Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-09

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:Santuario Madonna delle Galline 2.jpg

It's an historical picture of one of the most important churches in the city. Vicipaedianus X 16:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be true, but it appears to be from the 1930's. That is far too recent to assume that it is not under copyright. In order to have it restored, you must prove that it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim and per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vicipaedianus x. 21:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Undeletion requests

List of files Relevant files of different ages, Early in the twentieth century That is portraits, and 17th century paintings of an unknown artist So for recovery licenses should be in PD. So excluded from the problem of copyright — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.248.92.8 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Info None of the images seems to be deleted as copyvio. So, any regular user can reupload them if they are really PD. We do not want to promote abuser by restoring their controbution. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest to undel them and then do a com:LR on each file. Bad files are then sorted out by the reviewers.--Sanandros (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As I don't speak Italian i posted all sources of the files.--Sanandros (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally the sources are present, now there should no longer be pretexts which could not be restored now, these files are 1000% PD :) --Andrassy66 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have the sources, you can reupload them with the proper information and license. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be the right thing to restore them directly from the user who uploaded them It would be the right thing to restore them directly from the user who uploaded them, so the user Глинистый сланец--Andrassy66 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andrassy66: How do you know that Глинистый сланец uploaded them, and why do you care so much about restoring vs. reuploading?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA whining, nobody cares. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Commons:Undeletion requests

List of the following fully licensed paintings and portraits of PD, as the following artists died nearly a century ago, Can you restore the files listed please? :)--Andrassy66 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA A3cb1. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Couponstan-big-logo.jpg

File:Couponstan-big-logo.jpg reasons following logo files are not for promotions but to list logo for people identification of couponstan branding. These Pics were our work, we at couponstan created these logos, and are not for our brand promotions but for identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couponstan (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 September 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 12:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Spam. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Couponstan-logo.jpg

File:Couponstan-logo.jpg reasons following logo files are not for promotions but to list logo for people identification of couponstan branding. These Pics were our work, we at couponstan created these logos, and are not for our brand promotions but for identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couponstan (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 September 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 12:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Spam. Advetise somewhere else. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:PORTRAIT OF LOUIS XV OF FRANCE.jpg

Salut, j'ai récemment trouvé ces fichiers qui sont des portraits de quelques sept cents représentants de « l'aristocratie française, et certaines familles royales de « époque, personnages comme ils sont des portraits du XVIIIe siècle, où certains ont un artiste inconnu,, le droit d'auteur dovrbbe être complètement expiré, puis Egola droits d'auteur--Andrassy66 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support Google Translate says that means:
“ Hi, I recently found these files which are portraits of some seven hundred representatives of "the French aristocracy, and some royal families of the era, as they are portraits of the eighteenth century, where some have an unknown artist, , The copyright should be completely expired, then Egola copyright ”
18th Century portraits should be {{PD-Art}}, {{PD-Old}}, and {{PD-1923}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably correct, but my question regarding the uploader (who was cited by Krd as the reason for deletion) was removed by the person making the request... I won't support undeletion without some kind of understanding about what is going on here. Storkk (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the administrator Krd who deleted the files did not give me the various reasons for the following cancellation, but what I know is willing to restore it, but it does not tell me when it is willing to restore it, but I did not want the files published here to remain To roll here waiting for the restoration, if it was really so then archive immediately this ehehehehe request, however for copyright there should be no problem,, So files would be in place for a likely restore--Andrassy66 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The files are uploaded by some long term abuser who mixes a lot of old PD paintings with files that are not yet PD and other files, and with a fair amount of invalid source and author information. The admin who restores these images should IMO verify if the given information is correct and the files are really PD. I promised to do that, but I will do at a reasonable speed as soon as there is some spare time, which is not now. --Krd 14:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Some tampering involving this request suggests a high degree of caution should be exercised with regards to these files. Storkk (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest to undel them and then do a com:LR on each file. Bad files are then sorted out by the reviewers and Krd doesn't need to spend time.--Sanandros (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I resotred right now some of them but

Also

--Sanandros (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally the sources are present, now there should no longer be pretexts which could not be restored now, these files are 1000% PD :)--Andrassy66 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
File:Comte Jean de Fontaine.jpg also restored and author info fixed basing on source page Ankry (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by LTA, partially done. Others should be reuploaded. --Yann (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

