Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-05

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:Artifex.jpg

The Artifex label is no longer in business and has not been for over 15 years. The trademark is not being used or planning on being used, therefore the logo should fall under fair use, as it describes a past event. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.164.63.238 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@216.164.63.238: No. The logo for Artifex Records was designed ca. 1991, when the business started in the U. S. The copyright to that logo is still held by the designer, or its heir, successor, or assign, until 70 years after the year of the designer's death, and it has been deemed above the U. S. Threshhold of Originality. The logo could be reuploaded to English Wikipedia under fair use until that time. We don't do fair use here.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Fair use is strictly not allowed on Commons. --★ Poké95 02:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:T32Nr1.jpg

This photo was originally taken by US Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) as part of official duties in 1946. According to The Copyright Act of 1976, I believe it is not protected by copyright.--Medalofdead (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Medalofdead, in the file description you said that the source was: "Hunnicutt, R. P., & Dyer, D. P. (1988). Firepower: a history of the American heavy tank. Novato, CA: Presidio." The book presumably has an explicit copyright notice. As noted in the deletion comment, it appears on Flickr as (c) All Rights Reserved. There is nothing in the file description that says that this is an Army image. Such images are often taken by the manufacturer. It is up to you to prove that it is an Army image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, evidence that this is an army photo is needed. --Daphne Lantier 08:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:北京大學力學專業流體力學班畢業合影 1957年8月.jpg

I'd like to have "北京大學力學專業流體力學班畢業合影 1957年8月.jpg" undeleted. It was the graduation picture token in August 1957. I found it in my parent's albums. Both of my parents are in the picture. I have no idea who took the picture. It must be arranged by Peking University.

Please let me know your decision.

Best regards,

Yifei Hsieh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 亦飛 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Wcam's oppose. --Daphne Lantier 08:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kseniyayorshimdb.jpg File used with permission from photographer and author Luca Brinciotti and is free for distribution in any media for fair use.

File does not infringe copyright.

The file was linked from IMDB, BUT, the file was used with permission from photographer and author Luca Brinciotti.

See video from author on which photo was taken: https://vimeo.com/205457368 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelpty (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The file can be distributed freely under fair use, and hence, does not infringe any of wikimedia's rules.

Please revise and undelete.

--Pixelpty (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons:Fair use. Please read Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per COM:FU -- no fair use on Commons. --Daphne Lantier 08:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Wiener Linien ULFB.jpg

On 14.04.2017 I wrote an affirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, that I am the creator and owner of the file.

My name is Dominik Krawczyk, I am registered at Wikimedia since 2013 with my private email address d.krawczyk@mac.com, and this is my personal photo blog @fujiuser.com, where you can see the file published too. https://fujiuser.com/fuji-xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr/ Don't know, why it got deleted?! Never experienced this before. Not funny!

Regards, Dominik Krawczyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnbn (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The file was deleted because you listed the author as https://fujiuser.com. We require evidence that you are the copyright holder. Once the OTRS permission email you sent is processed and confirmed, the image can be restored. --Daphne Lantier 08:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Orbán Attila-001.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission arrived (2016011810020681). See also at Hungarian Wikipedia: hu:Fájl:Orbán Attila.jpg. Regasterios (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please mention this in the DR. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Detail of Mrs Mounter at the Breakfast Table, 1917 - showing closeness of actual tones.jpg

Hi

I uploaded my own photograph without realising I needed to issue the release document. I have now done this for this file:

I have since added this to common source wiki documents.

The licence for the full picture is already covered for the Wiki page by the following message:

Licensing[edit] This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: Public domain The author died in 1919, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 95 years or less.

I took the photograph of this painting so I am able to sign the license for this to be open use.

Thank you for your help

Simon Collins/Gunnysack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnysack (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted, nothing to be done. --Yann (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ivinskaya 1.jpg

This picture belongs to my family archive, it was deleted without valid reason -- someone said it belonged to the Pasternak museum, which is absolutely false. Please be aware that the Russian version of wikipedia is writing vilifying comments on my grandmother, and they try everything to make her image disappear. Andrei Kozovoi — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiKozovoi (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@AndreiKozovoi: What matters is who is the photographer. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS if you own the copyright of this. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 23:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Frühe Arbeit von Hans Vincenz, 1949.jpg

Ich bin Erbe der Werke von Hans Vincenz und somit berechtigt Fotos der Gemälde zu veröffentlichen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidonn (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Siehe auch
 Oppose In solchen Fällen brauchen wir eine Freigabe per Email. Die Anleitung dazu befindet sich in Commons:OTRS/de. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 23:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gemma Ruiz (2017).png

I request the undeletion of this photo because it was taken and cropped by myself, just before an event organitzed with her in my neighbourhood. --Jove (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on Twitter, which is not freely licensed, so policy requires that the photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 23:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Undeleted some files uploaded by Vpe

Hello,
I work essentially on the project of Montpellier and I live in the same city.
Is it possible to restore files that were erased too quickly ?

I've open a request (in french) for a same situation with this file : "Affiches électorales 2012.JPG". In France, in a electoral period, it's a biggest moment and this image is representative for the posters in a public domain.
I am in the process for update the file, but all images are not in Commons and the links with the pages that are used this file are broken. I just need an access to copy the links with the pages of the different projects.
I've geolocated this file "Église Saint-Marc" but my changes are't update ! This file complies with the rules of Commons.
This file is the only one that is not distorted after the restoration of the historical monument. The file is small but the photograph is unique.
The file is unique to Montpellier and there are only three files in the category : Radomes in France. It would be a shame to delete a file that complies with the rules of Commons.
I've also geolocated this file but my changes are't update. I take photos regularly from the city but there is already so much work to do in categories before dropping files.
For these four files, we do not yet have an equivalent on Commons (Patrimoine de l'Université Montpellier I (sorry, in french) ).
I've also geolocated this file but... no update of my changes.
It is the only file of this church that we have for the village of Satillieu (in french because he's too poor in English). Why remove the file from a church ?

Thank you in advance if this restoration can be possible ! —— DePlusJean (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
Could you please upload the original unmodified images (except the election posters)? (Message in French to the contributor's talk page). Yann (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Bonsoir @Yann, je me suis permis de vous répondre sur ma pdd.
Cordialement, —— DePlusJean (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Affiches presidentielles 2017.jpg cannot be restored because it is a derivative work of non-free campaign posters, and there is no freedom of panorama in France. So even if you took the photo, you're not allowed to publish it without consent from the copyright holders of the posters.
File:Montpellier montage couv.jpg: did you take all these individual photographs yourself? If so, please upload them all separately in original resolution including the EXIF metadata. Otherwise, please tell us which freely licensed images you used to created this montage. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @De728631 for your quick reply and for the information provided.
  • For the file Affiches presidentielles 2017.jpg : During elections, posting is allowed on the public domain (In accordance with the Environmental Code (articles L.581-13, R.581-2 et R.581-3)). The photo was taken in the street, for a display during the election period of 2017 (Category with 27 files) and for validated candidates. I think that this photo is in agreement with a freedom of panorama, derivative works and respects French law.
  • Unfortunately, no. There is no freedom of panorama in France, and the posters are under a copyright, even if displayed on public places. Yann (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Cordially, —— DePlusJean (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
DePlusJean, Vpe : Des nouvelles? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Bonsoir @Yann, absolument ! Et, je me suis permis de vous répondre sur votre pdd. Cordialement, —— DePlusJean (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer from uploader. Montage should be recreated anyway. --Yann (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:url.jpg

This is not copyrighted image. That is a club logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meachu4u (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to File:YSASC.jpg, that's a copyrighted logo. A club representitive would have to provide OTRS permission to allow us to host it on Commons. Daphne Lantier 08:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Daphne. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PMA_BAND_-_Philippines_National_Anthem_by_PMA_Band.ogg File:Coast Guardian March.ogg File:PAF Choir - PAF MARCH.ogg File:Philippines Marines Corsp Hym.ogg File:Philippine Army - Awit Kawal Philippine Army.ogg

STATE FOR REASON FOR UNDELETION OF THIS FILE

this file is under the property of philippine military band and is aquired by AFP Orchestra Records Office, they stated that all of the marches uploaded in wikimedia commons is under protected and recorded by the AFP they upload it first in youtube so that's why "we" put the sources in youtube. we dont know that it is forbidden to use from youtube so we request all the AFP marches that uploaded here is under our protection..and some of our choir officers doesnt know to use computer so that's why i help them to uploaded here. i dont know also that you have many exemptions in uploading this file..i knew its "free encyclopedia".

Micolito (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet, nothing to do here. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Armed Forces of the Philippines Hymn Martsa ng Kawal Pilipino.ogg File:Philippine Navy - Philippine Navy Hymn.ogg

STATE FOR THE REASON TO UNDELETE THIS FILE

this is the continuation in my first undeletion request and also requested by the chief of staff of the armed forces of the philippines general eduardo año for purpose of research of some students because they want to know what is the official armed forces march of the philippines. like the u.s has a armed forces medley, the chief of staff also wants their own version because it was surveyed in philippines that listening in patriotic march like this 2 they are being proud and have a goosebumps that they feel when they listen to this kind of military march. so we beg for undeletion of this file/s


Micolito (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the files have not been deleted (yet), you're on the wrong page. Bring up your objections in the deletion request. --Magnus (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Magnus. --Yann (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:OZK.png

This logo is logo of United Grain Company (RUS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukagavrilov (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 OpposeRestoring it to Commons will require that an authorized official of the organization send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from company official needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:»Treppe geplatzt« - Götz Loepelmann 2017-04-10 vom Künstler als gemeinfrei erklärt.jpg

Hallo Redaktion, ich verstehe die Vorgehensweise der Lizenzierung anscheinend nicht. Ich habe die Erlaubnis des Künstlers Götz Loepelmann, die Fotos/Dateien seiner Werke bei Wikimedia zu veröffentlichen. Ich habe den entsprechenden Punkt im Upload-Assistenten auch angekreuzt. Trotzdem wurde die oben genannte Datei gelöscht. Das verstehe ich nicht. Der Künstler hat auf seiner Website außerdem diese Bestätigung veröffentlicht: https://goetzloepelmann.de/lizenz-wikipedia/ Bitte schaltet die Uploads wieder frei. Vielen Dank WikiTatze WikiTatze (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment "LIZENZ FÜR WIKIPEDIA" is not sufficient. We need a free license, which allows any use and modification, including commercial. Please see COM:OTRS/de for an example in German. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support At his website, the artist declared the images as "gemeinfrei" which is public domain. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:»Calle Corta« - Götz Loepelmann. 2017-04-10 vom Künstler als gemeinfrei erklärt.jpg

Hallo Redaktion,

ich verstehe die Vorgehensweise der Lizenzierung anscheinend nicht.

Ich habe die Erlaubnis des Künstlers Götz Loepelmann, die Fotos/Dateien seiner Werke bei Wikimedia zu veröffentlichen.
Ich habe den entsprechenden Punkt im Upload-Assistenten auch angekreuzt.
Trotzdem wurde die oben genannte Datei gelöscht. Das verstehe ich nicht.
Der Künstler hat auf seiner Website außerdem diese Bestätigung veröffentlicht: https://goetzloepelmann.de/lizenz-wikipedia/

Bitte schaltet die Uploads wieder frei.
Vielen Dank
WikiTatze (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See above. Yann (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support At his website, the artist declared the images as "gemeinfrei" which is public domain. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Alveum_Logo_(colored).png

This file was removed for possible copyright reasons. As owner of the logo, I am fully authorized to use this logo. This is the colored version of the fully black logo. Therefore, please undelete this file.

--Janykste (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support I would say this is even below the threshold of originality, i. e. it is too simple to be copyrighted. {{PD-textlogo}} should apply. If other editors disagree, we would need a permission by email though from an official representative of Alveum. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored and tagged as a simple text logo. --Daphne Lantier 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:TheEtherealPlanePosterCreds.jpg

This movie poster was created by me for use in this film "The Ethereal Plane". I own all the rights and give full permission for its use. Please undelete the file. --ClarkeMSmith (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since it is fairly common for fans or vandals to impersonate authors or producers in order to have images on Commons, policy requires that you send a free license using OTRS. When that is received, read, and approved, the image will be restored. Because OTRS has a substantial backlog, that may take several weeks or more. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Banyule_Football_Club_Jumper1.png

I also request that these files that I uploaded to the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page be undeleted;

Reasons: These images were drawn by me on Microsoft Paint and therefore not official pictures that were created by the football clubs involved and not under copyright, they can be free to be used anywhere on the internet. It is already common for the jumper designs of football clubs to be uploaded to Wikipedia - for example, if you look at the Goulburn Valley Football League and the Central Murray Football League Wikipedia pages, they have pictures of the jumper design of all of their clubs. The pictures I uploaded completed the missing jumper designs from my league, bringing the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page close to completion and accuracy. The only difference I can see between the jumper designs on the other Wikipedia pages and my own, it is that mine have the Northern Football League Logo on the jumper design. If this is what the issue was, I will remove it and reload the images. I believe that the addition of the jumper designs for teams in the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page adds interest for anyone reading the page.

Thankyou,

--Dpeters1980 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a common problem. If the designs closely copy the club designs, then they are derivative works and therefore copyright violations. If they do not closely copy the club descigns, then they are your personal art and not useful. Either way, they cannot be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Surb gexard.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is from Christian Armenia Encyclopedia which is under cc-by-sa-3.0 (file:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf) ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is a completely different photo. As noted last time the file was deleted before you recreated it outside of process, the file was actually taken from hy:File:Surb gexard.JPG, which has no source, authorship or licensing information whatsoever. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
See the third image. These two images are the same. My (and hywiki) version is just with better resolution.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
ԱշոտՏՆՂ, please be honest to yourself. These are two photos of the same subject, but not two identical photos.  Oppose. Sealle (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Even if it were the same photo, the licensing claims for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf and all the images it contains aren't exactly convincing either. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
OK :(. BTW, can I cut and upload the image (or any other image) from the encyclopedia?. I just want to understand the rules.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily, you can reuse content that you find on Commons, but as I said, I'm not convinced about the copyright situation for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf, and I've just started a discussion about that. I wouldn't upload anything extracted from the file unless it is shown that the licensing is correct and applicable to the illustrations used in the file. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Dutch spoken articles

File:Nl-BNN Today-article.ogg and File:Nl-Dirk van den Broek-article.ogg. These are spoken versions of the respective Dutch articles nl:BNN Today and nl:Dirk van den Broek. See also Matthijs van Nieuwkerk.ogg, which has been restored for the same reason. Wikiwerner (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

These were deleted in 2013 for missing licenses. Which is the copyright status of a reading of a Wikipedia article? Thuresson (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It is public domain: see File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg, which was deleted for the same reason, and had been restored recently. Wikiwerner (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Public Domain cannot be correct. The recordings are derivative work of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 Wikipedia article. The license of the recording should be CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well. Jcb (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The recordings itself don't add a new copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, there is clearly some original authorship in the recording. But due to the license of the article, the recording must have the same license. To satisfy the license requirements, the person who made the recording has to be attributed for making the recording. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If a back seat conversation isn't copyrighted, why would readin a text generate a copyright? Natuur12 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
A back seat conversation may be on the edge, but for a recording of a Wikipedia article it's quite obvious that there is original authorship. You make choices e.g. in intonation, speed, how to read non-proza parts. But fortunately this whole discussion is hardly relevant for these recordings, because the license is already obvious, and the user who made the recording is attributed correctly if they use our standard templates. Jcb (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Even if there were no copyright in the intonation of the recording, it has to be copyrighted because it is just another form of publishing the original text. So the CC licence of the Wikipedia text has to be reflected. For the same reasons, audiobooks are not automatically PD either, but if the text is copyrighted, the reading is copyrighted too. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we agree on that. I expressed myself a bit sloppy. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Mooi. Then my work here is done for the moment. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Searching further I found File:Nl-Amsterdam-article.ogg, where the Commons license is used. Wikiwerner (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and {{GFDL-en|migration=relicense}} added. --Daphne Lantier 07:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bak Hok Shan after.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I find these picture in google search that linked to Wikipedia, these 3 picture taken around 2005 or 06 is with reasonable photo size (654 × 472/ 1024x768) but i don't know is it have any exif data and the upload date. (May be the contribution people think the big pic size is waste time to upload) It should not be delete. May be try to content with Acklbonboncat, although that people no more active since 2013....

Wpcpey (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose: there is doubt whether these images are free. If the uploader really took these photos I don't see the reason why they have to go the extra mile to scale the sizes down and remove the EXIF deliberately. On the contrary, an image with low resolution and without EXIF is often a strong indication that it is taken from somewhere else. --Wcam (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
First, it should ask people check these 3 file again, to ensure that is it have any exif data. Secondly, I guess it may have some reasons to let the uploader scale the sizes down, such as the storage is not enough when the people to take the picture (during that time only have 32MB/64MB memory card, it only set 640x480 or 1024x768 if they want to have more space to take the picture) the computer storage may not enough also. Use old version ACDsee save the picture may also remove the exif data....

btw...these picture can be "historical picture" also, since it have been removed during the Ho Man Tin Station construction around 2012.--Wpcpey (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:HSG_Uni_Rostock_Stierlogo.png

The File HSG_Uni_Rostock_Stierlogo was made by myself, as the administrator of the website www.hsgunirostock.de. I apply for the restoration of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S platty (talk • contribs) 06:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If in fact the logo is that of an organization, then restoring it to Commons will require that an authorized official of the organization send a free license using OTRS. If it is not the logo of an organization, then it is personal art and is out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The organisation itself wouldn't be in a position to grant a free licence because copyright can't be transferred at all under German law, so OTRS would have to come from the original artist. Anyhow, it is the logo of an insignificant university sports team, so out of scope. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not within project scope. --Daphne Lantier 07:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Charlie Vasquez and Nahshon Anderson.jpg

I would like to request this be undeleted. The photo is of me (Nahshon Anderson) and Charlie Vasquez. I owe this photo and it was taken on my camera during one of the Bronx Council of the Art Writing Workshop. These Writing Workshops were open to the public. I sent this photo into Wikipedia commons with the appropriate licensing agreement. This being my photo and being taken at a public event I believe its deletion was a mistake. Please let me know what steps I need to take to restore this photo. Shootingrange1997 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not how copyright works. Even if the photo was taken with your camera and you own the data file, copyright rests with the person that actually took the photo, i.e. the photographer who decided on range and focus and eventually clicked the release button. Since you are depicted in the photo it is rather unlikely that you are also the photographer, so we need a permission from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed as per De728631. --Daphne Lantier 07:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Two files of Vicktohuygo

Ticket:2017031010019666 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 05:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temp restored. Daphne Lantier 07:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS checks out. --Daphne Lantier 07:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Tiffani Taylor.jpg

Ticket:2017031110011895 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 05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temp restored. Daphne Lantier 07:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS checked out. --Daphne Lantier 07:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:RDA2.png

Ticket:2017031110011993 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 06:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temp restored. Daphne Lantier 07:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS checked out. --Daphne Lantier 07:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Richter2015 02 baja.jpg

Ticket:2017031110012518 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 06:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temp restored. Daphne Lantier 07:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
One more, thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS checked out. --Daphne Lantier 08:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Two files of JediOne

Ticket:2017031110013339 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 06:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temp restored. Daphne Lantier 06:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Done, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 08:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OTRS checked out. --Daphne Lantier 08:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sherman with paddle wheel cropped.jpg

I was asked to take a look at this DR on IRC.

The image was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia in 2008, and then transferred to Commons on April 24th. At the time of the original upload, a pdf copy of an email granting permission under the GFDL was uploaded to enwiki, and then deleted there as not in scope. I contacted an enwiki administrator, who opened an OTRS ticket (ticket:2017050310002835) with a copy of the pdf.

