipedia to Portuguese Wikipedia because the latter has an EDP. Also, in making your case here, you neglected to specify the file, and what's more, you seemingly disregarded and overwrote our top line HTML comment "PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE". Kindly follow our policies and procedures or suffer the consequences.  — Jeff G. ツ 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Can/should be directly uploaded under fair use at pt.wiki. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Fool Moon 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission (ticket:2017040110006579) Regasterios (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Regasterios: go ahead and add the ticket. Thanks. --Daphne Lantier 19:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Balsakha.jpg

The front page of Balsakha magazine is published 100 years ago in 1917 and according The Copyright Act Of India 1957,which is also recognized by United States Of America under the treaty of both countries, which states that after 60 years from publication,any such work is not considered under this copyright act and can be used by anyone. So please undelete the specified image. Thanking You, Pushpendra Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpschauhan (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support PD-India. Source: https://sscomicsheaven.blogspot.fr/2016/03/Balsakha-002-Feb-1917.html @Drpschauhan: Next time, could you please provide the correct source, date, author, and license? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-India. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dialog, St. Hanzík, 1983, Voršilská zahrada u Nové Scény, Národní divadlo.jpg, File:Danae, Stanislav Hanzík, 1967, vápenec.jpg

Hello, I would like to ask for undeletion of:

Both are artworks of Mr. Stanislav Hanzík, both were depicted in public places and both author of the picture is unknown (according to OTRS correspondence). Do they reach a threshold of originality or are they out of scope of licensing and therefore Public domain? I deleted them once so I would like another user to help me making the final decision. Thanks --Mates (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mates: What does COM:FOP have to say about the country they were in?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: As stated in FOP#Czech Republic. --Mates (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mates: Since the matter has no precedent in the Czech courts and the Czech law on the matter is murky, I'd follow COM:PRP, as you did initially. Rereading your post, we don't have permission of the artist and he's still alive, so wait ~75 years after his death before thinking of restoring.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: OK, as you say, that artist's permission is needed. I can get that quite easily, but I was uncertain if we need a permission from the person who has took the picture itself. --Mates (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mates: Whether or not we need the photographer's permission depends on the perfection of the 2D copy of the 2D original, right?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion, until permission comes no undeletion. --Mates (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ibradili ibrahim hayrettin.jpg