This is my own work which I did for days and I'm really sad for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhukarmohan (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Madhukarmohan: . Please clarify if this is about Collage of Mysuru city.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Assuming this is in reference to File:Collage of Mysuru city.jpg, in order to have it restored, you must show that all of the images making up the collage are freely licensed or PD. If each of them is your own work, that is usually done by uploading them separately at full camera resolution so that they can be individually available for general use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Stemmario Aristocratico

buonasera a tutti, vorrei chiedere il ripristino dei i seguenti file elencati e descritti come stemmi dipinti all' inizio del 1608, per opera attribuita ad artista sconosciuto di inizio 600 del nord-Italia, stemmi elencati e descriti tramite il sito web Società per il Palazzo Ducale, attestando l' attendibilità dei seguenti stemmi elencati come opere libere da ogni controversia, se potreste ripristinarli fareste tal cosa assai gradita :) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.5.4.20 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. Longtime abuser. Sock IP. Range blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by LTA. --Yann (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Saluti da Mantova - Via Trento.jpg


hanks to everyone, I would like to ask for the recovery for the following files, because they have been deleted from a banned sockpuppet Daphne Lantier, so without any motivation, at present these files have been deleted unnecessarily and without being subject to the views of the administrators, since Daphne Lantier has dismounted a sock or maronie--95.245.76.230 00:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. Nobody is interested in your opinion, you are the longtime abuser A3cb1. IP range blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by LTA. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Katsuhiko Kimura.jpg

The photo of Katsuhiko Kimura.jpg is created by me, Motohiko Kinura, and copy right belong to myself and there is no issue what so ever as you pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 182.251.153.206 (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Saeed Khan Bozdar.jpg

Saeed Khan Bozdar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeedkhanbozdar (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ann Coulter wikiworld.jpg

This was deleted in 2012 at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ann_Coulter_wikiworld.jpg.

It was deleted because someone asserted that it was an attack. There was no discussion.

The Wikimedia Foundation had a partnership to enable the creation of this comic. I was looking at all these old comics and noticed that this one was absent, and I thought that I might like to see what was so controversial. I have not seen it. Since it was deleted with no discussion, can it be restored with no discussion? Anyone might re-nominate it if necessary. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support Other images in Category:WikiWorld by Greg Williams are used in Wikipedia articles. Thuresson (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose While this image may or may not be intended as an attack, it is an extremely unflattering caricature of the subject. Since she is a highly political figure, (see Ann Coulter), I'll add that her views are far from my views, but fair is fair, and we should not be hosting such images. I doubt very much that the cartoon has any use in WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Not even in a criticism or controversy section of her article?   — Jeff G. ツ 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that allowing this kind of image on WMF projects would exacerbate the current political divisions. I think it might barely be OK if it had appeared editorially in a major publication, but while we do have Category:WikiWorld by Greg Williams, Williams does not have a WP:EN article, so it is not clear to me how his work adds to our understanding of our subjects in any meaningful way. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Not exacerbating "the current political divisions" is wholly irrelevant to anything discussed at Commons. WMF is not a small-town newspaper trying to placate its readership. Additionally, there are untold amounts of valuable work on Commnons by people who do not have their own WP:EN articles, so that is a terrible argument, and particularly insulting to the many users here who create images specifically for articles. Wikimandia (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per nom and Thuresson. There are plenty of images of living people on Commons that are "extremely unflattering." Public figures, especially those like Coulter who make a living on being offensive, are subject to ridicule. Unless the image portrays her committing bestiality or something, there really is no reason to claim it should be deleted based on some kind of defamation against her. Wikimandia (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support As long as the there is no copyright issue, no reason not to have this in our collection. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Ambras Schloss

Guten Morgen, der über das Internet wanderte, bemerkte ich, dass einige der folgenden Bildapparate Teil einer großen Porträtsammlung waren, die bereits in der Vergangenheit der Ambras-Burg restauriert wurde. wo die folgenden Gemälde vom deutschen Maler gemacht wurden Lucas Cranach der Jüngere (1515-1586)

--95.244.94.193 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: A3cb1 IP. You are not getting anywhere, vandal. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kyle Dones.jpeg

This is me, Kyle Dones, in the photo. I have paid the photographer, BRIAN McConkey, for the image and it has been released to me. No one but I have the rights to this photo. Do not delete again, I have paid for this photo.

(----) Kyle Dones August 29, 2017 08-29-2017 11:10am — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyledones (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, you may have paid for the photo, but almost all portrait studios and photographers retain the copyright. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a book gives you the right to make and sell copies.

Second, "Kyle Dones" is, arguably, a notable person. Therefore, policy requires that in order to edit with that name on Commons, you must prove that you are actually Kyle Dones, see Commons:Username_policy#Usernames_requiring_identification. We do this primarily because we often encounter fans who take the identity of notable people for good or bad reasons. This can be done by sending a message to OTRS from an address traceable to you or by posting a note on Facebook.