The original source url for the image was stated in the pdf, and was first crawled by the Wayback Machine in 2001... the name and email address on that page match the one in the pdf. I sent an email to that address through the OTRS system, and received a response back verifying that the author did, and still does, grant permission... the image should thus be undeleted, and marked with {{GFDL|migration=relicense}} and the OTRS ticket. Thanks. - Reventtalk 08:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done and the necessary tidying work also undertaken on English Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gyömrő fitness, logo in Hungary.jpg

Please undelete this photo, because it shows a part of a building. It was shot from the street, so it is under FoP. The building can be see here, the logo is on the center of the house.

Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support Hungarian FOP is broad enough to include this logo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Covered by freedom of panorama. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Collegeothnieliskola.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission arrived (2017050410009229). Regasterios (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Regasterios: please add the final OTRS template to the file page. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Orphans in la providence.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission arrived (2017050410009229). Regasterios (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Regasterios: please add the final OTRS template to the file page. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Space Mountain chicken exit, Tokyo Disneyland 途中退出口 2006 (134184211).jpg

Stripes in Hexagonal symbol = Simple Geometric shape ({{PD-textlogo}}). What do you think. --Benzoyl (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Everything is ultimately geometric shapes. I think the logo is over the ToO. The exit icon may also have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:FMArocena2014.jpg

Buenos días, Esta foto File:FMArocena2014.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) fue borrada indebidamente, ya que corresponde al Archivo Fotográfico de la UN, que la ha colgado en su cuenta oficial de flickr, con las licencias pertinentes para ser utilizadas en Wikipedia. Rogaría que se procediera a la cancelación de su borrado. Muchas gracias.--Hard (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support The EXIF says that the copyright holder is the Universidad de Navarra. The Flickr site where it appears as CC-BY-SA is apparently owned by the Universidad de Navarra. While it is remotely possible that the Flickr owner is an imposter, it think it passes the test of "significant doubt". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment Insisto en que la fotografía está en la cuenta oficial de Flickr de la UN, como puede comprobarse aqui [1]. Me cuesta entender como se puede estar pensando en un impostor, cuando es patente que se trata de la cuenta oficial. Muchas gracias.--Hard (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
English: I insist that the photograph is on the official Flickr account of the UN, as can be checked here [2]. I find it difficult to understand how you can be thinking of an impostor, when it is clear that it is the official account. Thank you very much. [machine translation]
--Hard (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that you should complain about a comment made by someone who has spent a little time doing research and who supports your request.I said that it was "remotely possible" -- that is certainly true. Flickr does not know who any of its account owners actually are, so it is entirely possible -- but very unlikely -- that the person who created the Universidad de Navarra account is not authorized by the University. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Message received. Thank you for the time spent on this topic. Cordially, --Hard (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Pif 28 11 2016 Clara-Mammana DSF0427.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It does not violate Wikipedia policies Bergamostory (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It can be found online elsewhere and has a copyright watermark "(c) Clara Mammana". You claimed that it was your own work, so we need a confirmation that you are in fact Clara Mammana. Please read COM:OTRS for instructions how send your permission per email. Alternatively you could show us a website where this original image is licensed under a free Creative Commons license. De728631 (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

HustedLarge.jpg - undelete

Please undelete HustedLarge.jpg as it was downloaded from a public domain and is not a copyright issue.

The reason for deletion states that it was a copyright issue, that is not correct as the Secretary of State's office is a government entity and anything found on the Secretary of State's website is public domain.

Image downloaded from: https://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/images/Husted.jpg

EllaTree (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:HustedLarge.jpg. Please explain why you think this photo is publuc domain. Thuresson (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many US states routinely copyright their works. The federal government does not, however Ohio is not among those states known to consider its works to be public domain. Absent any clear indication that this photograph is public domain, it must be presumed to be copyrighted. Storkk (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. Unless you can prove that our information is wrong and that Ohio works are actually PD, the image cannot be restored without a free license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shyfi at Phase V studio.jpg

Hi Sir/Ma, I am requesting undeletion of file as name above because the file wasn't in any way copyrighted and the picture was taken by our media team for our artiste who is in the picture. Kind Regards. --~~Segun Odewumi (03 May,2017)~~

@Victoyya: I think you meant File:Shyfi at Phase V Studio.jpg, which actually did exist here and was deleted as a copyright violation. I suggest you submit permission for that file or multiple files via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Cvilak.jpg

We have a permission to use this foto if we write capture that he is a photographer, which we did write. Please undelete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zavod JazBi (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Such permissions have to be sent in by the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:JBBK LOGO.jpg

Reason for request: File is got from the creator of the file Bonnie Alexandra (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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

ClubPenguinShutdown.jpg.png

Requesting the undeletion of the file ClubPenguinShutdown.jpg.png The file I submitted was posted for posterity, as at the time, the shutdown of the site was taking place, and this image was an edited screenshot of my computer while connected to the site. Reasons to undelete: 1. This image was a personal work 2. I submitted the image under Creative Commons License, allowing it for redistribution and copying.

--PaulJWR (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Your editing may or may not have created a new copyright belonging to you, but the image is clearly a derivative work of the copyrighted Disney image. It cannot be kept on Commons without a license from Disney, which is probably unobtainable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim/COM:DW. --Daphne Lantier 19:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Amália Rodrigues - Metro station Aeroporto (Lisboa).jpg

I've not even been warned by Daphne Lantier about that deletion while it's my upload (first mistake) and there's FoP in Portugal (second mistake). There are actually other works of the same subway station and even a wider shot of the exact same artwork. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support It appears to be a permanent installation in a public place. Public interiors and 2D art are included in Portuguese FoP. I also agree that it is our practice, although not formal policy, that FoP cases must have a DR, not a {{Speedy}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tuvalkin: Since you tagged this for deletion, do you have any objections to it being undeleted? If not I can take care of restoring it, or another admin can if I'm not around. Daphne Lantier 16:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    And could I know why I wasn't warned ? Because I discovered this deletion by chance ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    Admins seldon warn the uploader when deleting a file. This is the nominators job. Could someone please point out were I can find the relevant law? If I look at the translation I can't find a clause about works in public places. (I'm likely missing something, that's why I ask. I merely want to do a little check.) Natuur12 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    Quite often I do check that the uploader was warned before deleting the file. This is the different between good admin work, and bot work. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please create a DR if needed. @Tuvalkin: Please never remove the license tag. @TwoWings: Please add the relevant FOP tag. Thanks, --Yann (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yann, TwoWings, Daphne, Tuvalkin. I think Natuur12 has a valid question here. Our summary at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Portugal quotes section 75(2)q. Section 75 is the correct section for exceptions to copyright, but both the English and the Portuguese versions of the law at WIPO do not have a 75(2) and section 75 goes only to subsection i. (see http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129418#JD_PT012E_A7) Is it possible that our summary is very wrong? Seems unlikely but the alternative is to believe that WIPO dropped a chunk of text out of the law? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No idea, but shouldn't we have this discussion on COM:VPC instead? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The COM:FOP page references Law No. 50/2004 of August 24, 2004 (which does indeed say what COM:FOP purports); Jim is referencing Code of Copyright and Related Rights (Law No. 45/85 of September 17, 1985), which is nineteen years older. It seems both are superseded by Code of Copyright and Related Rights (as amended up to Law No. 16/2008 of April 1, 2008) Code of Copyright and Related Rights (as amended up to Law No. 16/2008 of April 1, 2008) (alternatively, bizarrely, the 2004 law is listed in the 2008 law's "Is amended by" section). Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, colleagues, and thank you elcobbola. I simply followed the link provided above without looking at the dates. I also tried the link at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Portugal, but it is dead. It appears we're OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sintesis Cloral CAT.jpg

I would be more than happy to reload the file as a *.png format file.

I would be more than happy to change the image to a more appropiate *png format, can I modify the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasrestrepo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sintesis Cloral CAT.jpg reads "{{BadJPG}}, orphaned", neither of which are reasons for deletion. On the other hand, the only category is "Category:Quimica" which redirects to "Category:Chemistry", so the file is not ever going to be found by anyone.
Leyo, P199, could you comment? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I deleted this file because the consensus is that low-quality and unused chemical diagrams are not kept. This was rubbed in to me soon after my first "keep" decision in a chemical diagram deletion nomination (see here). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The quality is really bad making the file useless. And what happened with the sulfate? Natuur12 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
      Is not just about JPEG. The resolution is too low, there is at least one spelling error, horizontal bonds actually aren't horizontal, inconsistent font was used, etc. The whole needs to be redrawn from scratch. --Leyo 22:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Leyo. --Yann (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Related DR's

Please, undelete this files until resolving the main DR. Thanks.--Ma▀▄Ga 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose What "main DR"? The first of these files is the base map for the others. It has no source and was deleted. Unless someone can up with the source, freely licensed, it and all its subsidiaries cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This (deleted) and other files have the same problem. As you see, main DR is still open, so individually deleting of some files is not correct. It's very simple: all or nothing.--Ma▀▄Ga 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Main DR is linked in the title of this section.--Ma▀▄Ga 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jeff above and the opinions in the DR. --Yann (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:ValleyRugby.jpg

Dear Wikimedia team,

I am filling this request to undelete the image of the logo of my rugby team. I have replicated the manner in which it is done commonly across a number of other rugby clubs that have their crest uploaded such as the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HKFC_crest.svg used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_FC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Scottish_Logo.png used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Scottish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usrc_tigers.jpg used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USRC_Tigers_RFC

Could you kindly help me in making this image available as a club logo for informative purposes, and what would be the necessary steps? Thank you very much

--NumaP (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@NumaP: Those other three files are on English Wikipedia, which allows fair use in a limited fashion. Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow fair use at all.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose In order for the files to be restored, in each case, an authorized official of the club must send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kimaera Promo1.jpg

Hello,

The image that was deleted is NOT on a disc cover. It is my own photography of the band and it is my content.

Please kindly un-delete file.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warman631 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Let's see. On the file description, you said:
|source=www.facebook.com/kimaeraOfficial
|author=Kimaera band
Now you say that you are the photographer. Which should we believe? Images from Facebook are copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Xrubik 4x4x4 with odd permutation of edges.png

It is a screenshot of free software, so it does not violate copyright. --Ans (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I cannot find any license information for the software. Therefore, while the software may be freely usable without any money payment, it may or may not be freely licensed in the copyright sense. If you can show where it is freely licensed, this can be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/x/xpuzzles/xpuzzles_7.7.1-1_copyright <-- see license here --Ans (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It is Free software in the copyright sense, not money sense. --Ans (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support This is an {{Attribution}} type of licence. To be precise, we should even use it in combination with {{Free screenshot}}. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don;t see "Xrubik" anywhere on the cited license page. If the license page covers all "x..." games, then we need to see that in writing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
https://packages.debian.org/sid/xpuzzles <-- Ok, xrubik is listed here. The copyright file is shown in the right of page. --Ans (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The source (in xpuzzles_7.7.1.orig.tar / xpuzzles-7.7.1/rubik/COPYING) contains the identical license text from David Bagley as the first license in Ans's link, except the date is 1994 - 2013. --Storkk (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Certificate to Andy Gregory last lighthouse keeper at Cape Bruny Lightstation.jpg

Reason for undeletion:

This image belongs to my stepfather, The original certificate was given to him by AMSA Australia in recognition of his long and dedicated service in the Australian Lighthouse Service. This image was a photo of said certificate, and he has given me permission to post it online so that it is available online to post on facebook, and other sites. The image contains the AMSA logo, but the certificate belongs to my stepfather Andy Gregory, and as such is not the property of AMSA and therefore not the copyright holder.

I feel this image was incorrectly deleted given its importance to my stepfather in maintaining the recognition of his service.

Kind Regards,

Caine Barlow, 05/05/2017

CaineBarlow (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In almost all cases, the owner of a physical work is not the copyright holder -- that almost always remains with the creator. Therefore your argument that because your stepfather owns the certificate, he has the right to freely license it, is incorrect. The background of the whole certificate is a photograph, which has a copyright. The text and logo may or may not have a copyright. The copyrights belong to the Australian government whose copyright lasts fifty years -- in this case, until 1/1/2047.

Unfortunately, the fact that the work is not freely licensed overrides the importance of the document. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Almonty Industries and Panasqueira Mine

File:Pe. Leal.jpg

Also:

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries, the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see: http://www.almonty.com/projects/panasqueira/

I published the file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It was published by Ing Cláudio dos Reis in an official state publication in 1992 in behalf of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by: nuno.alves@almonty.com

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and identity theft is common here, policy requires that an authorized official of the oprganization owning the copyrights to the images must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see: http://www.almonty.com/projects/panasqueira/

I published the file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It belongs to the production record that the corporation keeps updating year after year. It is also published in: http://www.almonty.com/_resources/Panasqueira_43-101_Tech_Rep_Dec16_SEDAR.PDF

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by: nuno.alves@almonty.com

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This image is out of scope. We do not keep images of text material that should be set in wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see: http://www.almonty.com/projects/panasqueira/

I published the file File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf] in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf] is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that work. It was created and published in 1999 by Beralt. Ing António Correa de Sá is actually chairman of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal and gave all authorizations for the publication of this work also.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by: nuno.alves@almonty.com

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved
I just wrote to this person by email with further guidance on emailing OTRS. That resolves this matter for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
At ticket:2017041810014761 the user made a copyright release for these images. I cannot see the images but here are their names -
These can go into Category:Panasqueira Mines.
Can someone else process the undeletion at least temporarily, if not the entire ticket? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No. Making a request here does not allow uploaders to jump the long OTRS queue. These images must wait their turn.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward It was not my intention that anyone should jump the queue, but that is what I incorrectly did and I apologize for the sake of those waiting. At this point, could we make this an instructional experience so that I learn the correct way and share the information with others? Suppose that I did come to this request in the OTRS queue - what is the correct process for a non-admin like me? Should I as a non-admin not touch the ticket, or request undeletion to examine them, or what would you advise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I came on a little strong above -- the length of the OTRS queue makes me unhappy and I don't always deal with it well.
When you process the OTRS queue in the routine way, oldest first, then you can and should bring those that deserve it here for restoration. That will usually be done routinely. If you have any doubts, you can list out the files included in the e-mail and ask that an Admin look them over.
It's not a bad idea to check the reason for deletion. An OTRS license will not allow restoration of a file that is out of scope, such as this uploader's File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg, mentioned above, which is an image of a table which should be set in Wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored the files mentioned in the OTRS ticket. Other files need a new permission. There are 2 files with different authors, so not sure about them (work for hire?). Please fix the categories, etc. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. I followed up with an email asking about those two works.

If they are not the copyright holder then I will tag them for deletion. I also put all the files into at least one category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:-KM 30 (canto).jpg

Ni que decir tiene que nada más lejos de mi intención que tratar de subir una imagen cuyos derechos de publicación, verdaderamente, no me pertenecieran. Así, si solicito la restauración del archivo indicado es simplemente porque no alcanzo a entender qué violación de derechos de autor puede haber en el hecho de que haya fotografiado, en este caso el canto, de una moneda de mi propiedad, con una cámara de mi propiedad. Si así ha sido, ruego me indiquen para sucesivas ocasiones qué manera completamente acorde con la legalidad hay de subir este tipo de imágenes.

Un saludo. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

English: Needless to say, nothing further from my intention than trying to upload an image whose publication rights, truly, did not belong to me. So, if I request the restoration of the file indicated is simply because I can not understand what copyright infringement can be in the fact that I have photographed, in this case the song, a coin of my property, with a camera of my property. If so, please indicate for successive occasions how completely in line with the legality is to upload such images. A greeting. [machine translation]
  •  Comment The uploader claims to have photographed a coin. Is the act or photography of that coin illegal in the uploader's jurisdiction or the U. S.? If not, Keep.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Restaurado - no puedo encontrar una indicación para violación de derechos de autor - Jcb (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Bstandblues.jpg

File:Bstandblues.jpg that has been deleted by someone has entirely been my own creation for B-Stand Blues. There has been no copyright violation as claimed by the user who has deleted and I am extremely disappointed that someone else can claim my work as their own or any other's. I am one of the heads of B-Stand Blues and created the logo for my supporters group from scratch. Please retrieve it back so that it can be reinstated in the wiki page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji 3003 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo can be undeleted only after the copyright owner has verified the license by using the process at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 18:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:AC_Milan.svg and File:Acm.png

"Per http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/46/copyrights-copyright-protection-italy ... threshold of originality is high in Italy" in Taivo's closing of the first DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inter Mailand.svg in this edit. See also my post in the third DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inter Mailand.svg.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Below Italy TOO -- text logos. --Daphne Lantier 00:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Flamingo hotel m.jpg

The deleted file is already being used in Wikipedia and is a free license worldwide. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flamingo_hotel_miami_beach_postcard.jpg#file

--Aceoflife (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Aceoflife, May 5, 2017

 Oppose what is the rationale behind it being in the public domain? As far as I can see, Roy Winkelman purports to release it, however it is not clear why he would be the copyright holder. Postcard is pretty clearly post-1923, so authorship and details regarding first publication would need to be discovered in order to ascertain its public domain status, IMO. Storkk (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

-- Storkk The deleted file is already being used in Wikipedia and is a free license worldwide.

 Not done: as per above. --Daphne Lantier 00:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:TheBellCurve.gif

The file has free use license and is already being used in other wikipedia articles. Here are a few links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheBellCurve.gif https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#/media/File:The_Bell_Curve.jpeg

--Aceoflife (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Aceoflife, May 5, 2017

 Not done: as per above. --Daphne Lantier 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Miamibeachcity seal.png

The file is in public domain and is already being used in the main wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_Miami_Beach,_Florida.png

--Aceoflife (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet you claim to own the copyright? Resized version of File:Seal of Miami Beach, Florida.png. Thuresson (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Daphne Lantier 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Abuseaae kharraz the master of mortal and immortal.jpg

این فایل خودم اسکن و آپلود کردم. دلیل حذفش رو نمی دونم. --Ooghry (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

English: I've uploaded the file scan. I do not know why delete it.
English: Freshman404 and Moheen Reeyad decided that your file violated a copyright. Please send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
فارسی: Freshman404 و Moheen Reeyad تصمیم گرفت که فایل خود را نقض حق مؤلف. لطفا اجازه از طریق OTRS ارسال.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:1718 Badge LARGE.png

Please do not delete anymore as this is the new Club Badge for Huntingdon Town and we hold ALL necessary consent. We hold all necessary consent to use the new badge for Huntingdon Town Football Club. Please email doug@huntingdontownfc.com if you have any queries. DO NOT DELETE AGAIN AS PERMISSION HAS BEEN OBTAINED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BW04 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@BW04: Please send a copy of that permission via OTRS, make sections for new topics, and don't top post.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Daphne Lantier 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:AC Milan.svg

Here the logo was deleted. Anyway it was not taken in count that the Italian law has a rather high threshold of originality and that logo (which is basically an oval with a circle, an acronymous, a St George Cross and some red and black vertical bars) is far below it. That's why we should consider undeleting and keeping it. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 00:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: closed as per earlier request -- below Italy TOO. --Daphne Lantier 00:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by MARTA MANCINICons

Mostly scans of photos over a century old. Except one, they all had date/description and sufficient author information, plus a copyright tag. Blatant deletion mistake. Nemo 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree. As they stand they could not be kept and the DR was open for a month without the uploader fixing them.