I greatly appreciate the careful and thoughtful approach of Wikipedia about copyrights. At this point, I request that the deleted image file be loaded again. I am the grand-daughter of İbrahim Hayrettin Ağıldere. This photograph belongs to our family. We have the copyrights of the photo. Yet, as our grandfather is an eminent historical figure and this is his only photograph in a formal suit representing an important image of the First World War Era, as members of the family, we use the photograph online and also allow those who write about history to use the photo on the subject freely. The photograph has already been published in many books with our permission of free use. Therefore, please get in touch with me if you have any further questions, and accept my sincere and true declaration that publishing this photograph will not cause any liabilities or shame on Wikipedia. 20 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @F Gulsima Baykal: Reading the deletion request of this file, you sent before an email to the OTRS, am I correct? I would like to note that owning a photograph doesn't make you the copyright holder, unless you are the one who made it. The copyright holder of this image is the photographer. Please ask the photographer, if they are still alive, or their heir(s), if dead, to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. For now, I  Oppose undeleting this image until permission from the photographer is received and confirmed. --★ Poké95 09:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ibradili ibrahim hayrettin.jpg, this file had what turned out to be Ticket:2015050910014351 and no investigation when it was on Turkish Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless the OTRS volunteer is no longer active, can someone confirm who the OTRS volunteer was for this ticket and ping them here for an explanation of their actions please? I see no reason why this should be a secret and there may be a great deal of benefit in having some public scrutiny of other tickets. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fae: The agent is still active, and I sent them an email asking them to comment here. - Reventtalk 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to explain, some agents use an alias instead of their real name when handling tickets, and some use their real name. I don't know which is the case here, but the username in combination with the email itself might expose personal info (re otrswiki:List of accounts "The contents of this page (which exists merely for internal coordination) are confidential—they should not be given, in part or in full, to anyone who is not an OTRS agent. This applies specifically to response names, email addresses, as well as the list of roles held by a particular agent." - Reventtalk 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Yes, I know how OTRS works, having been a volunteer for two years. This does not stop us from identifying who added the OTRS ticket from the image page history. Please ping that account here and we will be able to discuss if there are issues with other tickets or not. Being an OTRS volunteer should never be an excuse to evade basic transparency and accountability for their actions taken on this project. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fae: The OTRS ticket was added on trwiki, and then the file was transferred here by someone else...I have never seen the trwiki history. Like I said, I pinged them by email and they will probably comment here, but I'm not going to say who it is, as it would potentially 'out' them to anyone who has a copy of the OTRS correspondence. Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but it's safer... you are asking for info that I, and indeed anyone who cannot see the history of deleted files on trwiki, obtained under a confidentiality agreement. - Reventtalk 12:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a disconnect here. The only people with access to the OTRS correspondence are those with access to OTRS. Nobody has asked for that to be published. I am, directly, asking for public information, which is precisely the account name that added the OTRS ticket to the image. Again this is public information, not covered by any WMF confidentiality agreement, which deletion is not intended to obscure (this was not the reason for deletion), and does not "out" the name used for external correspondence, which itself can be a pseudonym and there is no reason to associate with the account name I'm asking for.
Please add that public and non-confidential information to this UNDEL request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fae: That's exactly it. I cannot tell you "the account name that added the OTRS ticket to the image", because it was done on trwiki, and I cannot see it. All I can see is the name of the OTRS account that handled the ticket, and use the confidential account page to find out how to contact the agent. They might be (and probably are) the same, but I have no way to know that. - Reventtalk 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hakan Duran: as you were adding OTRS tickets on Commons, could you clarify the circumstances of who did what on trwiki? I am exceedingly uncomfortable that public information is being obscured in a way that avoids any direct accountability for actions taken. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: I have added a note to that ticket referencing this conversation and reopening the ticket, as it is now an open question. Be aware, that agent has not edited any project in over a month.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: That depends on your definition of "active". Also, in order for ping to work, you have to use the actual username, "Fæ", rather than typing "Fae". Copy/paste is best for this, as most of us probably don't have the "æ" glyph on our keyboards.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Oi, I always forget his actual username is weird. Thanks. - Reventtalk
@Revent: You're welcome. However, unless you know something I don't know, and in the spirit of COM:GNL, please avoid using gendered pronouns to refer to Fæ, as it seems a sensitive subject.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The OTRS e-mail is from a g-mail address whose name is similar to that of the uploader. It is one sentence that says only that the sender licenses the file -- the sender does not claim to own the copyright. Assuming that the sender is the same person as the uploader, as noted above, there is no reason to believe that he or she has the right to license this image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Pokéfan95: The photograph, which must have been taken in early 1920s, has been the property of the family since then. We don't know who took it. Most probably, the photographer, who was paid for it - if not taken by another family member - died. This is a kind of photograph that belongs to public now. It has been published, through books and on the internet for more than 40 years. If there was a licence owner in the sense it is mentioned here, the owner - who is definitely me, my two siblings and my two cousins, as the only heirs of all Ibrahim Hayrettin's belongings - would have long ago objected to it. Is a legal document needed, to show that I am his grand-daughter and his heir?In addition, I would also like to mention that between 3rd and 10th of May 2015, I have corresponded with someone from the Wikipedia Information team and I did everything required from me so that we do the right thing. The photograph will definitely add great value, increasing the quality of an important Wikipedia item.

20 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jameslwoodward: Dear Jim, ı find it difficult to follow the OTRS issues. But I understand your concern about copyright issues very well. Here, the subject matter is a photograph that was taken nearly 100 years ago, and we have it in the family album as one original copy. We provided this copy's prints for writers and other concerned historians whenever needed. In other words, there is no license issue about this image. The image is the photograph of a historical figure (my grandfather) in the formal dress code of the first world war era. That's why it is important that it can be seen together with the written information. I'm kindly asking you to reconsider your opposition of my request. The photograph will definitely not violate any license rights. It will only add value to this Wikipedia item. PS. I'm also publishing the same photo in a blog and a facebook page of his name.