Since the image appears at IMDB without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS.

Finally, please note that uploading the image a second time out of process is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:H.O.S.T_Logo.png

That is my creation. You can check it out from Royal Pashayev wiki page. No copyright violations on this case.

Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az-ya (talk • contribs) 22:18, 31 August 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 22:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 22:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kongsberg_Miners.jpg.

This file was not a copyright violation. I had written consent from the basketball club and permission to use this file on Wikipedia. I can show screenshot of the consent to prove it. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppeelsker (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So why do you claim that this is licensed under CC-BY-4.0? Thuresson (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:THE POLITICAL DECLARATION OF THE BUFFALO NINE.pdf

I am the owner of this file and have already given copyright permission for this content to be published. this his a politically motivated attack, very serious, on an important page relating to the anti-Vietnam War period. Please investigate the motivations of the person requesting these deletes. Please restore this file immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Pittore44, believe me when I say that no one here cares about your politics, and even if they did they wouldn't care enough to attack you for it. This file is just a PDF of a text document, and that is not the sort of thing we store on Commons - we store media. This may be something for Wikisource, but on Commons it's out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per mattbuck : out of scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:MartinGonzalesSostre.JPG

Please undeleted this file immediately. I am the owner of this file and already gave copyright permission for its use when I uploaded it to the Commons. This is a politically motivated attack oil the Wikipedia page for Martin softer a significant political prisoner in the USA. This is a serious attack oil this page. Please restore this content immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Yann. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Pumas.svg

This file was deleted without a valid argument. In this page: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pumas.svg, the user Taivo (talk) just said "The logo violates team's copyright", but he didn't proved it. This image is from the own work of the user Patila (talk), he uploaded it in Wikimedia so it was correctly licensed, and it was in the Wikipedia for like 5 years and never had any problem. Of course, the logo has the colors of "Pumas" and remembers of some elements of the club, but it consists only of geometric figures, so it is absurd to think that "The logo violates team's copyright".

The file had the message "Template:Fake sports logo", which says that the purpose of this kind of logos is "only to facilitate visually the identity of a club". And also, it CLEARLY SAYS: "This flag has some visual elements that are similar to official logos or coats of arms of certain clubs, such as colors or some symbol, but they are NOT official and don't have any direct relation to the crest, symbol or official flag of the club. Thus, even if you consider that this symbol reminiscent of some elements of the club, this image does NOT correspond, and is not even similar to the official symbol."

So, I think the file has to be restored, and we have to take care of users that don't read and only delete whatever they please, instead of contributing, they only harm to Wikipedia, in this case ruining dozens of articles in Wikipedia in Spanish.J4im31000 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If it does not resemble the team's official symbol and was just made up by someone, it is no longer in the project scope of Commons. We do not host original artwork by non-notable artists. That said, the file was deleted because in 2013 Andresfelipetamr overwrote the first image by Patila with a complex logo that did contain the Puma head from the offical logo. So unfortunately there is no reason to restore either revision. De728631 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Agreed. Either it violates the copyright on the team's logo or, if it is different enough so that it does not violate the copyright, then it is just personal art that is out of scope. Either way, we can;t keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PortraitOfMartinGonzalesSostre.jpg

I am owner of this image and have already given permission. This deletion, I believe was hostile, and with no merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The artist has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann -- no permission from the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BuffaloNinePamphet 02.jpg

I am the owner off this image and have already given permission for its use. I believe its deletion was politically motivated and hostile in intent., — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Hi, Please stop the bullshit. You didn't provide the correct date, author, and source. And this is a small image which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. Uploader has no right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Manifesto.pdf

This file is owned by myself and I have already given copyright permission. I believe this was a politically motivated deletion and an attempt to suppress this information. Please undelete this file immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. Uploader has no right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jerry Gross and Buffalo cops.jpg

I am the owner of this file and have already given permission for it to be published. I have the copyright and give my permission. I believe this was politically motivated attack on a significant political article and request that this page be watched since all the photos have been deleted from the page. This is a serious attempt to suppress important political content related to the Vietnam war period and one ion the most significant trials in that period. This is a significant attack in this page. Please restore ALL deleted images immediately and find out WTF did this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Hi, Please stop the bullshit. You didn't provide the correct date, author, and source. And this is a small image which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. Uploader has no right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BuffaloNinePamphet 04.jpg