In several cases I looked at, it would be easy to determine the author and, probably, his date of death, that should have been done before upload. The uploader certainly cannot claim "own work" for any of these, as was done without source in several cases. Come back with this request one by one with the necessary information supplied, and we can restore them -- but not en masse. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Some of them already contains required licensing information so they should never be deleted while procession this DR. In some cases the information may be incomplete or incorrect (eg. PD-anon-EU template for a US work), but this was not raised in the DR. As per above oppose, I suggest reopening the DR and continue dispute there. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the uploader had a full month to deal with the various problems and made no effort to do so. I don't see that opening an unwieldy DR solves anything. If you have any specific files that you think should be restored, please list them and the community will consider them, but my look over the list suggests that the bulk of them cannot be kept as they are now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Note, that:
  1. the UDR request is not from the uploader; so any requirements directed to the uploader are irrelevant here
  2. most of the images already had proper copyright info fixed before they were deleted; so the deletion in the DR process was not correct, IMO. I have restored them: feel free to re-nominate for deletion (en masse, or one-by-one) if you wish
  3. we are all volunteers so we cannot require a specific user will respond in a specified period of time; we should be able to deal with such cases even if the uploader did not respond
  4. assumption that we can delete any image because its uploader did not respond is not the right way, IMO
  5. for few remaining images you are right: more information is required (@Nemo bis: eg. the death date of G[iovanni] Gussoni from Milano) to resolve their copyright status.
I think, we can close this case. Or anything else can be done/said here? Ankry (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely out of process for you to restore these images when there are only two opposing comments on the UnDR. I suggest you redelete them and wait until there is more support for your side of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - none of them had a valid license, the files with a license only had a US PD rationale, and no license on the source country - Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New York seems to be located in US. What source country rationale is expected then?
Anonymous-EU is a valid Italian copyright tag when no author/publisher info is provided on the work itself. (work = diploma form; the written text is purely informative and so not eligible for copyright); AFAIK, in some countries such diplomas can be considered "official documents", not eligible for copyright, but unsure about Italy here.
Italian diplomas with author/publisher info remain deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The diplomas are clearly above TOO, so eligible for copyright. Also several pictures of people are involved. To use Anonymous-EU, you have to show that the author actually published the work without disclosing his identity. This is completely different from 'we at Commons do not know the name of the author'. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Indeed, clear copyright mark: "Mishkin Studio, New York", "(C) H. Mishkin, N.Y." and clearly pre-1923 published. Why they needed to be deleted? Ankry (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the images seems to origin from the US, so it's not sufficient to only deal with the US copyright situation. (I wrote that earlier, as you can see a few lines above). Jcb (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
False asumption. "Boston Conservatory of Music" is probably a Russian school. And two photos were created in New York near Rome. They were photographed in Italy, but it is irrelevant for definition of their country of origin. Some works are Italian, one is definitely German (also PD) and at least three are US. Ankry (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what you write is very difficult to understand and very vague. E.g. what is "created in New York near Rome" suppose to mean? And claims like "one is definitely German (also PD)" should come with a file name and a PD rationale. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: This means that you deleted images with valid author/copyright information without even looking at them. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Boston Conservatory of Music is here. This and this images have clear copyright mark from a New York photographer. How did you find them to be non-US works? this has clear authorship of a German photographer (death date unknown, but active since 1864, so PD-old-assumed is an appropriate rationale). And recent deletion reason is clearly fake for them.
Regarding File:Agide Jacchia 04.jpg, the same photo-card has been published under a CC-by-4 licence by Deutsche Fotothek, so we could either restore this one accordingly or upload the Fotothek image. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) restore it. The autographs seen in Agide Jacchia 04.jpg are not copyrightable and if the photograph is available under CC-by I support restoration. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Robert Cena 1863-1945.jpg

"The source for this photograph has now been determined. This photograph has been published on page 92 of the book by Adam Serdeczny, “Morawsko od czasów starożytnych do końca XX wieku”, Jarosław 2006, ISBN 83-86697-63-6 – already cited in the original biographical note Robert Cena. It is argued that the photograph of a known source may now be attributed a free licence due to its age (PD-Polish: above 70 years). If this fulfils the licensing requirements, the request to delete is hereby withdrawn. Regards Henry39 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)" per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Some additional information that the discussants might find useful.

Robert Cena was in the last years of XIX century an important leader and deputy representing the Agrarian-Christian Party from the Polish part of Austria in the then Imperial Austrian parliament in Wien. Since 1900, this area (Jarosław, now in the South-Eastern corner of Poland) suffered two world wars and was invaded by Russians, then Germans, and Russians again. It is now (partly only) a part of Poland as it always was before the troubled years. There are very few archives left and available. The Polish archives (the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow in particular) are incomplete. Moreover, there are no successors to the XIX century photographers or publishers. Hence, it is practically impossible to locate the original source of the Robert Cena’s photograph. However, we know a lot about the image. First, it shows Robert as a young man, taken presumably at the peak of his political career. It means that the photo is about 120 years old. Second, the photo published by the local historian Adam Serdeczny (mentioned above) was already a rather poor copy/scan from, it may be assumed, some printed material and it was/is not one of those formal XIX century portraits produced in a photography atelier. Third, the image is that of Robert Cena, as we have the evidence from Adam Serdeczny himself and it agrees with a detailed facial description in an article in newspaper Cracow Daily (30 March 1897) giving the news of Robert’s election. The description, in Polish, is presented in full in reference No. 6 in Robert Cena in the Polish Wikipedia. Adam Serdeczny, the local teacher/historian has passed away (in 2009). Robert Cena biograms have already been written and published independently in both the Czech and the Polish Wikipedias. Regards - Henry39 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, the Polish law is that the image remains copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the author. Although 120 years is a long time, it is not long enough for us to be able to assume that the author died at least 70 years ago -- he could easily have lived for 50 years after taking the picture.
If the author is unknown, then the copyright lasts for 70 years from the date of first publication, As far as we now know that was the 2006 work mentioned above, so that doesn't help. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: For now. Can be restored in a few years, potentially after Commons:Cut-off date for PD-old files has been decided. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:ErosPyramide20090221 352.jpg

This file and other equivalent ErosPyramide files have always been kept because all DRs concluded that there was no reason to delete files showing a pornographic show. As any subject, pornographic shows are encyclopedic subjects, i.e. in scope. But for some reason, this one has been deleted because it "is not useful for education purposes" ??? And why that ? Should we start to delete all files with such a topic ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose per closure of the DR. The bare fact that this picture shows nude people does not make it in scope. If those people would have been clothed, the picture would probably be deleted for a reason like 'unused personal picture'. In the DR you tried to relate the nomination to censorship, which has nothing to do with the deletion. If a picture of people is useless for educational purposes, we delete it. No matter whether the depicted people are dressed or naked. Jcb (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand. You say "no educational purpose" but you don't explain why. Be coherent : if you say this file was not in scope, you mean that all ErosPyramide files (and maybe all other files showing a pornographic show) are not in scope. Thus you don't respect the fact that such subjects may be illustrated, per COM:CENSORSHIP. For this file, there was a first DR and it was kept exactly because of those reasons. A second DR had been launched and it brought no new arguments. All the other previous DRs about such files have always been closed as kept : Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 243.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 439a.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 440.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20110218 1098 Christina Bella & Mya Diamond.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 442.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 422.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 426.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 445.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20110218 1088 Christina Bella.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 344.jpg.
@Green Giant and Taivo: Since you kept the files in the DRs I've mentioned, what do you think ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tm: Since you participated in some of these DRs... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak  undelete. Educational value exists for illustrating pornographic shows, but as quality is not as good as other mentioned photos have, only weak support. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Taivo: It's not particularly good nor very bad, as far as quality is concerned. And I don't find it particularly worse than any other file in the Category:Pornographic shows... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@TwoWings: No, I did not say or mean anything about other files from the same source. I just deleted this particular file, because I consider this particular file out of scope. Please don't confuse the processes all the time by responding with unrelated and irrelevant comments. Jcb (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated and irrelevant comments ? Do we speak about the fact that you accused me of being out of subject when I spoke about censorship in the DR ? Actually I wrote "censorship" in the first one. And you seem unaware that both Fixpol and Saadbl have launched DRs with moral purposes. So yes, it was about censorship. The funny thing is, Fixpol launched the first DR with the comment "Not educationally useful" and Green Giant kept the file, then Saadbl added the comment "inappropriate content"... and you closed it as "deleted" by repeting Fixpol's pseudo-argument which really meant "don't propose sexual topics on Commons" (it meant that for Fixpol).
But again, you give absolutely no explanation about the fact that you consider "this particular file" (NB : available here for those who are not admins) as out of scope and non-educational but not the other ErosPyramide files ! Why wouldn't it be educational to illustrate a pornographic show or lesbian cunnilingus with "this particular file" ? What are the concrete arguments ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Undelete I have been pinged and asked for my opinion by TwoWings further up this discussion. I take a disinterested view because I'm neither interested in this or similar photos nor do I particularly recall much of my thought process for the earlier DR. However, Commons has a broad interpretation of COM:EDUSE in that it certainly is not restricted to a narrow viewpoint. In my own opinion "educational" means providing useful information that adds to the knowledge of users. Some of us might disagree with the "education" that this particular photo provides but I can see that it does indeed have an educational element. The photo was taken during a show by these two people, presumably in a legally permitted environment. They quite clearly appear to be consenting adults.. If this photo had been taken in a private room with one of them being forced to do this, I could see an argument for challenging the educational value. The point of the shows is to cast illumination on a group of activities that are not the usual subject of schools or coffee shops etc. It is not necessarily a topic that some will find appropriate but it is this very question of appropriateness that appears to have inspired the latest DR. In contrast I would argue the "knives are dangerous" principle in that it is quite obvious that most knives are sharp and can cause immense damage in the wrong hands. However, a knife in the hands of a skilled chef can contribute to excellent food. Would it be right for us to ban photos of knives on the grounds that they might encourage others to commit knife-related crimes? In the same way, the photo herevshould be kept separate from the morality of what use end users might or might not put the photo to. If we want to engage in a discussion on the merits of all similar photos, then that would be legitimately done at the Village Pump but not this piecemeal approach. Indeed TwoWings asks the cogent question of why this one and not entire category? In the nominators defence I note that they are a new user here but have been editing elsewhere for some months. I can only recommend that you should always check the talk page first and go to relevant user talk pages to raise the issues there first. Of course some of us still struggle with this concept even after years of editing. So yes, let's undelete this photo and if people feel strongly about the issues raised in the DR's and this undeletion request, then please start a discussion at the VP. Green Giant (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak  Support per nom and Green Giant. This file has an educational purpose, to educate photographers in how NOT to shoot cunnilingus: if the lens can't see the tongue or lips, one could shoot it better with a different angle.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Jcb on this one. Sorry but this is grabadge. Porno with no educational value. Natuur12 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Natuur12: Then let's delete all files about porn shows because they're all of the same quality. And it doesn't matter if we don't illustrate a sex topic, right ? (irony of course). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    Please refrain from using obvious logical fallacy since it's rather annoying. If you can find files that have an equally bad quality or an even worse quality. Please nominate those files for deletion. Because the quality is bad and the composition is bad (merely some snap shot) this file is not suitable for most legitimate usage like Wikipedia articles, books, publications etc. What is left are some obscure blogs that might be interested in material like this. Perhaps educational for some people but that kind of "educational usage" has little to do with spreading free knowledge. Natuur12 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Natuur12: It's not fallacy. For any subject, we keep bad quality pictures whe we don't have better files. Since we don't really have good quality pictures about porn shows, we do keep those bad quality pictures until we don't have better files. This is what we do for everything, why wouldn't we behave like that for such a topic ? Maybe just because it's about sex. As usual. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    You were using a straw man. Perhaps I was a bit confusing when I said logical fallacy instead off informal fallacy. Currently can't search for better quality files. (Non safe for college and all.) Natuur12 (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    It's not only the fact that we have other files about the same subject and with the same quality : many of those files had been kept prior to that DR closure (including the same file once). I can't stand the lack of coherence. And I can't stand the fact that, whatever can be read here and elsewhere, topics such as nudity and sex are never dealt equally compared to other subjects (I don't say there's always censorship, I just see it as a fact). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    I aim to judge these files in the same way as files from other subjects. I have e.g. deleted many low quality pictures of random landscapes. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    The quality of that file is not that bad. I don't get it. All other equivalent files have been kept, even that file once, until you decided that this one needed to be treated differently. I really don't get that lack of coherence. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If this actually showed oral sex being performed, there would be educational value. As it is, no sex act can be seen, and so I don't think it lives up to COM:EDUSE and should not be restored. Daphne Lantier 07:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Daphne Lantier: The main subject is a porn show, not the cunnilingus. And I don't see how it doesn't illustrate this main topic. As written further, it's kind of difficult to imagine the photographer on stage during the show to have a better shot of the act. So yes, we've got better files about that sex act, but not so much about this act during a porn show. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per reasons stated in all previous deletion requests. The fact that in this last one two users voted to keep this files, per previous deletion requests that kept this file precisely for having educational purposes and so being in scope, and one administrator deleted merely saying "not useful for education purposes --> out of scope" without justifying is worrying.
The fact that this file and the others of the same subject have being kept counteless times, as stated by [[User:TwoWings|TwoWings]" per community and administrator decision and now one single administrator Jcb "decides" that this files is out of scope because it does not have educational purposes because it has no educational purposes, without giving any more explinations in a clear albeit short one and only deletes it but you don't explain why (only stating "This file is not useful for education purposes --> out of scope." and "a picture of people is useless for educational purposes, we delete it".
Well, Jcb, if you have the time to delete tons of files, will you care to take the time to explain why is this files out of scope, not merely stating it in 3 words, or your first statement on this undeletion request were you gave no answer as to why of your deletion? Or will you still refuse to give any explanation like in dozens of your hasty deletions, many of whom were undeleted, and so wasting everyones time? Tm (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per original DR closure. Image has no realistic educational value. It's just a poor quality photo of someone performing a sex act and you can't even see the act in question. Keep voters have not provided any real examples of what this photo would be useful for illustrating that we don't already have scads of better quality images for. Commons isn't a dump for all free license images. It's supposed to be a repository for useful images. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Kaldari: "not provided any real examples of what this photo would be useful" ? We've said it many times : it illustrates a lesbian pornographic show. Yes we can't really see the act in question, which is normal : do you really think the photographer could go on stage during the public show ? And as far as the porn show topic is concerned, how would it be less useful than other files in the same cat ? For each subject, Commons give a diversity of files, but for some reason, when it comes to nudity and sexuality, we would need to choose. How do we choose what we keep in that case ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    "Lesbian pornographic show" is not an example. Lesbian pornographic show would be an example if that were actually an article. An no, I'm not saying it has to be a Wikimedia-based example. Also, I completely disagree that this is biased for nudity and sexuality images. We delete images on a daily basis that are poor quality and already well covered on Commons. The most prevalent example being selfies. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    What I said is that it's a lesbian illustration for the subject "pornographic show". And the quality of that file is not that bad. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment When I see that this DR has been concluded as "kept", I really don't understand any coherence. The quality is far worse, we have already two other versions and other better equivalents. I honestly continue to think sex and nudity are not dealt with the same criterias of quality and usefulness. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Strong. Per opposers above /St1995 19:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Personally, I find the quality of this photo to be rather bad and would have favored deletion. But a reasonable number of people think this photo is in scope, and for scope arguments, we should err on the side of keeping images. Also, I find the manner in which this photo was deleted, despite a previous "keep" and no new arguments worrying and displaying a showing lack of respect for other admins. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Autograf Sashy Strunin 2 edited.jpg

I believe there's been a misunderstanding. I have requested another photo of the singer's signature to be deleted as it violated copyrights policy and there was a different, better photo. In the end both have been deleted. The photo that I request to undelete is 100% genuine as I own the autograph and have taken a photo of it myself and uploaded here. ArturSik (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: . Thuresson (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored it as per {{PD-signature}}, since Poland is a civil law country. --Daphne Lantier 17:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Isu152 wm.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I presume these files were Theatre of War screenshots (see Category:Theatre of War (video game)) from the Russian Wikipedia (ru:Файл:T60 wm.jpg, ru:Файл:Valentine wm.jpg and ru:Файл:Isu152 wm.jpg). If I am correct, I suggest to undelete them under {{GFDL-ww2.games.1c.ru}}.

According to this page of its official website, all screenshots of the game Theatre of War, taken from the website ww2.games.1c.ru or made by users, are distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Russian Rocky (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Google translates the applicable language as "All screenshots of the game "World War II", taken from this site or created by users, are subject to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License ." I don't think that works -- in order for the site to say that, each user must sign an individual written license -- simply making a statement that most users will not see does not validly license their work. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL-ww2.games.1c.ru. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Daphne Lantier 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Organika270715.jpg

this is file- it,s My work. Данное изображение -это моя собственная работа, я её сфотографировал 27 июля 2015 года в 14-30 на площадке перед заводом Органика. Перед этим я её загрузил возможно на Фасебук для ускорения загрузки. Фотографию загрузил в октябре на страницу Органика в Русской википедии . Ochkarik (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because of the prior upload to Facebook, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim -- please use COM:OTRS/ru. --Daphne Lantier 17:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Conklin Mountain House August 2013.jpg

I am currently putting together a comprehensive wiki page about the Conklin Mountain house and wish to use File:Conklin Mountain House August 2013.jpg which is a Google Street View image of the house in the process of being painted in 2013. I looked up Google's stance on using their images, and it's OK as long as you properly credit them. In the description I credited 'Google, Inc' and mentioned it as being a street view image. Do I need to do more?

--Dracolique (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are significant restrictions on the use of Street View images, among them:

"Note that you may not use Street View imagery in television commercials."
"You may not use Google Maps, Google Earth, or Street View imagery in print advertisements."
"You may print Content for non-commercial use...."
"You may not use the Content as a core part of printed navigational material (for example, tour books). "

(all taken from https://www.google.com/intl/ALL/permissions/geoguidelines.html) Commons requires that all images must be free for any use anywhere by anyone. Any one of prohibitions above would prevent the use of a Street View image on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. I don't understand why you believe this is licensed under a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Acklbonboncat

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See {{PD-HK}} seems to apply here and should not delete, these work are over 50 years (the Bak Hok Shan around 1900s, Hok Un Power Plant pic taken in 1920s, HK Gov Gazette in 1857, the 宋官富行宮遺址 map also create in around 1920-30s), which the author died had already ended, or the work is of unknown authorship and the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first made has ended. Wpcpey (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support the restoration of the first file. 1857 is old enough that it would be PD anywhere.
  •  Oppose the restoration of the other three. There are no dates or sources. We have no way of knowing whether they are works by unknown authors or not (please remember that the fact that we do not know the name of the author of an unsourced work does not mean that the author is unknown within the meaning of the applicable law). The map (the third of the four) might be very recent.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored one clearly old file, kept the others without clear dates deleted. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:David Epston.jpg

David Epston himself give me the right to use this photo on his wikipedia page. So, I'm very sad that you decide once again to refuse this content :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faimetti (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Do not reupload deleted files. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Jackson performing "Smooth Criminal".jpg

Hello, I still do not understand what's wrong with the photos I've uploaded (including this one), I read something about a "flushing" of Flickr licenses but I'm not sure, I want the photos to be restored, and if it is not possible: Could you explain the error in them? Thank you... --Adrián José (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Christian Ferrer. Daphne Lantier 22:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Fran Martínez Actor.jpg

Ticket:2017031310022816 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 21:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

But please note that according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fran Martínez Actor.jpg this was deleted as a duplicate. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Srittau: Funny you should mention that, now the uploader customer wants that DR enforced (the file redeleted) due to deletion of his promotional autobiography per this log. A first for me. I tagged it speedy.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Jrs10917

Reason:
I scanned these images. I guess I have to change the license for this images. Please help me sort this issue out.
Jrs10917 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Jrs10917

@Jrs10917: What did you scan them from?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I bought this card and scanned them using my printer/scanner. Jrs10917 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Jrs10917
@Jrs10917: If it is like NYC MTA MetroCards I've seen, whoever created the text and imagery on the card (one or more creative people like writers, designers, graphic artists, photographers, etc. and/or an employer or employers) own the copyrights to some or all of the elements of the front and back of that card. Your scans (2D representations of 2D works on each side) are derivative work of their copyrighted work. You must not assert here rights that you don't possess. Please see COM:L for details.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The "beep" logo is copyrighted by AF Payments Inc.... the uploaded images are derivatives of that work. Ownership of a copy of the work does not grant to right to duplicate it. - Reventtalk 00:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Logo chính thức của BoBoiBoy Galaxy

Actually, I've credited the source I found the picture. But, I'm a newbie so I don't understand (a little) about the credit editing settings on Wikimedia. Please, can you show me how? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejenngo (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ejenngo: I think you meant File:Logo chính thức của BoBoiBoy Galaxy.png. What was the source?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Source is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISFssVQbCaI and under the Standard YouTube License, which is incompatible with Commons. The logo is non-trivial, and so copyrightable, and not licensed by the author. - Reventtalk 00:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Affisch Afrikansk Gryning 1989 RU.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a Swedish OTRS agent, I'm currently going through all tickets and files related to this deletion. But as to not accept any file by mistake, I'm doing them individually and ensuring we have permission for them. I can confirm, after having read the ticket related to this file, that this is a valid license release, and that this file is licened under CC-BY-SA 4.0 by Helene Broms. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Trusted admin and OTRS-agent asks undeletion after confirming that the ticket is valid. --Natuur12 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

[[::$K music producer Atlanta to undelete.jpg]]

Hello,

I would like to request this file to be undeleted. Permission was given for this picture by the picture of the person.Cassjohnmusiclove2011 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cassjohnmusiclove2011: I think you meant File:$K music producer Atlanta.jpg, which was deleted per a community discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:$K music producer Atlanta.jpg. Please send evidence of that permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 07:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Zombie Panic! Source Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm team leader development of the game title/organization "Zombie Panic! Source" and this new logo was made by the entire development team (me and the programmer) to represent our game with a fresh new logo. It was made via "Adobe Photoshop" in 8 April of 2017 from our private development forums/Slack. 