20 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

F Gulsima Baykal, unfortunately, as has been pointed out above, your understanding of copyright is incorrect. Repeating the facts will not change the fact that owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. You certainly understand that if you own a paper copy of a book, you cannot make and sell copies of it. Exactly the same rules apply to photographs. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, an heir of the actual photographer must freely license it. If the photographer is unknown, then the image cannot be kept on Commons until it is old enough so that we can assume that the photographer died more than 70 years previously. If the image was taken in the 1920s, that will be forty years from now.
There is another possibility. You say that it has been published before. Where and when was it first published? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The first book (to my knowledge) that used the image was published in late 1980s in Ankara, Turkey. It is a book by Prof Dr Izzettin Baris named “Canakkale Savaslari (Gallipoli Wars)”. The book was published again in 2000 in Istanbul. They were distributed in Turkey. The books listed in the references no. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the entry also include the same image. They are still available for sale. Additionally, the same image was used in at least two history magazines; NTV Magazine (2011) and Ibradı Magazine (2016). Finally, it will be useful to remember that the ownership of copyrights do not always have to belong to the author only. It is determined by the author and the service buyer mutually. There is a clear and great difference between “owning an inherited property from the family” and “owning a book or a photographer’s work”. On important occasions, we invite a photographer and pay him to take photographs for us, making the photographs our property – having paid the person to produce a “property” that we could use for our own purposes. The agent who helped me with receiving a valid OTRS ticket for the image did so because of our ownership of the image with all its rights, and that we allow the image to be used as public property because of the historical importance of the person, who has only one photograph that can reflect the historical event. Finally, 1920s was nearly 100 years from now, not forty. 21 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

First, again, it does not matter if the photographer was paid, unless there is a written agreement with the photographer which licenses the rights, you do not have the right to freely license the image. That is well established law and no amount of your wishing it were otherwise will change it.
Second, my "forty years from now" was the time when we could assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years -- that is, in 2055, 130 years after the image was created. In order for the image to be out of copyright now, we have to assume that the photographer died only 20 years after taking the photograph, and that is not a reasonable assumption.
Third, I asked the question about publication because, in some countries, the law is that a photograph taken by an unknown person goes out of copyright 70 years after publication. However, if first publication was in the 1980s, that does not help. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The original authorship of the photograph is unclear. Purchasing a paper print from the photographer does not automatically transfer the copyright, so this image has to be treated as non-free. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Autograph-KrataeRsiam.png

Hi this signature Kratae gave it to me on a trip I did to Thailand, this image was scanned and I made some adjustments and accommodate colors, really don't understand why you want to delete this image has always been mine, and I decide how to use it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kym tejuita (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, this is not the place to contest speedy deletions where the image has not been deleted. Request are made at this page only to restore a deleted file. As to the "own work" claim, owning a physical copy of Kratae's signature does not make you the copyright holder. This is not how copyright works. Scanning the orginal paper does not create a new copyright for you so could grant a Creative Commons licence. Instead, Kratae would be the only one who could licence the free use his signature provided that signatures in Thailand are eligible for copyright. We do have a Category:Signatures of people from Thailand but as it seem, all signatures in there were either taken from official documents which are not copyrighted anyway, or any potential copyright has expired because of old age. So, what we need to find out, is whether a generic signature would be copyrightable in Thailand. If not, we can use {{PD-signature}} for your scan. I have therefore converted the speedy deletion tag to a deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Autograph-KrataeRsiam.png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Krzysztof Pastor, photo Łukasz Murgrabia.tif

The file was deleted before we (at permissions-pl) could process the OTRS ticket. Permission filed under #2017041910010496. Halibutt (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Halibutt: {{Request temporary undeletion}} has proven useful for me in such requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:AIG Headquarters.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{OTRS received}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Alexander Rudensky.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{OTRS received}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Юлія Ковалів портрет.jpg

Please restore File:Юлія Ковалів портрет.jpg we have received OTRS permission from copyright holder (Ticket:2017041010012634). --sasha (krassotkin) 07:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Work for hire?. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Famous15.jpg

Ticket:2017021910005282 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please add the sources. --Yann (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Henning Scheich for Wikipedia ca 1992 in Darmstadt.jpg

Ticket:2017021710011993 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:THW WP Reinfeld.jpg

Bild Quelle: THW

Alle vom THW zur Verfügung gestellten Bilder sind honorarfrei und dürfen unter Angabe der Quelle "THW" für die Berichterstattung über das THW und das Thema Bevölkerungsschutz verwendet werden. Hiermit bestätige ich die Einhaltung der Nutzungsrechte zu Bildern des THW. --2A02:8108:AC0:2EC4:8C4B:FAD1:8564:614B 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Björn Staats THW OVELM