This was a politically motivated deletion. I am the owner if this file and have already given my permission for its use. Please restore (undelete) this file immediately as it represents an attempt too suppress important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Hi, Please stop the bullshit. You didn't provide the correct date, author, and source. And this is a small image which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: You may own a copy of the photo, but just as owning a paper copy of a book does not give you the right to make and sell copies of it, owning a copy of a photo does not give you the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:B9 20 Year Reunion Statement.pdf

This was a politically motivated attack on this page. Please undelete this file immediately. I am the owner if this file and already gave copyright permission for this file to be used. Someone is attempting too suppress information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: It's also a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ArrestOfBruceBeyer.jpg

Please restore this image immediately. This is a politically motivated attack oil a significant political case and this page. I am the owner of the image and already gave complete copyright permission for this image to be published when I uploaded it to the commons. Pittore44 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Hi, Please stop the bullshit. You didn't provide the correct date, author, and source. And this is a small image which was published on the Internet before being uploaded here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Agreed. Obviously not "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Witch1.jpg

This is the THIRD deletion of a photo which I have created myself, with my own camera, for being, as I am told suspected as violating copyright (which is sheer nonsense, since I can produce evidence that the file is my own creation). I must protest the ease one takes here with "suspected breach of rights" only upon the gut feeling of some reviewer who cannot have any evidence for rights violation (of which I'm certain, since as I said I HAVE TAKEN THIS PHOTO IN 1997 MYSELF AT THE HAIFA UNIVERSITY THEATRE)!!! With all due respect to copyright violation, and I have such respect wherever it is due, there must be a better procedure than relying on the gut feeling of someone, without making at least a query to the person who uploaded the file, in which case the "suspecting party" would be required to give some reason for her/his gut feeling rather than randomly use the authority apparently given her/him to delete files without any solid explanation. I demand the undeletion of the photos I ceated myself and decided to share here, or produce any evidence which counters my claim to have been the authentic creator of this file! Sfine8 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sfine8,
As for all content published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
According to your advice, I have sent a statement of ownership of the rights via Com:OTRS. what happens next?Sfine8 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sfine8: Next, unfortunately, you wait per the following template.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Current backlog (oldest unanswered mail or ticket) in permissions-commons queue is 7 days.

 Not done Please wait for the OTRS email to get processed by our team of volunteers. Once your email message has been evaluated, the file will be restored. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Artworks by Sukharev and Prus

I ask the undeletion of the following artworks.

Maxim Sukharev's artworks:

Viktor Prus' artwork:

The permission for CC-BY-SA 4.0 publication of the artworks was regularly asked to and received from the respective authors, and sent to OTRS. See tickets #2017062010024699, #2017062010024886 and #2017071910017224.

Thank you.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The images will be undeleted when the OTRS email has been processed. Currently there is a considerable backlog of c. 80 days, but our volunteer email department is working hard. So please be patient. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Category:Versöhnungskirche, Dresden

Hallo, could someone please undelete the Category:Versöhnungskirche, Dresden temporally. It was me who requested the deletion, initally wanted to move the page to Category:Versöhnungskirche (Dresden) but this page allready existed. So I just made it via drag&drop. User:ElbHein announced me that it was a mistake cause the history of Category:Versöhnungskirche, Dresden is much longer than the one of Category:Versöhnungskirche (Dresden).
Or could someone just move the history from deleted "Versöhnungskirche, Dresden" to "Versöhnungskirche (Dresden)". THX!! --W like wiki (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Erledigt. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mm_01.jpg

I own the copyrights for this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frannybobo (talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Nonsense claim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Penis and hair pubic.jpg

File:Penis and hair pubic.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loueshan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: nonsense request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Penis semi-erected with cowpers fluid.JPG

File:Penis semi-erected with cowpers fluid.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loueshan (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: nonsense request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:L. L. M. M. Nicola II e Vittorio Emanuele III.jpg

В запросе на восстановление файла изображена фотография начала ХХ века в 1902 году с целью точности, сфотографирована, где источником является целая фотографическая коллекция визита короля Италии в России, автор фотографий неизвестен, но может всегда разрешайте нам вводить лицензию или PD-100 или PD-70 ??