Tabajara77 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tabajara77: Hello, please send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. It may take weeks or months for your email to be processed, so please be patient. This is done to protect your copyright, since "Tabajara77" can be anyone. Thanks, ★ Poké95 07:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 07:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dr.Schnitzler-ILS-Fresko1948.pdf

att.: Yann It was not justified to delete that file. The pdf-file was generated by me and I was autorized to publish the description of an artwork, that had been destoyed 1971. So nobodys rights are damaged.--KAS-MUC (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is already an open request for undeletion for this file. Thuresson (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: duplicates earlier open request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mairie de montbert.jpg

Bonjour,

Après une première suppression de ce fichier pour une prétendue violation de droit d'auteur, j'ai souhaité re-télécharger le même fichier en y apportant les sources attestant d'un travail personnel et qui prouve qu'il n'y a pas effectivement d'atteinte au droit d'auteur.

Je certifie que cette photographie représentant la mairie de Montbert est donc bien une oeuvre personnelle, réalisée le lundi 10 avril avec mon téléphone portable. Pour être précis, pour pouvoir l'importer sur Commons, j'ai au préalable transféré cette photographie via ma messagerie Messenger. Je pense enfin que la licence utilisée est la plus adéquate.

Je souhaite donc faire une demande de restauration pour ce fichier. Merci.

--Packmanne (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image has previously appeared on Facebook, which is copyrighted, policy requires that the photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Please upload the original file, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dr.Schnitzler-ILS-Fresko1948.pdf

Die Datei wurde unnötigerweise gelöscht. Es ist ein Aufsatz von Dr. Schnitzler von vor 70 Jahren aus einem unveröffentlichten Archiv. Die pdf-Datei wurde von --KAS-MUC (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) erzeugt. Andere Rechteinhaber sind nicht bekannt. Von daher ist kein Lizenzverstoss denkbar. Eine Löschung dieser Beschreibung nützt niemandem. Es reduziert eher die enzyklopädische Intention.--KAS-MUC (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this a text by Elisabeth Schnitzler who died in 2003? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuresson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 May 2017‎ (UTC)
 Oppose in any case. This seems to be quite out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The work is signed by Elisabeth Schnitzler and dated 1948. The claim that it is 70 years old is both incorrect and irrelevant. The fact that it is useful is also irrelevant. It will be out of copyright on 1/1/2074. In order to restore it here, it must be proven that it is in scope and Schnitzler's heir must provide a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim & Sebari. Daphne Lantier 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Harpooned logo 2009.jpg

This image is sourced from the Harpooned website, media page. http://harpooned.org/?page_id=4 At the top of the page is the following announcement: "All images on this page may be freely distributed and used for any purpose without restriction."

Xerxon (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored, cleaned up, and review passed. Daphne Lantier 20:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ysasc-alampady.png

File:Ysasc-alampady.png This is the logo of the club Young Selected Arts & Sports Club in Alampady, Kasaragod. I'm a member of the club and I'm authorized to use the logo. So I would like to request not to remove from Wiki

--Meachu4u (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Meachu4u: Hello, please ask whoever holds the copyright of this logo (commonly the author) to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. Please note that Wikipedia-only permissions will be immediately declined, see COM:L. Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 20:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:St. Paul's School new logo 2016.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My username is HeatherGdaS, and I am the Communications Manager at St. Paul's School. How do I give permission/the appropriate license for the logos I have tried to upload to appear on our Wikipedia page? I have tried lots of things and none of them have worked, and now I am afraid of being blocked for my persistence. I can be contacted at hgs@stpauls.br to verify my identity. I look forward to hearing from you. Heather Godwin da Silva HeatherGdaS (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@HeatherGdaS: Please read COM:OTRS, which gives instructions on how to submit evidence of permission. - Reventtalk 12:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-fnaarc.jpg da ripristinare

Buongiorno, Mi chiamo Norberto Dognini, e lavoro per la FNAARC. Stiamo lavorando a una serie di progetti sulla comunicazione web e social, e uno di questi è la creazione di una pagina di Wikipedia. Abbiamo bisogno del ripristino del logo per lavorare sulla pagina.

Grazie

~Norberto~Dognini~ ~08~05~2017~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norberto Dognini (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 May 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization that holds the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 02:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shooting Star Official Poster BGR S.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the original owner of this pictures. It's official poster of the film of which I'm writer, director and producer. Please first inform yourself and after this delete some pictures without any reason. Please restore the picture in the profile of the film. Lyonchev (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 02:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Shooting Star Official Poster EN.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the original owner of this pictures. It's official poster of the film of which I'm writer, director and producer. Please first inform yourself and after this delete some pictures without any reason. Lyonchev (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If you have a contract with your designer of the poster (likely), then please send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. "Lyonchev" can be anyone, so you have to follow the procedures of the OTRS to protect your copyright. --★ Poké95 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 02:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Verdon Secret BD.jpg

Ticket:2017031410017704 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 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: restored and tagged. Daphne Lantier 07:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This file is a duplicate of another file which has OTRS permission verified by Yann. The two tickets are different to each other. Is the requester of the ticket stated here is the same of the ticket handled by Yann? Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: The ticket for 'this' image is in English, the ticket for the 'other' image is in French. The two tickets do not come from the same email address, however the signature attached to the French ticket includes the logo of the domain of the email address from which the English ticket was sent. The English ticket (this one) appears to have been created with the relgen tool. - Reventtalk 10:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The first ticket in French comes from Ecociné, the company credited on the poster, so it looks OK. These files are exact duplicates, so the second one can be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier, Pokéfan95, Revent, and Yann: I have tagged this one as a dupe. I am concerned that it was allowed through the side door via cross-wiki upload, whereas it would have been blocked in a normal upload. Does a task in phabricator address this issue?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Redirected to duplicate file File:Verdon Secret.jpg. - Reventtalk 06:38, 9 May 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 uploaded by Packmanne

Bonjour,

Ma demande porte sur ces quatre fichiers ci-dessous :

Ces fichiers ont été supprimés alors que se sont des oeuvres personnelles que j'ai créées. Les deux photographies ont été prises avec mon smartphone le lundi 10 avril, puis transférée via ma messagerie personnelle pour les importer sur la plateforme Commons. Les deux derniers fichiers sont des créations faites sur mon ordinateur avec un logiciel de cartographie. La licence utilisée pour ces fichiers étant, je pense, la bonne, je souhaite donc faire une demande de restauration pour ces quatre fichiers. Merci par avance. --Packmanne (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Ces fichiers ont été copiés de Facebook. Merci d'importer les fichiers originaux non modifiés, ou d'envoyer une autorisation via COM:OTRS. Pour les fonds de carte, vous pouvez utiliser Open Street Map. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support AGF for File:Evol étalement urba montbert.gif and File:Extrait du PLU de Montbert.png. Yann (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: 2 restored. Please send a permission for the others. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Times 1999.pdf

Its my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailbuddha (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. It is not your article. You need the permission from the newspaper editor to be published on Commons. --Yann (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Abu Salem Gangsters Arrested by DCB, CID-UNIT 7.pdf

my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailbuddha (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. It is not your article. You need the permission from the newspaper editor to be published on Commons. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dobrunje.JPG

Hi, File:Dobrunje.JPG does not infringe on any copyright: the architecture is below the threshold of originality and de minimis. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support While probably not de-mininis (the houses are the focus of the image), they would most likely fall below the TOO for architecture in most countries. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Sebari here... the houses appear to be of quite generic design. - Reventtalk 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose How do we know the ToO for architecture in Slovenia? Note that in the USA these houses clearly have a copyright -- if you Google "house plans USA" you will find thousands of copyrighted designs for simple houses. Therefore, even if these are below the Slovenian ToO, they are copyrighted in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support Below ToO for me. Yann (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Simple houses, below ToO. --Yann (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Alia Tempora Official.jpg

I wrongly specified the license of the file. The file is my own creation. --Podbor (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Then why was it deleted as a copyright violation if this is your own creation? You have to follow the procedures at OTRS if this is really your own work. --★ Poké95 09:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The original info given for this image was: "source=https://twitter.com/aliatemporaband and author=Alia Tempora Band" -- OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 19:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SKUT POSTER.jpg

Hi, i'm representative person from Falcon Pictures, this is a promotion Material for a movie titled Surat Kecil Untuk Tuhan. this content is free content and not violate any copyright.

my company own this content and im the person in charge to use it on our wikipedia pages.

Please Undelete this Movie Poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSNBaker (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC) --WSNBaker (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Hello, please send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. This is done since "WSNBaker" can be anyone and also to protect your company's copyright. Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 19:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:FA POSTER 70x100 - SURAT KECIL UNTUK TUHAN Final.jpg

Hi, i'm representative person from Indonesian Production House named Falcon Pictures, this content is a promotional kit for our Movie titled "Surat Kecil Untuk Tuhan (2017)" My Company own all rights of this content, so i have every right to use it on wikipedia for our Movie Page https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surat_Kecil_Untuk_Tuhan_(2017).

You can reach me at whisnubakker@falcon.co.id you can check my company at falcon.co.id

we have all the rights of this content, please undelete it so i can use it on my movie page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSNBaker (talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


--WSNBaker (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 19:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Linda Liepiņa.jpg request undeletion because it is publicly available photo.

Dear Wikipedia administration,

I'am writing to you,because I don't know the exact reason why photos of File:Linda Liepiņa.jpg and File:Atis Zakatistovs.jpg were deleted. These people are publicly known and their photos publicly available including their permission to use them. Can you please explain the reason why they were deleted and how it is possible to undelete them. The second reason I'am writing about are those articles about Atis Zakatistovs and Linda Liepiņa. Why they were deleted, if everything that was written there is approved by official government websites? How is it possible to get those articles back? My identity is available aswell, you can contact me eduardsmiltins@gmail.com

Yours Faithfully, Eduards776 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduards776 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted because you are not the copyright owner; you do not have the right to make copies. Thuresson (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Eduards776: This is not Wikipedia. Where were these articles, on the file description pages here?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Buerogebaeude_Frankenthal.jpg

Dear all,

please undelete the File:Buerogebaeude_Frankenthal.jpg for [[3]].

RKW has permitted the use of this image.

Best regards

Commha

--CommHa (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose You have two options for this image to be undeleted: one, ask them to place a notice that this image is released under a free license (like CC BY-SA-4.0) on their website, or two, ask them to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. I would recommend the first one, as it is fast (unlike the second which would take weeks or even months). Thanks, --★ Poké95 00:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké95. --Yann (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dimitar Radkov.jpg

This a photo of my father and it is my personal property.

I gave the rights to Wikipedia to use this photo.

Rdradkov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdradkov (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Rdradkov (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose First, owning an image doesn't make you the copyright holder. The copyright holder of this image is the photographer, so you have to ask them to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. If the photographer is dead, then ask their heirs, and if none, you have to wait for this image's copyright to expire for a very long time (70+ years after the death of the photographer). Second, Wikipedia-only permissions are strictly not allowed, for an image to be kept on Commons, it has to be free to be used for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works, not just Wikipedia use. --★ Poké95 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké95. Previously published, so a permission is needed anyway. --Yann (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vimala Pons.jpg

Bonjour je travaille à la production de 'GRANDE —' , le dernier spectacle de Vimala Pons. cela fait plusieurs fois que je change à sa demande la photo de sa page. merci de bien vouloir maintenir en ligne le fiche 'Vimala Pons.jpg' et non la photo prise au Festival de Cabourg. Adeline Ferrante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelinef (talk • contribs) 12:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adelinef: Vincent Macaigne est apparemment l'auteur. Merci de lui demander d'envoyer une autorisation via COM:OTRS/fr. Yann (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Suhail Buddha.jpg

its my own picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailbuddha (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Please upload the original unmodified image, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Stromkasten-Heidelberg-002 (9461541003).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Why do you think freedom of panorama does not apply here? This work is installed at a public place in Germany permanently. I2017 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Yann: I still don't understand. Does German FoP negate the all rights reserved copyright of Nickelodeon (a major TV network/company based in the USA)? How are these free in the USA? Daphne Lantier 19:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Until now, we apply the rule of the country of origin in case of FoP issues. For example, we accept pictures of recent sculptures taken in Germany. Pictures of the same sculptures in USA would not be acceptable. FoP in Germany includes permanent 2D art. This graffiti cannot move, so it should be accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yann: That makes it legal in Germany, but it's illegal in the USA. Files have to be free in the USA and the country of origin. If we restored these we would be violating the USA copyright of Nickelodeon on the Spongebob character. Daphne Lantier 22:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't know how a FoP provision would play out in the United States. Obviously the copyright of the character is still valid, so if you try to use a crop of that photo such that the public context is basically gone, you would most likely have an issue. The question is how would a use of the photo itself -- which depicts the character in its public context -- be determined, if the law in the country of the sculpture etc. would matter. We don't have a precedent to point to (either way), so we have always allowed FoP pictures on Commons, even if the U.S. status is debatable. Otherwise, you are arguing to delete every FoP photo of a public sculpture, no matter the country, which still has a U.S. copyright. The {{Not-free-US-FOP}} template is often added in such cases, which pretty much states current policy. If the SpongeBob depiction itself was unauthorized, that could be more of an issue, as I don't think FoP would apply even in the country of the photo if it was an unauthorized reproduction to begin with. But if the company knowingly allowed that depiction to be there in a FoP country, they obviously are OK with such photos being used in that country at least. I'm sure there are uses of the photo which may be a trademark violation even if not a copyright violation, but that does not prevent hosting here. To me, the decision on the photo would be based on whether the SpongeBob depiction was authorized or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Carl for the as-always persuasive and cogent analysis.  Oppose restoration and endorse Daphne's treatment of the one she cropped, given that, as graffiti on a utility cabinet, this is obviously unauthorized. Storkk (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Carl. FoP applies only to authorized uses of a work. If there were a Disneyland in Germany, then a Mickey Mouse statue there would be covered by FoP, but unless someone can show that Nickelodeon licensed this use of the character, FoP does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delete According to this blog, the Spongebob graffiti was applied illegaly to this cabinet, i.e. without consent from the power supplier that owns the box. So it's rather unlikely too that the artist had a permission from Nickelodeon to use the character. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. I see now that the work has to be authorized for FoP to apply. I changed my earlier comment. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Namuwiki Screenshot.png

The Contents of Namuwiki are distributed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR The Screenshot must have the same license with this and could be shared openly. why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.134.203.66 (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Because CC BY-NC-SA-2.0 KR is not an acceptable license as stated at COM:L. It would be difficult to change their license because it is a wiki, that's why I closed this uDR now. --★ Poké95 01:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files of User:Sdmather

Ticket:2017021610023857 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 02:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: restored. Daphne Lantier 05:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Thanks, and could I please get the text from the file description page for File:Maastrict liberation plate.jpg for fair use on enwiki?   — Jeff G. ツ 06:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Here you are:
file desc page
== {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |Description ={{en|1=A plate made by Petrus Regout to commemorate the Liberation of Maastricht in WWII.}} |Source ={{own}} |Author =[[User:Sdmather|Sdmather]] |Date =2015-09-20 |Permission = |other_versions = }} == {{int:license-header}} == {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
Daphne Lantier 07:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 07:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tai TF-X idef 2017 concept design.jpg

The picture is a free press release VIA IDEF 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themreboz (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos, most press release content is not free. Is there any reason to believe that this is an exception? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the source page named in the file description has "© 2017 TUSAŞ - Türk Havacılık ve Uzay Sanayii A.Ş". There is no reason to believe this is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per LX and Jim. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:تسجيلات المصحف المرتل للشيخ محمود خليل الحصري.jpg

I really don't know the logic reason for deleting the photo the photo is taken by me for a cover of a cassette for one of the most famous Quran reciter in Egypt who's content is considered as a open to the public for free to use and reuse so I am sure 100% that there is no any problem connected to publishing my photo and I want to know the reason for deleting it

Arabic Wikipedia is facing problems connected to its visual content because the people dealing with the visual content delete a a lot public domain content and not alloying it to be published with no logic reason

hope to give me an answer related to the legal reason for deleting a photo of my work I make a huge effort to take it and to publish it

I am sorry but I am feeling that the wikipedians in charge are dealing with my effort and work with lack of appreciation and I will not be able to contribute any more without having a clear vision connected to how you deal with photographers effort in Wikipedia

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedtahrir (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ahmedtahrir: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Yann: I am the creator of the content and it is not published any where else Ahmed Hamed (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You just said it was the cover of a cassette. That constitutes publication. If you are the author, OTRS is pretty easy. https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ will help you generate the release. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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


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

File:JPKaram.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: What evidence of copyright can I provide? Samjoka (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samjoka,
Who is the photographer? When and where was it published? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Juspreet Singh Walia.jpg

This was a picture captured by me on my mobile. I am the owner of this file. Kindly request you to undelete this file. I have already submitted the license agreement as well as filled up the OTRS form and emailed it to the permission team. Please let me know if there is anything else required. Thank you. --PreetiYFL (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PreetiYFL,
The copyright owner, i.e. the photographer, has to send a permission via COM:OTRS, as for all content previously published elsewhere. Alternatively, please upload the original unmodified image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, has a significant backlog, so it may be several weeks before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Jim (Jameslwoodward). Is there any other way for the image to be restored? --PreetiYFL (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yann, I have submitted an email using Wikimedia's OTRS release generator for this particular image. It was shot using an iPhone 7, using the black and white filter and focus on. This is the original picture with no variations to it. Let me know if you require anything else for the undeletion request. Thank you, --PreetiYFL (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This would be undeleted when the permission is accepted. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 11 May 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

Kindly undelete this image. This image was captured on my mobile at the Twitter headquarters in Mumbai. Juspreet Singh Walia requested me to share the image with him so he could use it too on his social platforms. --PreetiYFL (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PreetiYFL,
The copyright owner, i.e. the photographer, has to send a permission via COM:OTRS, as for all content previously published elsewhere. Alternatively, please upload the original unmodified image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yann, I have submitted an email using the OTRS release generator for this email. Also, uploading the original unmodified image as well. Hope this works, please let me know if anything else is required. Thank you so much for your quick response. --PreetiYFL (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And rather than waiting for that e-mail to be reviewed, you apparently decided to bypass the undeletion process by just unilaterally recreating the file yourself. If you're trying to get yourself blocked again, this will probably be a very effective approach. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This would be undeleted when the permission is accepted. --Yann (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sarasara album cover2.jpg

Hi, I've recently used a picture in a wikipedia article with the consent of the artist but the picture keeps getting deleted. Is there anything i can do to prevent that?