 Oppose Can not be used for any purpose. Thuresson (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Alle Bilder und sonstige Medien auf Wikimedia Commons müssen für jedermann zu allen möglichen Zwecken frei verfügbar sein. Dazu gehören z. B. auch die Bearbeitung und der Verkauf der Bilder. Eine Freigabe nur zur Berichterstattung über das THW und den Bevölkerungsschutz genügt dazu nicht. Die Vergabe einer Creative Commons-Lizenz kann ebenfalls nicht durch das THW als Auftraggeber bzw. Arbeitgeber erfolgen, sondern nur persönlich durch die jeweiligen Fotografen, da das Urheberrecht in Deutschland tatsächlich nicht übertragen werden kann. Außerdem widerspricht die Einschränkung der Nutzung durch das THW der Creative Commons-Lizenz, die ausdrücklich alle Verwendungen gestattet.

Insufficient non-free licence. De728631 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Raymond Persin par Georges Paul-Manceau (1908).png

I personally took this picture of this painting which belongs to my wife, great granddaughter of Raymond Persin.

Thanks --AgathaNi (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Georges Paul-Manceau (1872-1955). Thuresson (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See Commons:Derivative works: the painting itself is still copyrighted so even if you own the painting, you are not allowed to publish a photograph of it without consent from the painter's heirs. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Assainissement, Chaîne de valeur.jpg

Hello , I don't understand why this image has been deleted. I have made a translation of this image File:Sanitation Value Chain.jpg licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. This image is important to explain the sanitation chain in french. Please undelete it. Dorian — Preceding unsigned comment added by DowdowFR (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support It was deleted because the English version of it was found elsewhere on the Web without a free license. That happened because you violated the Gates Foundation copyright by not giving credit to them for having created the image -- your translation is a derivative work and the CC-BY license which you note above requires that you give the creator credit.

However, since it appears that it is a Gates image and is CC-BY, I think we can restore it provided that it is correctly credited. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim. @DowDowFR: please give correct attribution to the file. Ruthven (msg) 15:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Five deleted uploads of User:Satreup

Ticket:2017030110018022 alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

{{done}}: except one, duplicate: File:Paco Puertas La fragua.jpg. --Yann (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @Jeff G. and Yann: I deleted them again as they all have a duplicate in Category:Paco_Puertas --Ruthven (msg) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks anyway.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example of the two colour.png

Example of the two colour. Red, Green, Blue. Request temporary undeletion Арсений Иванов (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:London Games Festival official guidebook.jpg

10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billfromhk (talk • contribs) 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/File:London Games Festival official guidebook.jpg Thuresson (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 03:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Stefanja Orlowska at the opening night arrivals of the 15th annual Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles.png

--Dragos.betea (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Betea Dragos 4.27.2017

Please restore the file File:Stefanja Orlowska at the opening night arrivals of the 15th annual Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles.png i had the permission to use it. And i don't break any copyright because the file its free to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos.betea (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Esteban_Guzman.jpg

Hola. Esteban Guzmán es un gran aporte para la sociedad civil en la defensa de derechos humanos. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.163.184.88 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Puede enviar permiso via OTRS. (You can send permission via OTRS.)   — Jeff G. ツ 23:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 03:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:United Bengal.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file United Bengal is my creation and i uploaded the file in Wikimedia for free of use . The file in banglawiki.org also uploaded by me . You will find the Wikimedia uploaded File:United Bengal.png is in high resolution and its not breaking any copyright Law . Megamindcorp (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I am learning the Wikipedia rules . Sending the permission via OTRS . And Thank you Jeff for your kind suggestion . Aziz Tarak. (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as soon as the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. --Daphne Lantier 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Daphne Lantier: Jeff is a OTRS volunteer, and the file as a OTRS pending tag. It seems reasonable to restore it. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Mi chiamo Mariano Pallottini e "Questa" è la mia foto. L'ho postata su alcuni siti di condivisione fotografica come 500px (https://500px.com/photo/50388072/autumn-in-le-marche-by-mariano-pallottini?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=139906). Io sono l'autore e vorrei capire in che modo ho infranto il copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffsdaddy (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gwangyangstadium2.JPG

this is my picture. i maked this picture! --Yanikor (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Daphne. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Esteban_y_Vicente_02.jpg

Esteban Guzmán es un importante activista LGBT del sur de Chile. Su biografía en Wikipedia es un aporte para estudiantes. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.163.184.88 (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Vea Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esteban y Vicente 02.jpg por favor, y puede enviar permiso via OTRS. (Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esteban y Vicente 02.jpg, and you can send permission via OTRS.)   — Jeff G. ツ 23:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. OTRS-permission from photographer Camila Lasalle is needed to restore the photo. Taivo (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Error al eliminar pagina

Hola

Te escribo para solicitarte que por favor, elimines la etiqueta de mantencion de la pagina del activista Esteban Guzman. (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteban_Guzm%C3%A1n)

El activista y defensor de DD.HH es entrevistado regularmente por estudiantes y periodistas, su pagina en Wikipedia es un fuerte de información enciclopedica para ellos.