The file I'm talking about is called File:Sarasara album cover2.jpg.

I used it upon request of the artist and therefore, I have their consent. --Dynamo Asso (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dynamo Asso,
The artist may not own the copyright of the cover. The publisher or producer usually does. A formal written permission via COM:OTRS is needed anyway for all content previously published elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Flamingo Calder.jpg

PD-US-no notice per SIRIS [4] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Storm King Calder.jpg

PD-US no notice per SIRIS [5]. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

My Kristina.jpg and Autoportrait_With_Diadem_of_flowers_2005_oil_canvas_90_105_cm_Gryte_Pintukaite_Valeckiene

[Ticket#: 2017051010008941] and [Ticket#: 2017051010008638] already sent twice

In the letter to "Permission" Wikipedia commons we write : I hereby affirm that I represent...., the creator and/or sole owner.... "creator OR..." it means that if museum has this work they have not the exclusive copyright on the painting which belongs also to the owner of the workEurialo444 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I am not quite sure I understand your comment. The copyright to a painting almost always belongs to the artist or his or her heirs and not to the owner of the painting. When a museum acquires a painting from the artist, it often buys a license to the copyright with it, but when a museum buys a painting from a third party, it does not have the right to freely license copies of it.

I see that you mention two OTRS tickets dated yesterday. They will be dealt with when they reach the front of the long queue at OTRS several weeks from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 18:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lamprophis guttatus00.jpg

The firm of 'bionerds' belongs to me and in previous posts I have made it clear. Alouise Lynch (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are no "previous posts" -- the only thing on your talk page is the notice of the problem with this file. Alouise Lynch could be anyone, so policy requires that when an image has a company watermark copyright, that the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File: Nomadi_2017.jpg

Buonasera, confermo di avere il pieno diritto di poter pubblicare la foto in oggetto e anche l'autorizzazione da parte dei soggetti ritratti. La foto può essere caricata per il pubblico utilizzo. Grazie.

--Markethink & Music Style (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears in several places on the Web without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the copyright holder -- which is almost always the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ziffernblatt astronomische uhr marienkirche rostock.jpg

Das Bild stammt von mir. Der Link geht/ging auf meine Flickr-Seite. Dort ist eineindeutig vermerkt, dass das Bild CC ist und wie die Lizensierung geregelt ist. Das habe ich auch auf meiner Diskussionsseite gesagt. Eine Löschung ist absurd und ich bitte um baldige Widerherstellung. Danke.

PS: In meinen Augen gehen die Löschungen zu schnell. Wie oft soll ich denn auf meine Seite gehen, um rechtzeitig von Anträgen zu erfahren? Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, dass Nachrichten mir als E-Mail weitergeleitet werden. Oder doch? Jedenfalls vermittelt das ein merkwürdiges Gefühl von Bevormundung. --N3MO (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

EN: I have made this picture. The link refers/refered to my Flickr page. There you'll find that it is clearly CC. I also answered this question very clearly on my discussion page, unfortunately unrecognized. Please undelete this photo. Thank you. --N3MO (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.flickr.com/photos/martin-graupner/5621413307/in/photostream. It is, as you say above, clearly CC. However you do not say above that it is actually CC-BY-NC-SA. As noted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ziffernblatt astronomische uhr marienkirche rostock.jpg, NC licenses are not permitted on Commons.
There are two possible solutions -- either change the license on Flickr to CC-BY-SA or send a free license using OTRS.
To answer your second comment in the German text, DRs are open for a week. You can change your preferences to receive an e-mail when any change is made to your talk page, which will include the notification that a DR has been opened on one of your images. Since you have email enabled already, this is easy. At the top of any page, go to Preferences > Notifications and chose how you want to be notified of various events. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. I have changed the licensing on the Flickr-page. N3MO (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support, @Jameslwoodward: licensing on Flickr is now "CC BY-SA 2.0".   — Jeff G. ツ 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and license review passed. Daphne Lantier 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sheldon Lo Profile Picture.jpg

Hi,

I own the copyright to that picture. Please Undelete it.

thanks, Sheldon Lo — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 42.3.165.66 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on Facebook without a free license, therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder -- which is almost always the photographer, not the subject -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nl-Coprolagnie-article.ogg and File:Nl-Bart Jan Cune-article.ogg

These are spoken versions of the Dutch Wikipedia articles nl:Coprolagnie and nl:Bart Jan Cune. Licensing can probably performed the same way as File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg, File:Nl-BNN Today-article.ogg and File:Nl-Dirk van den Broek-article.ogg, which have been restored last weeks. Wikiwerner (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 19:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dinesh C. Paliwal.jpg

Hello,

This image is Dinesh Paliwal's official headshot, available on the company's (HARMAN) website too. Can you please suggest how to get this recent image of his back on the profile? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsuchak (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 00:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Antonino Fogliani.jpg

I'm Antonino Fogliani. The photo is under my copiright and I'd like to update the photo in my wiki page. Thanks (copied from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=243739474&oldid=243734198) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musikaf (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 May 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose @Musikaf: Please send permission for it via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 00:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Magdalo Flag.jpg

Firstly, the deletion rational is contradictory. If the image is from another website, it isn't simply sourced by Wikipedia. Secondly, basic design of the flag is sourced historically on FOTW. Fry1989 eh? 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support undeletion of File:Magdalo Flag.jpg per Fry.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The Magdalo flag was made very long ago, in the late 19th century. I know that because I am a Filipino. IMO, if what we are talking here is about Mark Sensen's version, it is a simple derivative work of the original flag, but both of those versions are below the COM:TOO anyway (IMO). I would also like to note that the user who opened the DR is incompetent in making deletion requests, I don't know why that wasn't considered by the deleting admin. --★ Poké95 02:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    No comment.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:4-whale-tail-male-thong.JPG

The file was deleted by @INeverCry: due to uploader's request. This request was made more than year after uploading, but it's valid reason only during 1 week after uploading. At that time and also now exists derivative work of the deleted file:Whale-tail-feamale-male-thong.png. The file is used and so in scope. As there was no valid reason to delete the file:4-whale-tail-male-thong.JPG, I request restoring it. I do not accuse INeverCry, because he did not know, that there exists a derivative work. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Taivo. Daphne Lantier 05:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Terlzzi Calcio.PNG

Logo di una squadra calcistica italiana ufficiale Stemma del Terlizzi Calcio, chiedo il ripristino!--Giuseppe Dello Russo (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright for the logo must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 22:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Stadio Comunale di Terlizzi.JPGFile:Stadio comunale di Terlizzi.JPG

La foto è stata scattata dal sottoscritto il 10 maggio 2015 e indica proprio lo stadio Comunale di Terlizzi per cui ritengo il ripristini immediato! --Giuseppe Dello Russo (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo appears at http://www.terlizzilive.it/sport/Calcio/200290/news.aspx with an explicit copyright notice by Lucia Melcarne and has a watermark showing "Ph Lucia MELCARNE - Manfredonia". Policy therefore requires that in order to restore the image, Lucia Melcarne must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 22:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Budapest-logo.png

I have added the official logo from an official source. That pic is the same logo used in the Hungarian version of Budapest article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGavriel (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@IGavriel: Do you mean hu:Fájl:Budapest logo.png? I find the information on that page incredible. Also, the filename in the topic has never existed here or on Hungarian or English Wikipedias.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not surprising that Budapest-logo.png never existed, as that would be a very strangely named gallery page. File:Budapest-logo.png did exist and was deleted about a month ago. Based on Google's cached copy of the file description, IGavriel never provided any licensing information or PD rationale (presumably because the file is unlikely to actually meet Commons' licensing requirements). And since this undeletion request also completely fails to address that:  Oppose. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per LX. Daphne Lantier 22:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Photograph of Kevin Royal Johnson.jpg

This is a photograph of Kevin Royal Johnson taken by Kevin Royal Johnson, and submitted by Kevin Royal Johnson, whose Wikipedia username is Royalbooks. The photo belongs exclusively to Kevin Royal Johnson and violates no copyrights. --Royalbooks (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This file is copied from Facebook. So please upload the original image, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 22:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Delphic Astana2006 logo.gif

@Josve05a: this file ru:Файл:Delphic Astana2006 logo.gif is under free licence GFDL. Why did you delete it? --Joeroeq (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Ping. Anyway, I doubt that a logo would be licensed under the GFDL, since there were already CC licenses in that time. But if that how Russians logo creators do, then be it. ★ Poké95 13:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not the one who deleted it. But currently I don't see any reason to keep/undelete. Quite obviously not {{PD-trivial}}, and the link on ruwiki doesn't say anything about licensing. --A.Savin 13:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per A.Savin. OTRS permission from the copyright holder of this complex logo is needed. Daphne Lantier 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Misplaced section without headline

Moved here from the top of the page, where it replaced the text "PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE" —LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The image is not copyrighted so it was deleted I accept it. But why the whole article was deleted?

He was a freedom fighter named "maveeran alagumuthu Kone" and he was recognized as a freedom fighter by Indian government then why that page named "Maveeran alagumuthu Kone" was deleted?

I would like to know the exact reason otherwise keep that page undeleted. Thanks you Kanna000003 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Kanna000003

Wikimedia Commons is a media repository. Articles are therefore outside the project scope of Commons. That said, there's never been a page named Maveeran alagumuthu Kone (or Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone) on Commons. You may be looking for en:Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone at the English Wikipedia. Also note that given names are usually capitalised. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The only deleted upload by this user is File:Maveeran Alagumuthu Kone.jpg, which is sourced to "Google images", and so an obvious COM:NETCOPYVIO. Daphne Lantier 22:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

I, Dan Looney - own the copyright to the image that has been deleted. As I created the wikipedia page, I added this photo in as I own the copyright so am happy for this to be on the wikipedia page. --Danlooneymusic (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I, Pokéfan95 -  Oppose the both the claim of Dan Looney that he holds the copyright for this poster and the undeletion of this image that has been deleted. Okay let's get serious now. I am opposing this because Dan is just the creator of the lyrics and music, but not the poster itself. The one who designed the poster is the copyright holder of the said poster, so a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS is needed from the designer. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 22:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Turn Off the Lights.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission on Support website: https://www.turnoffthelights.com/support/about-the-project/permission-lamp-logo-of-the-turn-off-the-lights-project/ Jacky90842 (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Permission restricted to only two specific web sites. Thuresson (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: insufficient licensing -- please see COM:L for acceptable licenses. Daphne Lantier 22:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Llibertatdexpresio.jpg

La imagen llibertatdexpressió está libre de derechos de autor. Fue creada por los propios abogados durante las proptestas que trata el artículo. Por favor restauren esta imagen. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glowriette (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) request undeletion because it is a image of public domain thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glowriette (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no reason to believe this work is in the public domain. It appears to be recent. In the file description, you claimed that you were the creator of the artwork. Above, I think you claim something different -- the Google translation is not perfectly clear. As noted in the deletion comment, it appears on the Web without a free license..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 22:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Untitled (2014). from the 'Tactile Journeys' series. Acrylic and silver leaf on paper.jpg

Reason: These are my own works, I am an Artist and I have created them myself. Aqeel Solangi (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. The first is that while there is a WP:EN article, Aqeel Solangi, it was written entirely by the subject and, therefore, raises the question of whether Aqeel Solangi is notable and his work falls within the scope of Commons. Second, we have no way of knowing that User:Aqeel Solangi is actually the artist. Identity theft by fans and vandals is common here, so if the community determines here that the works are in scope, in order to restore them, the artist Aqeel Solangi must send a message using OTRS which confirms that he is User:Aqeel Solangi and that he freely licenses his work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC) (Jameslwoodward) Dear Jameslwoodward, You have mentioned two problems that in my opinion are based on your personal understanding/misunderstanding. The fact is I Aqeel Solangi have come a long way and have contributed significantly in the Pakistani Art. I am teaching ART as an Assistant Professor at the National College of Arts (the prestigious institution in Pakistan as well as in South Asia) you can check at Wikipedia Category:National College of Arts faculty AND Second problem you mentioned is senseless, as my whole page is stating that I am an Artist. Please google my name and you will find countless sources linked to my Art work also my personal website is written there in reference section as a proof that I am an artist and if you like, a public figure: http://aqeelsolangi.com.pk/ I recently finished my Mastes Degree in Fine Art at the Bath Spa University UK. It is a joke for me to prove myself an Artist first time in my life after spending 19 years in this field (Fine Arts)and after showing Nationally and Internationally at World's notable venues. Having that strong background in the Arts, it is a sheer surprise that my Wikipedia page is suspended. I apologize any offense. I have sent an email using OTRS for permission to my images/content as a free source. I hope I have made myself clear. Best Regards. Aqeel Solangi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqeel Solangi (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Once the OTRS permission is processed the files can be restored. Daphne Lantier 22:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Oro Lenca Logo Small.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We (I - Oro Lenca), are owner and creators of the image. We are giving permission for use under the usage guidelines of Wikipedia, as was configured in the original upload. I note similar logos have been uploaded by other (commercial) entities in Honduras. Why is it so difficult for us to do the same? This image is meaningful for the article to which it was added. OroLenca (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we cannot know here who you are, policy requires that an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright to the logo must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 22:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:android30t-logo.jpg

استفاده از لوگوی یک وبسایت جهت معرفی آن، ناقض حقوق پدیدآورندگان و کپی رایت نیست و این لوگو نباید حذف شود.نیشتمان (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Google translation: Use of the logo for a website to introduce it violates the rights of creators and copyright of the logo should be removed
No file named File:android30t-logo.jpg has ever existed on Commons; presumably this is about File:Android30t-logo.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I don't know what the heck the opener of this uDR is saying, but the logo was deleted because it was from an external website, and obviously, OTRS permission is required from the said website. --★ Poké95 05:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Marl-letter.png

My Lords and Gentlemen, I humbly pray to undelete my file. This is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Товарищ герцог Мальборо (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Товарищ герцог Мальборо: Please send permission via OTRS. Also, what about those of us who are neither Lords nor Gentlemen?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear my lord, please forgive me that I have to close this undeletion request as  Not done. Wait a sec. This is not a sin. Anyway, per Jeff, you have to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. Furthermore, please don't reupload your deleted files, it is against policy. If you repeat it, your lord may not answer you. --★ Poké95 05:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Female Posing.jpg

This is my photo uploaded with permission and is meant for legitimate illustrative purposes. Please consider undeleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin46 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission is needed. And, we already have so many porn images, I don't think of any benefit of adding more of it. --★ Poké95 05:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mayor Joe Barker Daguerreotype.jpg

This joke of a person shows up. Deletes my image without even messaging me. And then scurries back to his dark web hole. Absurd. I demand that image is restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonWithOpenArms (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done You claimed "own work" for this. It's obviously a 19th century image. How old are you? And this is a page for undeletion requests; demands are outside the scope of this page. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This image may conform to {{PD-old-70-1923}} or {{PD-old-100-1923}}. @SonWithOpenArms: What you've written above is completely uncalled for, and constitutes a personal attack. Any more posts like this will result in your account being blocked. Please keep your communication with others here respectful and constructive. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: To answer your question, I am old enough, unlike some, to understand copyright laws. Yes, as you say the image is "obviously" a 19th century image. You do understand copyright laws correct? It's public domain, friend. And the SECOND I altered it in photoshop, after getting it from the public domain, that ALTERED version became MY PROPERTY. Sorry this is over your head. And that is a sincere and constructive apology. As for the score of the page, I would not know, again, I have a real job and unfortunately cannot use my time deleting other people's contributions on Wiki based on incorrect presumptions.. Again, that is a sincere, heartfelt and constructive apology. Cheers indeed. Thanks for at least suggesting what it conforms to @Daphne Lantier: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonWithOpenArms (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support The subject died in 1862, so we can safely assume that this is out of copyright. However, for the record, User:SonWithOpenArms should note that falsely claiming "own work" on an image simply makes trouble for everyone. Making minor corrections with Photoshop probably does not create a new copyright and, in any event, had the copyright for the photograph still been in force, this would have been a derivative work and could not be kept on Commons without a free license from the photographer's heir. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:File:Locks of love 9.jpg

Hi Please read the request. 3 people were for the deletion and 4 against. So, there are no consensus to delete. Also, the picture could be edited. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose DRs are not votes. I note that the three who wanted deletion are three highly experienced Admins. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Deletion requests are neither popularity contests, nor votes. A valid decision has been made, no new arguments presented here. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Я. М. Штернштейн. Морские ворота Украины.jpg

Данный файл - фотография обложки книги "Морские ворота Украины", написанной моим дедом. Это фото сделано мной и мной же загружено в Википедию. Прошу не удалять файл! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Khanonkin (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Google translation: This file is a cover photo of the book "The Sea Gate of Ukraine" written by my grandfather. This photo was taken by me and I uploaded it to Wikipedia. Please do not delete the file!
  •  Oppose @Elena Khanonkin: The copyright for the cover probably belongs to the publisher. If the cover has a photo, the copyright for that probably belongs to the photographer. If permission was transferred to you, please explain how in your email to permissions-ru via OTRS. Авторское право на обложку, вероятно, принадлежит издателю. Если на обложке есть фотография, авторское право на нее, вероятно, принадлежит фотографу. Если вам было передано разрешение, объясните, как в вашей электронной почте с permissions-ru через OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed -- the book cover shows a harbour with a lighthouse and othe graphic elements. Daphne Lantier 01:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Juspreet Singh Walia.jpg

Hello,

This is an original file and has been clicked by me and I have full permission to use it. Can you please undelete it because I don't understand why it was deleted. There has been no reason stated for the same.

--PreetiYFL (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on Twitter, which is not freely licensed. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission is required. --★Poyekhali!!! 01:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:IF-IS-HP-FB-VF-GFG-CS-ISG-Isolierarmatur-mit-Anschweissflanschen.jpg and three other files

Good morning, I just got informed, that four images I uploaded got deleted due to copyright issues. These are the images i question:

These image are produced by us and we are entitled to put them under CC licensing. The website referenced in the deletion log is our own website. Could you please undelete those files for us? Thank you and best regards, Bernd Bkfv (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we have no way of knowing here who User:Bkfv actually is, policy requires that an authorized representative of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. When the free license is received, read and approved, the file will be automatically restored. Since OTRS has a substantial backlog, that may take several weeks or more. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 01:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ian Welsh OBE.png

Reasons for request:

  • This is a public image taken at the time of Ian Welsh's retirement which is available from the [TheyWorkForYou] website (owned by mySociety), released under Creative Commons 2.5 generic (see [here]: "But please note that any image we use must have been released by its owner under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license – which means that anyone is free to copy and use the image themselves, with attribution.").
  • I believe that this image is important to wikipedia as it denotes an elected public figure, namely the former Labour MSP for Ayr (1999-2000) Ian Welsh.
  • Nilfanion has provided no evidence on the contrary to suggest that this image is not CC-2.5 and overlooked this evidence which was provided in the summary of the image he deleted.

Brythones (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Who took this photo? You indicated "BBC" on upload. If so, not free.
The 2nd point is irrelevant, all that matters is if this is available under a free license.  Oppose undeletion until actual source provided.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion - I am trying to indicate why this image should not be removed from wikicommons, among the reasons for this I believe the image is an important one which is useful on wikipedia. The TheyWorkForYou and BBC images are the same, so I decided to use the fuller image from the BBC and cite TheyWorkForYou/MySociety as evidence that this image is CC-2.5: TheyWorkForYou explicitly state that the image and its source (BBC) is CC-2.5 in the link I have provided above. Brythones (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
If it is more appropriate the image could be fixed, using the copy available from the TheyWorkForYou site which is released under CC-2.5. Brythones (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Commons can only host free photos - the potential utility of an image is irrelevant to working out if its free or not.
TheyWorkForYou states that only cc-by-sa-2.5 uploads are accepted by them - they also warn against uploading random pictures from the 'net, so they are contributor driven - like us. The photo wasn't created for his TheyWorkForYou profile but by someone else, for something else. Who took the photo? TheyWorkForYou isn't the source. I see no reference to the BBC on his profile, and certainly no indication that the BBC released this as cc-by-sa-2.5.
Furthermore, you chose to use the larger BBC image. If the photographer did release the cropped image to TheyWorkForYou - that doesn't mean the full photo on the BBC was released. The most likely chain of events here is that the BBC image is a screencap of one of their camera feeds. More recently a random person submitted the BBC image to TheyWorkForYou, and it was incorrectly accepted by them. It doesn't help that TheyWorkForYou doesn't actually follow the cc-by-sa terms - they should say WHO took the photos...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It appears to be well beyond our standard of "significant doubt" that TheyWorkForYou does not have the right to freely license this image. In order to restore it, the actual source and the image's copyright status must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Two words: license laundering. --★Poyekhali!!! 01:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hiruy Amanuel.jpg

Our File File:Hiruy Amanuel.jpg has been deleted, but we are the copyright holders and uploaded this photograph, which you will not find it anywhere, with Royalty free General public copyright rule. what should we do to recover it back?

--Mikiamdu (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the Metadata shows copyright holder as "Paul Ferradas" and copyright status "Copyrighted", which contradicts Own Work CC-BY-SA-4.0 claim. In order to restore the image, Paul Ferradas must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission is required from Paul Ferradas. --★Poyekhali!!! 01:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Escut Trempats de la UPF.png

This logo is public ussage, and in fact, I designed it for the castellers team (there was a contest, so they own the rights now, but is free to use and reproduce). I probably posted it under the wrong license in Wikimedia. I don't know if I should post it again in the right license or request undeletion, so there I go. If this can be undelated and the license changed, i know it should have been posted as "CC BY-SA 4.0" and attribute it to Trempats de la UPF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minara93 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Our policy on logos requires that either (a) it appear on the web with an explicit free license or (b)an authorized official of the organization that owns the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. If I were you, I would do the first option. --★Poyekhali!!! 01:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Holy Goo

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of them are properly licensed in flickr! Holy Goo (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Commercial use not allowed. Thuresson (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: insufficient licensing -- please see COM:L for acceptable licenses -- commercial and derivative use must be allowed. Daphne Lantier 23:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Can you be more specific? What part of the license in flickr indicates commercial and derivative use are not allowed? And how on Earth does this qualify as "commercial"? Holy Goo (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Holy Goo: If you look at the license for https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosagenciabrasil/16884831759/ for example, you'll see a crossed out $ sign in the license. If you mouse over the license you'll see CC-BY-NC-SA. NC is for "non-commercial". Daphne Lantier 00:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: I still don't understand how it qualifies as commercial use. No money is being made out of the image. Besides, Agência Brasil is a government agency of Brasil. Holy Goo (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: The non-commercial usage restriction applies to people who find the image on Commons and want to use it on a website, in a book, etc. An NC license prohibits re-users of the image to use it in any commercial capacity, a prohibition that is against Commons licensing policy. As regards this being a government agency, you could look through Category:PD Brazil license tags for a license that might apply. Daphne Lantier 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Is this license tag valid? Holy Goo (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Holy Goo: That certainly looks like a possibility. I've re-opened this request. Let me call on a couple of copyright experts to get their guidance on this. @Jameslwoodward: & @Clindberg: Does Template:Agência_Brasil apply to the above listed images and others from their Flickr stream? Template:Agência_Brasil mentions their website which is a bit confusing, but it would be great if it applies to Flickr images as well. Daphne Lantier 02:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This might be useful, but the files are also uploaded in their website in the form of an article. Example. EBC is a state owned TV and agency. I personally would prefer to use flickr as the source. Holy Goo (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If the image appears on the web site that has the license quoted at {{Agência Brasil}}, then the image could be restored, using that template, even though it has an NC license on Flickr. However, for whatever reason, the image appears on Flickr with the NC version of the license and there is no reason why we should able to use the license from the other site. Many organizations post images with different licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: "If the image appears on the web site that has the license quoted at {{Agência Brasil}}, then the image could be restored". It appears. All images do. See my message above yours. Also, the Agência Brasil category contains 10 000+ files! Holy Goo (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Please list the pages on the AB web site on which each of the five images -- the page URLs, not the image file URLs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: How am I supposed to do that if I don't even remember what the images looked like! I gave you the link to the Eduardo Cunha image, which is the most important for me, because it will be used in the Corruption in Brazil article. Everyone uploads stuff from AB, and this kind of stuff only happens to me. Unbelievveable. Holy Goo (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: Does the copyright law in Brazil says that all government images are in the public domain, or all government images are in the public domain unless otherwise stated? ★Poyekhali!!! 01:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Poyekhali: The latter. That's what the website says. Why do you wanna know? Do you plan on deleting 10 thousand images? Holy Goo (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for the answer. They are not public domain, they are licensed under the CC BY-3.0-BR. And that doesn't apply to the images here, because you affirm the "unless otherwise stated" statement (which is true). And I am not an admin, so I can't delete 10,000 images. Ask Jim to do that. Or Daphne. --★Poyekhali!!! 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BCD Charlie V. & Nahshon.jpg

This photo File:BCD Charlie V. & Nahshon.jpg I own and give Wikipedia/Wikicommon permission to use. This photo is of Nahshon Dion Anderson (myself) and Charlie Vasquez and was taken during public event by a friend using my camera. I sent this photo in via email to wikicommons. Please undelete so I can utilize within an article. Or let me know what I have to do for the photo to be utilized within Wikipeda. Thanks Shootingrange1997 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Two reasons. First, you admitted you are not the photographer. This doesn't give you the copyright of the photo, even if the camera is yours. The copyright holder of this photo is your friend who took it, and an OTRS permission is needed from them. Second, Wikipedia-only nor Commons-only permissions are strictly not allowed on Commons, see COM:L. --★ Poké95 05:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I am involved, yes, but it is obvious where this uDR will go. Feel free to make a fresh, new undeletion request of this file once OTRS permission is verified. --★Poyekhali!!! 08:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PA-zdj1.png undelete this picture, it's mine!

File:PA-zdj1.png pls undelete this picture, it's mine! I am the author, subject and legal owner. Napiss (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: This image seems to have no relation with the the DR quoted in the deletion of this image. Can you have a look? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Srittau: The relation is that it's the same uploader (using a second account) and subject (Paweł Artymowicz) addressed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:PA-3.png. The fact that so many of those uploads were found to be copyvios led to a COM:PCP situation for deletion with this one. Daphne Lantier 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done TV screenshot, very very unlikely that this image will be undeleted. --★Poyekhali!!! 08:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Prof. Dr. M. Ayhan Kuzu.jpg

Hi, i sent a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for image. Please check that mail from info@ayhankuzu.com

Best regards. Profesyonelhasta (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will wait. Profesyonelhasta (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Great, thanks for being patient. OTRS volunteers, feel free to make a new undeletion request of this file when the email has been verified. --★Poyekhali!!! 09:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Prof. Dr. Mehmet Ayhan Kuzu.jpg

Hi, i sent a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for image. Please check that mail from info@ayhankuzu.com

Best regards. Profesyonelhasta (talk) 08:16, 16 May 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.
★Poyekhali!!! 08:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I will wait. Profesyonelhasta (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Great, thanks for being patient. OTRS volunteers, feel free to make a new undeletion request of this file when the email has been verified. --★Poyekhali!!! 09:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Amedioborrar.jpg

The image is a photo of a book cover. The same as in this File:Entenado2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.170.140.90 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Same as File:Entenado2.jpg but smaller. The images on the cover are medieval, see Category:Mythological Monsters in the Nuremberg Chronicle.Thuresson (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The image on the subject cover is probably still under copyright. The images on File:Entenado2.jpg have been PD for a long time. In order to restore the subject image, you must either (a) show that the painting on the cover is PD, or (b) have the publisher send a free license directly using OTRS..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Cérémonie des Bobards d'Or.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2017051510019859 allows the publication of this file under CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm an OTRS agent. Thanks Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Roland JU-06 with Aftermarket Wood Ends.jpg

re: Roland JU-06 with Aftermarket Wood Ends.jpg

This photograph is a screen capture from a JU-06 video I have created: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvSm6tsn13U&t=76s. I am also the photographer of the images in the video. Kindly undelete the image, should you require any more information please contact myself at dexfx69@hotmail.com.

Dexfx69 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If you are the creator of that video, please change the license there to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, since the Standard YouTube License is incompatible with our licensing policy. Alternatively, send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS, but that will take a long time (weeks or even months). Thanks, ★Poyekhali!!! 01:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: please either change the YouTube license or send OTRS permission. Daphne Lantier 23:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jan Van der Stock.jpg

The author (Liza Van der Stock) has sent her permission to use the photo: see Ticket:2017050610006335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvondy v (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as soon as the OTRS permission is processed, the file can be restored. Daphne Lantier 23:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Holy Goo

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of them are properly licensed in flickr! Holy Goo (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Commercial use not allowed. Thuresson (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: insufficient licensing -- please see COM:L for acceptable licenses -- commercial and derivative use must be allowed. Daphne Lantier 23:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Can you be more specific? What part of the license in flickr indicates commercial and derivative use are not allowed? And how on Earth does this qualify as "commercial"? Holy Goo (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Holy Goo: If you look at the license for https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosagenciabrasil/16884831759/ for example, you'll see a crossed out $ sign in the license. If you mouse over the license you'll see CC-BY-NC-SA. NC is for "non-commercial". Daphne Lantier 00:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: I still don't understand how it qualifies as commercial use. No money is being made out of the image. Besides, Agência Brasil is a government agency of Brasil. Holy Goo (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: The non-commercial usage restriction applies to people who find the image on Commons and want to use it on a website, in a book, etc. An NC license prohibits re-users of the image to use it in any commercial capacity, a prohibition that is against Commons licensing policy. As regards this being a government agency, you could look through Category:PD Brazil license tags for a license that might apply. Daphne Lantier 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Is this license tag valid? Holy Goo (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Holy Goo: That certainly looks like a possibility. I've re-opened this request. Let me call on a couple of copyright experts to get their guidance on this. @Jameslwoodward: & @Clindberg: Does Template:Agência_Brasil apply to the above listed images and others from their Flickr stream? Template:Agência_Brasil mentions their website which is a bit confusing, but it would be great if it applies to Flickr images as well. Daphne Lantier 02:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This might be useful, but the files are also uploaded in their website in the form of an article. Example. EBC is a state owned TV and agency. I personally would prefer to use flickr as the source. Holy Goo (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If the image appears on the web site that has the license quoted at {{Agência Brasil}}, then the image could be restored, using that template, even though it has an NC license on Flickr. However, for whatever reason, the image appears on Flickr with the NC version of the license and there is no reason why we should able to use the license from the other site. Many organizations post images with different licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: "If the image appears on the web site that has the license quoted at {{Agência Brasil}}, then the image could be restored". It appears. All images do. See my message above yours. Also, the Agência Brasil category contains 10 000+ files! Holy Goo (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Please list the pages on the AB web site on which each of the five images -- the page URLs, not the image file URLs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: How am I supposed to do that if I don't even remember what the images looked like! I gave you the link to the Eduardo Cunha image, which is the most important for me, because it will be used in the Corruption in Brazil article. Everyone uploads stuff from AB, and this kind of stuff only happens to me. Unbelievveable. Holy Goo (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: Does the copyright law in Brazil says that all government images are in the public domain, or all government images are in the public domain unless otherwise stated? ★Poyekhali!!! 01:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Poyekhali: The latter. That's what the website says. Why do you wanna know? Do you plan on deleting 10 thousand images? Holy Goo (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not doneThanks for the answer. They are not public domain, they are licensed under the CC BY-3.0-BR. And that doesn't apply to the images here, because you affirm the "unless otherwise stated" statement (which is true). And I am not an admin, so I can't delete 10,000 images. Ask Jim to do that. Or Daphne. --★Poyekhali!!! 02:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You have no authority to close the discussion. The discussion isn't over because Jim hasn't replied to me yet. Holy Goo (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no such policy saying that only admins may close such undeletion requests as not done, so as an uninvolved user, I am closing this uDR again. Your arguments are nonsense. Just open a fresh, new undeletion request instead, but I expect a new rationale, and that your arguments would make sense now. Thanks, ★Poyekhali!!! 00:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion isn't over until Jim replies to me. Holy Goo (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Info The next one to close and reopen this discussion will receive the weekly grand prize: 3 days in the slammer (= block) Comprende? Thx. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)  Info Harassing / insulting comment by Holy Goo resulted in indef. block.

 Not done: User requesting UDR blocked indef. Disc closed before. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Guillermo Silveira. Sin título (ilustración 1976).jpg

Considero ser el propietario de los derechos de reproducción de esta imagen por tratarse de un dibujo original de Guillermo Silveira que este me regaló en su día con el único fin de ilustrar mi relato "Veredicto, culpable" (en el que está inspirado), que, junto con este, fue publicado a las pocas semanas de su realización en el suplemento cultural "Seis y Siete" del diario Hoy de Badajoz de 19 de junio de 1976 ("Cuentos de ahora mismo", pp. 6-7) y que, desde entonces, conservo. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright to works of art belongs to the creator. Transfer or license of the copyright must be in writing, so unless you have a written agreement with the artist which explicitly gives you the right to freely license the drawing, you do not have that right. If you do have such an agreement, please send a copy together with your free license using OTRS. If you do not have such an agreement, then the artist must himself send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SOH Alex Vermeulen in concert, 2016.jpg

I, Sandermander, have exclusive copyright of the pictures of SOH Alex Vermeulen, since I write articles about his work. Maybe I pushed the wrong copyright formalities. Can anybody tell me how to correct that. I had this problem a few times earlier.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandermander (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per COM:NETCOPYVIO -- camera metadata clearly states that the copyright holder is Rick Diamond of Getty Images. Daphne Lantier 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Fabulous Invitation (23447512123).jpg

Nominator and closing admin overlooked the fact that these are 2D reproductions of PD-old material. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  I withdraw my nomination: Wrong move here, as the ones that are 2D reproductions of PD-old material are the ones who didn’t got deleted. I cannot see the deleted ones, but I trust the nominator and the closing admin. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn -- the deleted images were taken in 2015 per upload info. Daphne Lantier 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Box of keebler waffle cones.jpg

i took the photo myself --Jacktime34 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Daphne. It will also be very unlikely the copyright holder of the packaging design would release the design under a free license. --★Poyekhali!!! 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Michaël van Straalen MKB-Nederland.jpg

The copyrights on this photo are with our organisation, MKB-Nederland. We bought them from the photographer, Jeroen Poortvliet--Mieke Ripken (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)--Mieke Ripken (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:고리원자력발전소.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Puramyun31 사용자가 제기한 FoP-USonly와 같이 제한되는 경우는 미국의 플로리다 법률에 저촉되기 때문이나 File:고리원자력발전소.JPG의 경우에는 대한민국의 저작물에 관한 것으로 그와 같은 제한은 이루어지지 않으며, 또한 만일 이 저작물을 복제하여 사용하여 문제가 된다면 이는 전적으로 복제한 사용자가 책임져야할 부분이므로 과거 Hyolee2 사용자가 삭제 토론을 열면서 제시한 삭제 사유도 적절하지 않다고 판단됩니다.

Puramyun31さんが話したFoP-USonlyの場合はアメリカのフロリダ州の法律に抵触したものですから問題だと思いますが、File:고리원자력발전소.JPGの場合は大韓民国の著作物に関する件ですから問題ないだと思います。また万が一この著作物を複製して利用するのが問題なら、全くその問題は複製して利用する利用者の誤りですから前のHyolee2さんが話した削除依頼の理由もこの場合には当らないだと思います。 Idh0854 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Idh0854: There is no clear legal grounds that the picture belongs to the public domain. Nuclear power plants are classified as one of the top class national security facilities in South Korea. Taking a picture of such facilities is strictly prohibited except for a few exceptions. The specific restrictions of each facility, which are not disclosed to the public, vary. If you want to restore this picture, you must prove, by submitting the specific legal grounds clearly, that the pictures of nuclear power plants in South Korea can be freely used as the public domain pictures. Any ambiguous reasons or potential violation of copyrights should not be accepted, as you mentioned before in the Korean Wikipedia. Stop trolling with your double standard. --193.203.50.18 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you ever read COM:NCR#"House rules"? Also, please do not make such inappropriate accusation on other user. Thank you. — regards, Revi 16:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
And you'll need to stop using proxy first. Blocked for a year. — regards, Revi 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 SupportReading the deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:고리원자력발전소.JPG, and the comments above, it looks like the only reason that this file was deleted is that it may be against South Korean law to take a photograph of the power plant. The image is "own work" with a free license from the photographer, so I see no other reason for the deletion.

We routinely ignore non copyright restrictions such as this one. Although the photographer may be at risk of legal action by the South Korean government, that is not a problem for Commons and there is no legal reason we cannot host this image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored per Jim and Hedwig. Commons does not concern itself with non-copyright restrictions and the original DR did not appear to address any copyright issues. The image is also in the project scope, so it may be restored. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ulrich Reinhardt.jpg

OTRS-Ticket (de) received, but still pending. -- User: Perhelion 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim -- OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 19:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:TanSriPalan.jpg

We would like to request for Undeletion on the image file TanSriPalan.jpg. We use this image from the author's personal website (url : http://www.palan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/220px-Datopalan.jpg) for the bio article with the author's permission. Thanks. --Sifuit (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Two options for this image to be undeleted: one, ask the author to state on their website that this image is released under the license stated in the file description page (is it CC BY-SA-4.0?). Or two, the author will send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. Note that Wikipedia-only permissions and the like will be rejected, see COM:L. ★Poyekhali!!! 07:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: free license statement at source or OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Blazin105.jpg

I have permission from Viva Media, LLC, specifically Tommy Hurtado, opertaions manager for KAMT 105.1 FM to post said logo on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatDude806 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission has to be emailed directly by the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Once the email has been processed by our team of volunteers, the file will be restored. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 19:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Special:Undelete/Commons:STOP!!!! DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE TILL YOU REPLACE IT IN THE WIKIMEDIA LOGO MOSAIC

This mosaic was created by Lar in 2007 and tagged for speedy more than a decade later. The title is certainly badly named, but the mosaic is IMO in scope and certainly not nonsense. Pinging @Daphne Lantier and GXXF: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if it were not in scope, this require a proper due process in the form of a DR to discuss whether it is. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 01:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2-Selbst-Orig nicht vorh.JPG

Bild könnte unter Ticket# 2017030210016415 freigegeben werden oder gibt es andere Probleme mit dem Bild? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Selbsbildnis-Hans Wagner 1945.JPG zeigt das gleiche Bild als Duplikat. De728631 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Dupe, per De136827. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:geometrie.jpg

Ich bin Eigentümer des fotografierten Kunstwerkes. Es hängt in meiner Wohnung. Das habe ich auch in der Diskussion geschrieben. Wo also ist der Grund für die Löschung? MCDorny (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose As a general rule, the owner of a work of art does not own the copyright or the right to license it. That right remains with the artist unless, rarely, a separate formal written license or transfer of the copyright is signed by the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 Question @MCDorny: In dem Löschantrag wurde der Künstler Bertrand Dorny als Schöpfer des Originals erwähnt. Dein Benutzername McDorny lässt vermuten, dass Du mit dem Herrn verwandt bist. Falls Du das Bild also geerbt hast, sende bitte eine entsprechende Bestätigung per Email an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Danach können wir die Datei wieder herstellen.
Quick summary of my above comment: the uploader McDorny may be the heir of artist Bertrand Dorny who created the original image. I suggested sending a mail to OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Indian Professional Boxing Association Logo.jpg

Dear Sir/Ma'am, As a member of Indian Professional Boxing Association, I am writing here and requesting you to undelete the logo File:Indian Professional Boxing Association Logo.jpg of our organization. Our logo doesn't meet the criteria of Wikimedia deletion policy as our logo and its copyright belongs to our organization - Indian Professional Boxing Association.