Confiando en una buena recepción.

Atte. Aloncorrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloncorrea (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aloncorrea: No hacemos eso, pero alguien lo hizo. (We don't do that, but someone did.)   — Jeff G. ツ 22:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: es.wiki issue. Ruthven (msg) 11:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:La nostra Polizia locale a Mirandola per il terremoto (13944014636).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the original author/owner of the image deleted is a Local Government of Italy (Comune di Sesto San Giovanni = Sesto San Giovanni municipality) that uploaded its official/original work on Flickr with Public Domain Mark. The image was deleted sice "PDM is no-license". If so, according to national law of Italy (article 52.2 of Digital Administration Code of Italy - D.Lgs. 07/03/2005, n.82) this work published by an italian public administration without a license is considered by law as "open data by default" and totally free (for commercial use too) with attribution or CC-BY (see also National guide lines, page 84, of the AgID - National Agency for Digital Italy). For these reasons, I guess that this PDM image (and all images published by any italian public administration with PDM) could be compatible with Commons copyright policy. Thank you for your attention. Holapaco77 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support PDM is not a licence but if we can establish why something is in the public domain, the image can be kept. In this case, {{Attribution}} should be alright considering the Digital Administration Code as linked above. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Actually I re-licensed the file with CC0 because in the PDM (p.80-81) "Public domain" is associated to CC0 waiver as a "tool for the Open Data" that permits the implementation of public domain. Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Rene Liu.jpg

It's my own work. Or can be release under cc-by-sa 3.0, you can see the license on this page (my blog). And why the file be deleted without noticing uploader?--Reke (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Using CC by 3.0. Ruthven (msg) 12:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Miquel Blay

Self-explanatory. Blay's works are in the public domain since Jan 1 2017. --Discasto talk 10:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no file named and no request made. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tatai buszjáratok, térkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG

Reason of the discuss

Hi Jcb! Globetrotter19 contacted me and said that the deleted file is a cropped version of File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG which shows an information table erected in a permanent manner (Hungary has FoP). Thus, I think FoP applies in this case and the file can be restored. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, Einstein2 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 ([16])

After that Jcb immediately designated for deletion the 'big file' (File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG). The discuss is here [17].

So, if 'the Big' is FoP, I think the cropped version also FoP and can be restored.

Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Srinath Singh.jpg

This image is published for public use anywhere by the permission of Sushila Chauhan,daughter of Thakur Srinath Singh, resident of Allahabad. This work now follows The Copyright Act Of India 1957,which is also recognized by United States Of America under the treaty of both countries. So please undelete the specified image. Thanking You, Pushpendra Singh (son of Sushila Chauhan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpschauhan (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drpschauhan: Hi,
"published for public use" is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. We need either a free license, or an evidence that the file is in the public domain. For that, could you please provide when the picture was first published, and who is the photographer? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:MAQUETA IMAGEN FINAL INDICATIVA DEL NUEVO BARRIO DEL JARAMA.jpg

La imagen se basa en desarrollo digital de maqueta del Plan Parcial para el barrio del Jarama desarrollada por mi con sotfwar skechup pro e insertada en google earth.

Google permite el uso "público" de su programa Google Earth para georeferenciar diseños arquitectónicos, de ordenación del paisaje y urbanísticos, que son propiedad intelectual de sus respectivos autores, y que sólo son visibles en el PC de los particulares en los que está instalado el programa. No procede por tanto pedir el borrado de la imagen alegando incumplimiento de los derechosde autor, siendo el desarrollo de un trabajo propio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This file has not been deleted. Please make comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Luisangelzas. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:IMAGEN FINAL PLAN PARCIAL DEL BARRIO DEL JARAMA.jpg