We respect Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons Policy. Kindly restore the file. We will be highly obliged. Thank you! --IPBA Boxing (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@IPBA Boxing: Please send permission via our OTRS system. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission the logo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Blaguss Flotte.jpg

Fotograf hast die Erlaubnis gegeben unter OTRS Ticket#2017050210023341, bitte wiederherstellen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 11:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Raboe001: ✓ Done, bitte OTRS/Info einfügen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:D-BW-Kressbronn - Bodensee-Marathon39 - Logo.png

Ich hatte nach dem Löschnatrag entsprechend und zeitnah geantwortet, darauf aber keine Antwort bekommen ... Warum nicht? Ich selbst habe die Datei damals freigegeben, sie war und ist "Eigentum" unseres Sprtvereins. Was soll ich noch tun? Gruß, ANKAWÜ (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Wo, wann und wie hast du denn darauf geantwortet? War das per Email an OTRS, oder auf einer Commons-Diskussionsseite? Auch wenn euer Sportverein die Nutzungsrechte an dem Plakat hat, oder einfach nur eine Kopie davon besitzt, kann die Creative-Commons-Lizenz nur durch den ursprünglichen Künstler vergeben werden. Das Urheberrecht, das man dafür haben muss, kann in Deutschland nämlich nicht übertragen werden. Falls du selbst das Plakat entworfen hast, brauchen wir auch von dir per Email, da das Plakat ja offenbar bereits öffentlich verwendet worden ist. Solltest du schon so eine Mail geschickt haben, müsstest du eigentlich automatisch eine Antwort mit einer sogenannten Ticket-Nummer bekommen haben. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No response to questions. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Poole coatofarms.jpg

As the author of this photo I am requesting un-deletion. The decision was entirely made without a.) correctly determining the original circumstances of the image and b.) making an attempt to inform the author that the image was up for deletion. I took this photo many years ago, perhaps nearly a decade ago, while living and working in the town of Poole, as I was re-writing the Poole article and its history. No attempt has been made to contact me to even ask for me to expand on the source of the image. No attempt was made to ascertain if the image was in the public image. Quite luckly I noticed that one of my images had been deleted from my image page on my user account... This is the kind of speedy deletion that really ruins Wikipedia. I would like the image re-instated. So firstly 1.) it is a photograph of my own taking, which I released, albeit it does show the Poole Town Coat of Arms, but it shows an historical sign, available in public. Ownership rests with the Poole Town Council. However it does not violate copyright as the colour coat of arms was created prior to 1957. PD Old should be sufficient for the licensing. LordHarris (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poole coatofarms.jpg. Who designed this glass window? Thuresson (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Unknown designer. But dead by now. It is a sign on display on the edge of the public museum of Poole. From what I recall a notice beside it said the glass window itself came from a building that was destroyed during the second world war. The coat of arms can be seen by anyone of the public walking past the museum. PD-UK would also be appropriate given age and time. LordHarris (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a work by a professional. I am not convinced that an unknown person would be asked to make a work of art like this. Thuresson (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There are probably tens of thousands of elaborate victorian signs and windows in Britain? Very few have actual documented professionals known by name. At best, it might be assigned to a workshop in that era, but by a professional? FYI I wasn't aware that I had to convince you personally? On what grounds within wikicommons licensing policy do you oppose this? LordHarris (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The professional status of the creator does not matter -- the stained glass had a copyright from the moment of its creation. Since UK copyright for works of this sort lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, in order to assume that the work is PD, it must be shown that the work is from after about 1885. That has not been done here.

Alternately, if it can be proven that research cannot determine the name of the creator, then it falls under the UK rule for works by an unknown artist, and it must be shown that work predates 1947. Such research must certainly include a close physical examination of the work -- most stained glass is signed -- and also further inquiry into the origins of the work. Note also that the law on CoAs is that this particular representation has (or had) a copyright, even if generally the CoA is old enough so that some versions of it are PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support The evidence is that it's stained glass, a work of "artistic craftsmanship" which is permanently displayed in a public place. It therefore benefits from Freedom of Panorama regardless of any preceding copyright. I suggest this is undeleted without wasting any more time. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support per Rodhullandemu. --★ Poké95 05:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support. This definitely falls under COM:FOP#United Kingdom #2. Sealle (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{FoP-UK}} covers this. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Henrick von Scheel.jpg

File was retrieved from Instagram author was The World Summit — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepTouchSA (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose "Got the image from Twitter" is not a valid source. Thuresson (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously. --Yann (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:It was take from Facebook.jpg

It was retrieved from the source Datafilehost--DeepTouchSA (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Please read Commons:First steps to get the an introduction to WikiCommons. Thuresson (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:TUR 148 Marta magrinya Montse Farres i Jesus M Tibau.jpg

Reprinted with permission of the author of the photo:http://tensunraco.blogspot.com/2014/11/marta-magrinya-i-montse-farres-tens-un.html Also authorization of the person photographed: "Montse Farrés Ubach" redacted Comtessa del dia 21,19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

E-mail address removed. Thuresson (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, uploading an image a second time after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. The page noted as the source of the image and also cited above is marked "Copyright © Tens un racó dalt del món (tv). All rights reserved", so the deletion was entirely correct. I also note that at first you claimed that you were the photographer, then, later, named Jesús M Tibau as the photographer. Since he appears in the photo, that seems very unlikely.

In order to have the image restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Or, if as appears likely, the image is actually a screenshot from a TV program, the producer of the program must send the free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS verification required. Actual copyright holder must follow the instructions here. --Storkk (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lali2017.jpg

Minha autoria--. 22:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalinerodrigues (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Small image without EXIF data with many copies on the web. Please upload the original unmodified image, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. And do not reupload it, or you will be blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS verification required. Please follow the instructions here. --Storkk (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Montreal Police cruiser.jpg

The reason this file was deleted was because it was published on Flickr. However, I was the one who published it on Flickr and I have changed copyright settings to Attribution Sharealike. Hillelfrei (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Hillelfrei. --Storkk (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:N Samba Siva Rao DGP.jpg

The photo is taken from Google images. I have used Google images for a number of academic articles I have published in internationally peer reviewed journals so far without any problem of Copyright violations. If Google images are Copyrighted, they should have sued my publisher based in UK. Above all N.Samba Siva Rao IPS is my class mate and I know him personally. Since my friend reached the highest position in his cadre in the State of Andhra Pradesh, I found it timely to post it on Wiki Uniformed Forces. I have my own personal photographs of him in civil dress. To obtain an official photo from DGP's office at this time is very difficult. Hence, I request you to restore the deletion if above explanation is satisfactoryCSHN Murthy (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Whether you or your publisher have been sued is entirely irrelevant to whether you are allowed to upload a file here. Note that we only accept images that are licensed for use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial (see COM:L) and that we do not accept Fair Use. Photographs are copyrighted from the moment they are made, regardless of whether those copyrights are enforced, and regardless of whether you got them from Google images, which does not somehow obviate copyright. If you know the person, perhaps you can take a photograph of him yourself, and give us a valid license. Storkk (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Google images are not free. --Yann (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Alfonsojimenezyelcanijo.jpg

This image was deleted on the grounds of "Out of project scope: unused userpage image". However it has a derivative work that is definitely in scope (File:Elcanijo.jpg). It's arguable whether a picture showing a relevant subject and a non-relevant guy must be cropped to remove the non-relevant guy. Anyway, I guess that the original picture provides relevant authorship information, not provided by the cropped image. --Discasto talk 16:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support Restore to preserve the attribution and history of File:Elcanijo.jpg. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support per above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored, note about derivative added, and category added. Daphne Lantier 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:TONY EJINKEONYE.jpg

Hello,

I am writing in respect to this picture and others. The pictures and others are the what I gave to the media to upload but because I do not have the original copy of those pictures, I had to copy them from online.

We have the right to use all the works submitted while some belong to me. What do i do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon.dayo (talk • contribs) 11:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to have the file restored, the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Playskin Lift Move to Learn garment 2222.jpg

The website for the Chemical Heritage Foundation has been updated to indicate that the image is released by CHF under a CC-BY-SA license, so that the original website and Wikipedia will be consistent in their licensing. Please restore. Thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I've restored the image and done a license review so that we have a permanent record of the CC-BY-SA license. Daphne Lantier 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Tanki-x 030.jpg

This photo is not a copy right violation. It originated from a product own by someone else (namely, Tanki X) but as stated in their Legal FAQ, images such as this one can be distributed on the internet in within certain limits. Wikipedia being one of those limits. Please undelete this file, as it is not within violation of the copyright laws the original owner of this product set up for themselves. https://help.tankix.com/en/tanki-x/articles/rules/Legal-FAQ {11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)} Secret Agent

 Oppose per below. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission allowing for a sufficient license (no NC) is needed -- see COM:L. Daphne Lantier 15:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:20160915175243 7a07e25c.jpg

This photo is not a copy right violation. It originated from a product own by someone else (namely, Tanki X) but as stated in their Legal FAQ, images such as this one can be distributed on the internet in within certain limits. Wikipedia being one of those limits. Please undelete this file, as it is not within violation of the copyright laws the original owner of this product set up for themselves. https://help.tankix.com/en/tanki-x/articles/rules/Legal-FAQ {Da secret agent (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)} Secret Agent

 Oppose per below. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission allowing for a sufficient license (no NC) is needed -- see COM:L. Daphne Lantier 15:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Phnm9LQ.png

This photo is not a copy right violation. It originated from a product own by someone else (namely, Tanki X) but as stated in their Legal FAQ, images such as this one can be distributed on the internet in within certain limits. Wikipedia being one of those limits. Please undelete this file, as it is not within violation of the copyright laws the original owner of this product set up for themselves. https://help.tankix.com/en/tanki-x/articles/rules/Legal-FAQ {11:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)} Secret Agent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da secret agent (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It does not grant the rights to use it in commercial contexts, which is required for files on Commons per Commons:Licensing. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission allowing for a sufficient license (no NC) is needed -- see COM:L. Daphne Lantier 15:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:No Durian sign at hotel in Bangkok, Thailand.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took this picture by myself, with my own camera. AlexanderM (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done:  Oppose Requires a license from the creator of the poster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

file:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png

@Jameslwoodward: Why should we hold a debate if the sysops do not consider it ? There was a consensus for keeping but it was deleted with a very brief explanation. There is no breach of copyright here. --SleaY (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the closing comment, the entire debate and the Keep requests were based on quotes from commentaries on UK law. There is no evidence that there is any connection with the UK in this case, so UK case law is irrelevant. I know of nothing in US law that precludes a copyright for works created for an illegal purpose. If you do, please enlighten us. The several paragraphs of text clearly have a US copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Discussed at length in the DR. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Arakane Satomi.jpg This is the picture I took in my Selfportrait picture!

I am very sad >_< It is terrible to erase my pictures. This is the picture I took in my Selfportrait picture!

My Twitter Account is @Arakane_Satomi https://twitter.com/Arakane_Satomi https://twitter.com/ssDiary_bot/status/832872657141932032

The creator of this image is Arakane_Satomi(荒金さとみ), and the copyright holder is also DoCoDeMo. DoCoDeMo is the same as Arakane_Satomi(荒金さとみ) --DoCoDeMo (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: As for any content previously published elsewhere, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Montse farres facebook.jpg

This photo comes from: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=404849609574069&set=a.104765469582486.7653.100001471003500&type=3&theater Published with permission of Montse Farrés: Montse Farrés Ubach <montsefau@gmail.com> ------Antoni Nomen (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject of a photo is usually not the copyright holder and cannot grant a licence for re-use of the image at all. We need a permission from the original photographer sent by email. See COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 20:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:TUR 148 Marta magrinya Montse Farres i Jesus M Tibau.jpg

This photo comes from: http://tensunraco.blogspot.com/2014/11/marta-magrinya-i-montse-farres-tens-un.html Published with permission of the author of the blog:Jesus Tibau <email> Published with permission of Montse Farrés: Montse Farrés Ubach <email> -----Comtessadeldia (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This blog doesn't seem to be an official outlet of the TV show, so the blogger isn't even allowed to post such screenshots on their page without consent from the TV channel. So to restore the file, we need a permission from a representative of the show sent by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 20:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:USHUD.jpg

Hi,

A permission e-mail was sent for this file. Is it possible to undelete it or should I reupload it?

Thanks, --AgathaR (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please wait for the OTRS permission to be processed. It could take a while, but the image will be automatically restored once the permission is processed and confirmed. Thanks for your patience. Daphne Lantier 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ff.live.in.roma.jpg

I would like to request an un-deletion for the file:

File:Ff.live.in.roma.jpg

I am issuing this request because I am the sole, proprietary owner of this image and have officially issued it into the public domain for free use. --Bahbahbooey (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears widely on the Web without a free license, including a much larger version at https://www.feedingfingers.net. 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. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. If the sender is not the actual photographer, then the message must include written proof that the sender has the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, copyright holder must confirm license via OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Parrinello vittorio.png

La foto è mia scattata da me e non capisco perché sia stata rimossa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varese21100 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you said that "Lucy Scott" was the photographer. Are you Lucy Scott? Also, since the image appears without a free license at http://www.v-news.it/alife-pugilato-parrinello-verso-titolo-europeo-supergallo-sindaco-cirioli-alife-jahyn/, policy requires that Lucy Scott (or the actual photographer) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, photographer must confirm license via OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:EMDM.jpg File:Emdm.jpeg

Hola, esta fotografía File:EMDM.jpg forma parte de una sesión de trabajo que hice para el grupo, es mía y yo le permití al grupo utilizarla. Gracias! ´´´´ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosegura (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The stated image source, www.elmundodemurphy.com, has an explicit copyright notice "All Rights Reserved". Policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, OTRS verification needed. --Storkk (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CC - Craig Using Music Therapy - Beamz and Guitar - at Renown Children's Hospital.jpg

Please undelete this file. The Photographer, Dara Crockett, has already given her permission to use it freely by sending an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, not once, but twice. It was on Craig Chaquico's page, briefly. Can it be restored please? Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Cheryl

 Oppose The 2015 Dara Crockett e-mail does not cover this image. The second one is dated May 4, 2017. Unfortunately, OTRS, like Commons, is badly understaffed and it is often a month or more before an e-mail reaches the head of the queue, is read, and, if approved, has the image restored. I am afraid the image will have to wait its turn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeff, Daphne, although I don't think there is formal policy on it, I think it is a mistake to allow people to jump the long OTRS queue by bringing a request here. Taking images out of order is unfair to those who wait patiently and, if it becomes a regular practice, will probably mean that UnDR will get many more requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I stumbled upon that file and ticket independently from UnDR.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough -- I admit that I occasionally take an OTRS request out of order myself, for what seems like a good reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored & OTRS added. Daphne Lantier 14:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mariam Aslamazian Still Life with Aubergines 1964.jpg

Painting is representative of artist's style and work. Originally deleted with note that artist died in 2006, but this is irrelevant. The painting was executed in the 1960s after studying with Martiros Saryan and is representative of her work during the mid-20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mle.olry (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The artist's death in 2006 is completely relevant -- it indicates that the artist's work will be under copyright until January 1, 2077. There is no indication of a free license at the source: http://artathhar.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/1BA009A5-40C4-4C69-AFCA-991469205950 and, in any case, there is also no indication that the Derfner Judaica Museum has the right to freely license the work.

In order to restore the image to Commons, the artist's heir (or one of them if there are more than one) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 01:44, 24 May 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

The photo does not violate copyright. I don't understand why it has been deleted.

Ashldn (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by the photographer, who would have to release it with a suitable licence. Please see OTRS for how to do this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose You have previously claimed that the copyright owner has allowed you to publish the photo at Wikipedia. This is not Wikipedia. You were advised on April 28, 2017 that the copyright owner should use the process at Commons:OTRS to verify that the photo is licensed under an acceptable copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 01:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Élection presidentielle de 2017 par circonscription législative T1.svg

Hi It is a free file but a website, who recognized that, used the Commons file for his webiste. Could you restaure it ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Derivative of File:Circonscriptions législatives françaises depuis 2012.svg. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:OutRight Action International Logo.jpg

Copyright permission https://www.outrightinternational.org/press-room/copyright-notice

The current image displaying violates our branding guidelines and needs to be deleted: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QRELLFvXXkQ/Ve86mRhw8cI/AAAAAAAABQA/4kk4ECS67d4/s1600/IGLHRC%2BLogo.jpeg

Our current logo is: https://www.outrightinternational.org/press-room/press-kits

As the communications manager, I can authorize use of OutRight's logo. But I can't authorize use of our old logo that is currently being displayed from some random website not related to our organization. Is there a manager that I can speak with to resolve this issue because currently the way it is working now does not function currently to resolve this issue.

--Tmmoney (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No commercial use allowed = not suitable for Commons. See Com:L and Com:CT --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose First, as Hedwig said, images on Commons must be freely licensed for any use by anyone anywhere. The license shown at the cited page is far too restrictive to permit hosting the logo on Commons. You have put it on WP:EN with a Fair Use rationale, which is the best you can do unless your organization changes its licensing policy.
Second, I don't understand "But I can't authorize use of our old logo that is currently being displayed from some random website not related to our organization." The logo shown at WP:EN, which you put there, appears to be the organization's current logo. The blog page which you also cite is completely unrelated to WMF projects so there is no one here on Commons or at WP:EN who can do anything about it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Hedwig and Jim. Daphne Lantier 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:CelestiBoada.jpg-large.jpeg

{{PD-old}} {{PD-US-unpublished}}

Old content no subjected to copyright. Source: http://www.gramenet.cat/es/temas/participacion/memoria-historica/colomencs-represaliats-i-afusellats/celesti-boada/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico 1984 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a 1937 photograph. It could easily be under copyright until 2060 or longer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ulrich Reinhardt.jpg

...die Genehmigung des Fotos ging Ihnen am 26. April 2017 um 9:47 Uhr durch Prof. Ulrich Reinhardt zu. E-Mail ging an permissions-de@wikimedia.org. Das Foto gehört zum Artikel: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Reinhardt


Danke und viele Grüße --ru (talk) 10:18, 24 May 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.