No precede alegar violación de los derechos de autor para solicitar el borrado de esta imagen. Se trata de variante de modelo digital desarrollado con licencia legal de SkechUp Pro y subido a la aplicación de Google Earth, siendo el uso del mismo "público" y usado para georeferenciar proyectos arquitectónicos, de ordenación del paisaje y/o urbanísticos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. Google Earth is not free. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CENTRO URBANO DE SAN FERNANDO DE HENARES año 2015

Google Help> Google Earth Help> More Information> Legal and Privacy Issues> Legal Issues> Using Images

Legal issues: Using images We are flattered to know that you are going to incorporate Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use images from the app (for example, on your website, blog, or word processor) as long as you retain copyright and attribution notices, including the Google logo. However, you may not sell them to third parties, offer them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product, such as a book or television program, without obtaining the necessary permissions from Google previously.

The image is based on digital model google earth treated digitally creating a different variant of the original by the author of it.

For all these reasons it is not appropriate to ask for the erasure of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. Google Earth is not free. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kimberley_Garner.jpg

Hello,

The above mentioned image has unlawfully been deleted. It was marked as a copyright violation. The rights of the image belong to © Kimberley Garner. The owner has requested that I use this photo on their Wikipedia page/article.

Please undelete this image and reinstate in on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Garner.

Thank you.

Kind regards, Ashldn (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Words such as "unlawfully deleted" are not helpful. An action taken according to Commons policy is not unlawful in any way. In fact, even if the action were in violation of Commons policy (which this was not), it would still not be unlawful.

There are two problems here. First, the file description says that the photographer was Kimberley Garner herself. It does not look like a selfie, so I suspect that the actual photographer is another person, who is, therefore, the copyright holder.

Second, "requested that I use this photo on their Wikipedia page/article" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP:EN must be freely licensed for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use (posters, t-shirts, etc) and derivative works.

In order to restore the image, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. If that person is not the photographer, then the e-mail must include written evidence of the copyright license or transfer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --Daphne Lantier 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:United Bengal.png

Ticket:2017042610024422 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Daphne Lantier: Jeff is a OTRS volunteer, and the file as a OTRS pending tag. It seems reasonable to restore it. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I sent the permission via OTRS and provided may evidence why its not violating any copyright . As i am not a experienced wikipedians . Confusion or mistake may happen . Can i know the fate of this file ? Aziz Tarak. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz Tarak. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aziz Tarak.: Please do not delete vast swaths of others' work here any more without good reason, and sign your work.
Administrators: The preceding text by me, Yann, and Aziz prior to 20:10, 28 April 2017 was copied from Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-04#File:United_Bengal.png, which I believe was improperly closed. Yann and I have access to the OTRS ticket from the inside, Aziz has access to it from the outside via email, and Daphne Lantier has no access to it and is a new Administrator. I respectfully request that Daphne Lantier reconsider or an Administrator with access to the ticket take a second look. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and will await OTRS proccessing. --Daphne Lantier 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:延榮.jpg

Hi，could you tell me why you deleted 延榮.jpg image of the article 延榮？This is the portrait of my great grandfather I found in my family's album. It was scanned by myself. My great grandfather died in year 1916. I have no idea who and where this photo was token. Could you help me and tell me how can I share this image?

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 亦飛 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right almost always belongs to the photographer or his heirs. 1916 is thirty years too recent for us to assume that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I think you have the law wrong. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#People.27s_Republic_of_China, the law is confusing. Article 18 tells us that for a work with an unknown author, the term is 50 years after first publication. According to Article 18, Article 21, which gives a term of 50 years after publication or, if unpublished, then 50 years after creation, applies only after the author has been identified, so it does not apply here. Or do I misunderstand the interaction of the two provisions?

We apparently don't know the author and the image came out of a family album, so was not published until recently. If my reading of the law is correct, the image cannot be kept unless the photographer and an heir can be identified to give permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I agree that the law is confusing. To make matters worse, Article 20 of the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (not shown in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#People.27s_Republic_of_China), defines a "published work" to be "a work made available to the public by the copyright owner or by another party with the copyright owner's authorization". The uploader is neither the copyright holder nor likely to have the copyright owner's authorization so we may not consider this photo as "recently published" in the context of China's copyright law. --Wcam (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't add that, because it seemed like a problem we didn't have to face for fifty years. That's a general rule -- something cannot become "published" in the technical sense unless the copyright holder has authorized it. That was particularly important during the "notice required" era in the USA -- otherwise anyone could have put something in the PD simply by publishing it without notice .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point. If the photo is never "published", then Article 18 of the Regulations is not relevant here. We should only consider Article 21 of the Copyright Law which says the photo's copyright has already expired because it is unpublished over 50 years after creation. Also, the actual Copyright Law has a higher legal effect in China's legal system over the Regulation. --Wcam (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Walia, Ratan Ginwala, Abhay Deol and Nadir Patel at an event in Mumbai, April 21, 2017.jpg