Note that if the e-mail was sent by the subject, Ulrich Reinhardt, it will probably not be approved. The photographer, not the subject, is almost always the only person who can freely license an image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File talk:Pedro A. Rivera.jpg

Porque eso es una caricatura de una persona que ha muerto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comunicaciondigitalmirexrd (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

? There is an image File:Pedro A. Rivera.jpg which is in use on WP:ES. It has not been nominated for deletion, so there is no reason to discuss it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: no deleted file presented for consideration. Daphne Lantier 21:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Anais Barbeau-Lavalette par Andre Turpin.jpg

As an OTRS agent I confirm that ticket:2017051710000785 allows us to publish this pic under CC BY-SA 4.0. Thanks. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: Please add the ticket. Daphne Lantier 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Daphne ! --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:NGC 654,VdB6,LDN 1332,1334,1337 (Cassiopeia).jpg

Ticket:2017031410010943 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 23:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I've restored it. Daphne Lantier 00:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Izabela Kłosińska (fot. N. Gajlewicz).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Proper permission for CC-by-SA 4.0 received via OTRS (ticket:2017052410024513). Halibutt (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Halibutt: Please add the ticket. Daphne Lantier 00:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

‪File:Славица Гароња.jpg

There are some updates related to this image. It was my mistake for putting the name of Karlo Fridrih, he is not the copyright holder. I have contacted the person who appears on that photo and she clarified that she is the only owner or copyright holder of this photograph. It is her own photo and no one has rights on this photo except her. Also, the previous photo which was uploaded and published on her page seems to be the violation of the rights. The woman explained to me that someone literally stole her photo from some USB and published on Wikipedia as his own. That's why I am tryng to publish some other photo that this woman agrees with. She doesn't agree with that first photo as it was her private and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Practically she would like the file "‪File:Славица Гароња.jpg to be publsihed on her Wikipedia page. I am aware of all the rules, but what about the opinions and wishes of those people (who are alive) and whose wish we should respect while we are making articles on. I would really like you to help me on this, 'cause the woman is devastated knowing that someone missused her own property, practically the photo which she doesn't want to be on Wikipedia is published and the one she wants it to be ("‪File:Славица Гароња.jpg) is deleted. If it's necessary she can contact you and explain the whole matter. Once again I will repeat that it was my mistake for mentioning Karlo Fridrih, he is not the copyright holder of this photograph. Is there anything to be done to change this, should I upload it again, could you help on this matter? Thank you ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerglobe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.  — Jeff G. ツ 19:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Славица Гароња.jpg. You have not clarified how copyright has been transferred from the deceased photographer to you. Thuresson (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Writerglobe: Was Karlo Fridrih the photographer? What happened to that person's possessions? The current holder of copyright needs to send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pier bridge of allepey.jpg

Invalid rationale for deletion. The picture was uploaded here by the author himself. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Roland zh: Please license it cc-by-sa or cc-by on Flickr, then reply.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Challiyan: - please do so. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:保定市乐凯小学校长马福平.jpg

这是我本人的照片，我将它上传到维基共享资源里去，帮助完善维基百科上的乐凯小学条目。请恢复此文件，谢谢。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma Fuping (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description gives the source as
https://baike.baidu.com/pic/马福平/20487568/0/e7cd7b899e510fb3eec8be65d033c895d0430c6b?fr=lemma&ct=single#aid=0&pic=e7cd7b899e510fb3eec8be65d033c895d0430c6b
where it appears without a free license. The file description also says that the photographer is 谷燕, which does not appear to be you.
Both of these require that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose @Ma Fuping: (Google translated: This is my own photo, I will upload it to the wiki to share resources to help improve the Wikipedia on the Lok Kai primary school entries. Please reply to this file, thanks.) Please send permission via OTRS. (请通过OTRS发送许可。)   — Jeff G. ツ 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Paulo Dybala Palermo.jpg

I think this should not be deleted because I got it from creative commons and used a license. Explain to me why this was deleted and what I should do next time I try to upload. Matthewishere0 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This can be found all over the internet: [6]. Files uploaded to Commons should either be taken by you with your own camera, or should be available under a free license. Please refer to COM:CB and COM:L. Daphne Lantier 01:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:N.Sambasiva Rao IPS.jpgFile:N Samba Siva Rao DGP.jpg

The reason for undeletion request is that the image of N.Samba Siva Rao IPS is taken from Google Images. I have furnished response to Dharmadhyaksha twice using talk page but did not receive any response to my explanation till date. Hence, I believe that the explanation given by me is satisfactory. Hence, please undelete the image of N.Samba Siva Rao IPS for Wikiuniformed forces CSHN Murthy (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that your were the photographer. Now you acknowledge that you took the file from an outside source. Putting incorrect source and author on a file is a violation of Commons rules and simply creates work for all of us.

The image appears in a number of places on the Web without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sara Shrawan.jpg

"I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons." Please Guide me how can i stop its deletion.

Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shrinivaskulkarni1388: You should have provided author or copyright holder info a week ago, when you were asked to. You should also have stopped uploading copyright violations. Now, you can send that permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you can have the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. Licenses forwarded by the uploader are not acceptable -- we have seen too many forgeries here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bharat Scouts and Guides.svg

This is the official Emblem of the Bharat Scouts and Guides, India. All copyrights are reserved to the Bharat Scouts and Guides and being a contributor i have uploaded the image to it's official wiki page. So deletion of this image is not necessary. Source: http://bsgindia.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmi Kiran (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Kttclogolatest.png please undo deletion of the stated file

--Kiprotich Towett (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You have not given any reason why we should restore this. Policy requires that in the case of logos, that an authorized official of the organization which owns the logo must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 06:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Amcreative logo.png

To whom may concern

This logo is originally designed by our company and it is also registered in Taiwan.

Please undelete it so that we can continue to complete our page.

Thanks for your effort. --Shih72123 (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Rocky Shih 2017.5.26

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 06:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:AKASH.jpg

The file represents a celebrity. [7]. --S Kahn (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation, no permission. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Baka .jpg

--Fedix15 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Fedix15--Fedix15 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons, the only file that you have uploaded has not been deleted (yet), and you provided no reason for undeleting whichever file you had in mind. Please do try to read and follow the instructions to avoid wasting everyone's time. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: procedural close -- no deleted file presented for consideration. Daphne Lantier 19:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File: Correa et al 4D Printing.gif

I am the author of this image and the principal researcher in this work and publications as referenced in the article --R4d3dp (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://3dprint.com/30045/bio-architectural-materials/ with "Copyright © 2017. 3DR Holdings, LLC, All Rights Reserved." Therefore, policy requires that the actual creator of the image must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 00:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GhostOrbs2.jpg

Kulmalukko asked for the deletion of this photo because it's "maybe" not educationally useful...a bit unclear?"

The Wikipedia article is about paranormal orbs. I posted a photo of a really good ghost orb that showed movement, instead of just looking like a bit of dust sitting still in the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by July1962 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The file was removed from en:Orb (optics) (which is not about anything "paranormal") back in 2012. Generally, photographs purporting to depict things which do not exist are not useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Out of scope. Looks like a clumsy poor quality light painting. Daphne Lantier 19:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Photoshop blurred? Way out of scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:PinkyMaidasani.jpg

the picture i had uploaded was not copy righted by anyone. If someone claiming copy of that picture then this totally wrong. Please check again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sud Kumar (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @Sud Kumar: This file is currently under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PinkyMaidasani.jpg, thus this request is moot.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jay Neveloff.jpg

Hi, I would like to request undeletion of the following file:Jay Neveloff.jpg

I've received written permission from the owner of the image in which he authorized its use in the public domain, specifically under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 4.0 International.

Email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 5/26/2017. Here is the confirmation ticket number I received in response:2017052710001069

Thank you, Ildar2013 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 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.  — Jeff G. ツ 05:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The image can br restored once the OTRS is processed. Daphne Lantier 08:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Praveen Tiwari.jpg

Dear Hedwig in Washington, The photo in question has no copyright issue as it was clicked by me. Please don't delete it. Regards --Yavarai (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

 Oppose Looking at the other uploads by this user, this is a likely copyright violation. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. I have no confidence towards this user after Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Yavarai and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yavarai. Taivo (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bottazzi public art project mimas japan.jpg

File:Bottazzi public art project mimas japan.jpg

I, Guillaume Bottazzi, is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Bottazzi_2011.jpg. Wikimedia link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bottazzi_2011.jpg. This is my painting and my own photo.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: <Licence Creative Commons - CC-BY-SA>.

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.

Guillaume Bottazzi

- Guillaume BOTTAZZI [redacted telephone and e-mail] http://www.guillaume.bottazzi.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumb (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://www.guillaume.bottazzi.org/en/public-art/public-art-outside.html with "All images copyright of the artist. Those who would like to copy pictures please contact: ADAGP - ©Guillaume Bottazzi". You may either (a) add a note to the Web site saying that that particular image is CC-BY-SA or (b) send a free license using OTRS from an address in the domain guillaume.bottazzi.org. The former will bring immediate restoration. The latter will take several weeks or more as OTRS has a long backlog. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per what Jim said. Taivo (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Khuwaja Khuwajgan Hazrat Faqeer Sufi Naqeeb Ullah Shah.jpg

Hello This file is not a copyright violation. This file contains portrait (front pose picture) of Sufi Naqeeb Ullah Shah, the saint behind Naqeebia Sufi order or Sufi chain. Naqeebia Sufi Order is followed by millions of followers all over the world. This picture was captured by my grand father in 1993 via old camera at that times, which i later reproduced this image using latest photo editing tools and added colors in picture. Later the newly edited photo was sent to many followers via email, and official magazine of Naqeebia Sufi order called Gulistan e Naqeeb, which is published on monthly basis.

Sufi Naqeeb Ullah Shah and his teachings are an asset for his followers. As all followers show equal respect and devotion towards Sufi Naqeeb Ullah Shah, so no one shows any ownership to his belongings, photographs etc. All the things including Shrines, Land (Owned by Sufi Naqeeb Ullah Shah) etc are kept as a public property (non transferable to anyone) for every one so any one can visit and see these things and get some inspiration and knowledge.

So please i request you to please un-delete the photograph and allow me to post articles and photos regarding sufi order.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SajidManzoor (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Would need at least OTRS permission. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Mariasusername

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, I work for Enitharmon Press and have a written confirmation that they own the copyright and have released their logo and book cover images under the CC BY 4.0 licence. Mariasusername (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Galtzerdi suizida.jpg and File:Karramarroaren aztarnak.jpg

Hello! I would like to request the undeletion of these two files because they are already released under compatible cc:by-sa license on Flickr.

Moreover, these two pictures are part of a GLAM project in which a Wikimedian in Residence is working in the Children literature Documentation Center of Donostia for a children literature project. As working from a public institution with the children's book basque publishers, all the permission had been taken in order to put those book covers in Flickr. Thank you for your attention. --Xabier Cañas (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The problem seems to be that the uploader to Flickr is not the owner of the copyright, but the book publishers. Permission from the publishers would be possibly needed. --Discasto talk 15:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, It sound sensible! Thanks @Dicasto. Here are the both permissions of the publisher, Elkarlanean (eu/es):
I think with that should be ok, isn't it?-Xabier Cañas (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I am confused. I don't read Basque and Google will not translate www.donostiakultura.eus. The site's own English translation is very rough, so I may be very wrong about what the organization does, but at About Donostia Kultura it says nothing about it being a publisher. The licenses above (CC-BY, I think) would be fine if DK is the actual publisher of the two books. You say "Here are the both permissions of the publisher, Elkarlanean" but both documents are on DK letterhead, not that of Elkarlanean. Could you please explain in more detail. Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The publisher of both books is "Elkarlanean". Donostia Kultura is the department of culture of the city of Donostia-San Sebastian who is leading a GLAM program. Elkarlanean (the publisher and the owner of the copyright) gives permission under CC-By-Sa to Donostia Kultura to use and distribute the files (book covers), using for that Donostia Kultura's normalised form; that's why DK appears at the heading and at the bottom of the document. Basque-English translators are not very good, but the right colum is in Spanish so the tranaslator would work better. --Xabier Cañas (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support Documents and explanations seem OK for me. --Discasto talk 06:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sr Claire.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission provided with Template:OTRS ticket. Thank you for undelete this photo. Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mia madre (1953).jpg

Please do not delete the images I uploaded: I am one of the heirs and in agreement with other heirs we have decided to create this page knowing very well that I have the rights to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Operai si avviano al lavoro in bicicletta (1956).jpg

Please do not delete the images I uploaded: I am one of the heirs and in agreement with other heirs we have decided to create this page knowing very well that I have the rights to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gary Michelson MMRF.jpg

Also: File:Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience.jpg

Hi,

I work as a free-lancer for the Michelson Medical Research Foundation and have been given permission to use the photo for the Wikipedia page. I am allowed and able to use any photos from the "michelsonmedical.org" domain for MMRF related wikipedia pages. If proof is needed I can arrange for for direct contact from a MMRF domain email.

Thank you C Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by CejEdwardQMUL (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


In order for the image to be restored to Commons, either (a) an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the MMRF must change "© 2017 Michelson Medical Research Foundation" on its Web pages to read "© 2017 Michelson Medical Research Foundation. All images on this site are licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0". Note that "for MMRF related wikipedia pages" is far too restrictive. Images on Commons and WP:EN must be freely licensed for any use by anybody anywhere.
If you intend to upload more images from the domain, then alternate (b) is the better choice, but if you choose alternate (a) then the permission e-mail should say that the license covers all images on michelsonmedical.org now or in the future. Note also that alternate (b) will allow for an immediate restoration of the image. The OTRS queue is at least several weeks, perhaps longer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim's instructions above. Daphne Lantier 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Emmanuel Lamy.jpg

Cette photo a été faite pas Jacques Paray, le photographe de la ville de Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Nous avons son accord pour diffusion sur Wikipédia. Pour preuve, c'est lui a fourni le fichier original posté il y a quelques jours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothéPoulain (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose In order for this image to be restored, the photographer, Jacques Paray, must send a free license directly himself, using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 21:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Camarata Music Company Logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Necessary to handle OTRS request. Template:OTRS ticket Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: Please add the ticket. Daphne Lantier 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jonathan Moffett Gold Drum Kit.jpg

OTRS agent (verify) request: please undelete these files because an authorisation has been sent with Template:OTRS ticket. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: Please add the tickets. Daphne Lantier 07:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:WMD logo - Square 72dpi (low resolution, not for printing).jpg

And also:

OTRS agent (verify) request: Please undelete these files because an authorisation has been sent by the rights owner with Template:OTRS ticket. Plus, licenses are now published on the website of the organisation[8]. Ty,--Arthur Crbz (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: Please add the tickets. Daphne Lantier 07:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Reproducibility Spectrum.png

This needs discussion, IMO. User_talk:Revent#File:Reproducibility_Spectrum.png is relevant.

The file was deleted as missing permission. OTRS now has a 'clearly legitimate' release from the author of the paper in which it is published (and the paper is under CC-BY-SA) The issue is that the image is attributed, in that paper, as adapted 'with permission' from a diagram in another paper (that is under CC-BY-NC). The relevant images are https://imagebin.ca/v/3Lgr0x1ROLQX (the image uploaded here) and https://imagebin.ca/v/3LgroarrRwy9 (the original). The author has asserted, to paraphrase into copyright-speak, that the source image was merely an inspiration, and that all that was used from the original was the (uncopyrightable) 'idea' of such a diagram. Personally, I am inclined to agree with this, in this specific case, but I believe it's a judgement call that needs a consensus.

Pinging Jeff G. (talk · contribs) and Comtebenoit (talk · contribs) as involved parties. - Reventtalk 00:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the images uploaded to imagebin are screenshots of the published PDFs... not the specific image upload here (which was the actual 'image' itself). - Reventtalk 00:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable, given my limited information and Ticket:2017021710016854.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This matter could have been resolved definitively with OTRS permission from the author of the original paper, if we had the proper email address. BU Rob13 asked the uploader for such permission on 12 April, and we got an excuse instead. If such permission were given and in evidence, I think it would have been submitted by now. The 'with permission' quoted by Revent above indicates that the uploader thought such permission was necessary, and so do I. Absent evidence of it, since this looks like derivative work, I {{O}} restoration.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What I see as the question here is not if the image is 'derivative' in the non-technical sense (it clearly is), but if it actually used any aspects of the original work that are copyrightable. I'm inclined to think that what was used were only the uncopyrightable 'ideas' underlying such a diagram (which is essentially what the author claimed in the most recent email on that ticket) but I don't think it's clearcut. - Reventtalk 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: IMHO "reproducibility spectrum" is a direct English translation of the copyrighted Spanish text "gradiente de reproducibilidad".   — Jeff G. ツ 07:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, it is. However, "Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are not copyrightable because they contain a de minimis amount of authorship. See 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a)." (Copyright Compendium, 313.4(C)[9]). The phrase 'reproducibility spectrum' is the obvious way to state the underlying idea in English. - Reventtalk 08:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Ok, it's not clearcut. You've dragged me over to  Neutral.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Pinging other users who have taken action on this file and its duplicate File:Spectrum of reproducible research.png: @EugeneZelenko, Jcb, Ronhjones, and Daphne Lantier:   — Jeff G. ツ 08:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:PCP requires deletion if there is "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". It is the case here and thus closing this udel request as not done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:FaizalFoto.jpg

Hi WikiCommons, FaizalFoto.jpg its the Faizal Hermiansyah Photo originals. He is my friends, so please undeletion the photo. and that photo for camera on me. so thats very original! thank you --Arifin.putra (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)arifin.putra--Arifin.putra (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on Twitter, which is copyrighted. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS pemrission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:ASSAM.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a free work and there is no copyright violation. Shekhar Jyoti Das (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose these are complex logos, and there is no indication they are freely licensed or Public Domain. Please have the copyright holder confirm license via OTRS or clarify why they would be in the public domain. Note that unlike some sister projects, we do not accept Fair Use. Storkk (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Olivier Korol 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent (verify) request: permission sent with Template:OTRS ticket. Ty, Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: please tag the page yorself. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dastangoi sahil agha.jpg

File:Dastangoi sahil agha.jpg

its me Syed sahil agha this is my personal photo that taken by my camera it has no copyright issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed sahil agha (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright All Rights Reserved at [10]. Thuresson (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You may either (a) change the license on Flickr to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or (b) have the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. (a) will allow restoration immediately. (b) is likely to take several weeks or more as OTRS has a large backlog. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 05:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Emmanuel Lamy.jpg

Le photographe propriétaire de la photo a envoyé un mail afin de céder ses droits (comme demandé dans le processus standard).

Merci de rendre la photo Emmanuel Lamy.jpg disponible au plus vite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothéPoulain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 05:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:FidgetCube.jpg

This image came from a Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidget_Cube under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. I want to add the picture to my own article on it http://wiki.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Fidget_Cube — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8133 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at the cited WP:EN article, the Figet Cube is copyrighted, so images of it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 05:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hara_Humamay.jpg

Hello! id like to request to un-delete the file name Hara_Humamay.jpg because of the following reasons:

  • the Author is clearly described made around 2011.
  • the Year and the sources had been also described along the sources in the description summary.

and it had a free copyright to the sites where i got the particular image, thank you! (Theseeker2016 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC))

 Oppose The stated source say "copyright Manuel Panares 2011". Thuresson (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from Manuel Panares is needed. Daphne Lantier 05:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Take Heart Album.jpg

This is not from itunes and is mine la sial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CO16 (talk • contribs)

 Not done All album covers are copyright and cannot be uploaded here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ElizabethiEliot1959OD.jpg

OTRS agent (verify) request: Permission has been clarified with Template:OTRS ticket. Ty, --Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: sorry if I'm being dense, but could you please clarify where the document is stated to be Public Domain or freely licensed? I see the link pointed to in the ticket, but I cannot immediately find anything relevant. I also found http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/53882#/summary , which states "Copyright Permission Granted", (which I don't think is good enough considering this page suggests they will explicitly tag public domain material). Storkk (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Storkk: You are probably right, there is not specific mention that the document is in PD. Plus, UK copyright requires 70 years after death/publication (so 2021). Thank you for your advices, I will notice the client. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See above. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-05&oldid=303778125"