This is a picture owned by me. I have clicked this picture and own all the rights to publish it anywhere. --PreetiYFL (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Could you please upload the original unmodified picture, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please follow Yann's directions. --Daphne Lantier 19:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Wallia, Abhishek Bachchan, Suhail Chandhok and Aneesh Madani snapped at the Twitter headquarters in Mumbai on June 4, 2016.jpg

This picture has been clicked on my mobile. I was present at the venue. I own all copyrights to this particular image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PreetiYFL (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Copied from Facebook. Could you please upload the original unmodified picture, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please follow Yann's directions. --Daphne Lantier 19:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Peugeot 2008DKR Tehran.jpg

This file was deleted by user:EugeneZelenko because it was not in original resolution. It was my own work, but I was edited it before uploading here. how shall I get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi666 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Mahdi666 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mahdi666: You have two options: one, upload the original photo here, or two, follow the procedure at OTRS. I would  Oppose undeletion of this image for now until this issue has been resolved. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: How can I upload the original one? you removed the original one that I uploaded again after first deletion by user:EugeneZelenko. Mahdi666 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mahdi666: Oh, I don't know it was the original photo. Please upload it again, but under a different filename. Thanks, ★ Poké95 04:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The original picture has EXIF data, so AGF. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


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

Ruth Porat image File:Ruth Porat.jpg on her wikipedia was deleted

Hi, I wanted to get more information as to why the image for Ruth Porat was taken down? Please let me know, many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpasynkova (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Copied from the Internet. --Yann (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Srinath Singh.jpg

The photograph of Thakur Srinath Singh was taken by Pushpendra Singh. It was first published on 14th February 2015 in the blog - Thakur Srinath Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpschauhan (talk • contribs) 04:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drpschauhan: Hi,
Please ask Pushpendra Singh to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Singh died in 1996. Thuresson (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015. Mistakenly deleted by EugeneZelenko who ignored Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coentor.--Coentor (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I don't think he ignored the earlier DR -- he was probably not aware of it. There is nothing in these file descriptions to indicate that these sculptures are temporary and are burned. In fact, you have not said that here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Coentor. Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Fig Tree Hall UNSW.jpg

Hi, I am requesting undeletion for the Fig Tree Hall logo as I am the representative for Fig Tree Hall and I gave permission for the logo to be used on Wikipedia. Is this ok? Please tell me how I can fix this, if there is a problem or if I need to verify permission. Salomėja Nėris (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Salomėja Nėris: Hi,
As for any content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please beware that "to be used on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. We need a permission for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Waiting for an OTRS ticket. Ruthven (msg) 12:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rubber Soul (Frontal2).jpg

File:Rubber Soul (Frontal2).jpg

Solicito el uso libre de esta imagen ya que pienso que debería ser pública así como lo es también en la Wikipedia en Inglés. Sin ninguna restricción. FranTB63 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Where do you think it appears on WP:en? As it is now, it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the actual photographer, which the file description says is "Robert Freeman". It also says that the source is www.fanart.tv, but there are no images by Robert Freeman there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
English: I request the free use of this image since I think it should be public as it is also in Wikipedia in English. Without any restrictions.
[machine translation] FranTB63 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose
    Español: ¿Dónde crees que aparece en WP: es? Como es ahora, no se puede mantener en Commons sin una licencia gratuita del fotógrafo real, que la descripción del archivo dice es "Robert Freeman". También dice que la fuente es www.fanart.tv, pero no hay imágenes de Robert Freeman allí.
    [machine translation]   — Jeff G. ツ 00:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


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

File:V Xornada de Cine Ourense.jpg

Source= Autoría propia --Carolina Laíño (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

    •  Oppose As for any content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    •  Oppose
      Català: Pel que fa a qualsevol contingut prèviament publicat en un altre lloc, es necessita un permís oficial per escrit del propietari del copyright. Si us plau, vegeu COM:OTRS per al procediment.
      [machine translation]   — Jeff G. ツ 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-04&oldid=358741687"