источник фотографии: http://humus.livejournal.com/4175039.html --79.31.200.190 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by LTA. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Articolo giornale nazionale.jpg

Avendo incarico dall'arch Barboni, prego ripristinare il file, grazie --Paul Barney (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment This is Italian, Google Translate translates it to "Having been commissioned by Arch Barboni, please restore the file, thank you". Can someone else check this translation?--It's Kong of Lazers 你好 18:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Newspaper clipping. No permission. --Yann (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Mater Protecta.jpg

avendo incarico dall'Arch Barboni, prego ripristinare il file, grazie --Paul Barney (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Recent painting by Angelo Barboni. No permission from the artist. --Yann (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Swatchsi.jpg

--Paul Barney (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)avendo incarico dall'Arch Barboni, autore dell'immagine prego di ripristinare il file, grazie--Paul Barney (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Ad from a magazine. No permission. Doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Blason ville fr Grayan-et-L'Hôpital (Gironde).svg

I think there is a stong chance this file should not have been deleted. I can't see it but it's an SVG, which makes me think it was likely a vector file created as part of Projet Blason from the French Wikipedia, which has created thousands and thousands of coats of arms for every city and town (and probably most families) in France. These recreations are not a violation of French copyright law or Wikimedia copyright rules. I only saw the mention of the deletion on the discussion board of that project, someone asking back in April why it would be up for deletion under a copyright claim, but there was no response and nobody came over here to challenge the nomination.

This nominator's only recent activity was to request deletion of certain files, all of which were simply deleted by the now banned sockpuppet Daphne Lantier (talk · contribs):

The last one is a jpg, but may also have been someone's recreation (and just saved in the less desirable jpg format, as some have been). As someone pointed out in the discussion, it's not necessarily a copyright violation, but it's hard to tell without looking at it. Is it possible these can be undeleted, and then determined to see if there is a legit ground for deletion (such as an embedded hand-drawn image that is actually copyrighted)? I'm not sure if I have to make an undeletion request for each. Thanks. Wikimandia (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Per Commons:Coats of arms, there is no copyright on the blazon (or at the very least, the depiction is not a derivative work of the blazon), so if these were deleted based on when the blazon was created, that does seem incorrect. For copyright, it is typically about the individual drawings (or representations). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. --Yann (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Опадчий Ігор Михайлович.jpg

File:Опадчий Ігор Михайлович.jpg - не нарушает авторские права. Эта фотография была надана для свободного использования из семейного архива Опадчим И.М. --VasylPetrenko (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. VasylPetrenko, собственники личных архивов и прочие владельцы бумажных копий фотографий в общем случае (и в Вашем тоже) не являются авторами оригинальных работ, поэтому не имеют права давать разрешение на их распространение под свободной лицензией. Подробнее см. ru:ВП:СЕМАРХИВ. Sealle (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GBP receiving Bharat Ratna.jpg

This file does not have any copy right issues because Copyright to Photographs which are Indian Government work expires in sixty years. This applies worldwide. As Pandit G B Pant received Bharat Ratna in January 1957, the copyright to this picture has been expired in January this year. Please refer to [[1]] Shadowfinder (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

www.Mon GTU is myUniversity in Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.25.14.238 (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Email redacted. Yann (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. Please log in, and provide one. --Yann (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: please resolve edit conflicts properly: [2]. Sealle (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Swatchno.jpg

avendo incarico dall'Arch Barboni, autore dell'immagine, prego di ripristinare il file, grazie--Paul Barney (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Ad from a magazine. No permission. Doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Calendario Swatch commissionato ad Angelo Barboni dalla stessa - Anno 1986.jpg

avendo incarico dall'Arch Barboni, autore dell'immagine prego di ripristinare il file, grazie--Paul Barney (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Calendar. No permission. Doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Cover Swatch trasparente.jpg

avendo incarico dall'Arch Barboni, autore dell'immagine prego di ripristinare il file, grazie--Paul Barney (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Picture with watermark and copyright notice. No permission. --Yann (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Titova s w karden1.jpg

File:Titova s w karden1.jpg - просьба восстановить файл, поскольку он не нарушает авторских прав и надан с личного архива внучкой Титовой С.В. --VasylPetrenko (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


File:Titova s w.jpg

File:Titova s w.jpg - просьба восстановить файл, поскольку он не нарушает авторских прав и надан с личного архива внучкой Титовой С.В. --VasylPetrenko (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: @Paul Barney: Serve un permesso a OTRS firmato dall'autore. Ruthven (msg) 14:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Deputado distrital Chico Leite.jpg

Hi. I don't understand the reasons why my file were delete. I provided a link to an webpage wich shows that the picture were taken by the official photographer of the deputies chamber of Distrito Federal (Brazil) and the congressman can use and let others use whithout an licence or something like that. I even provided the name of the photographer. Can I do something else more? --Ramthum (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The website you linked to does not have a Creative Commons licence for the photograph as you claimed when you uploaded the file: this has a different image and is "Copyright © Câmara Legislativa do Distrito Federal". The gallery at Chico Leite's homepage claims that "Este material pode ser publicado, transmitido por broadcast ou redistribuído sem prévia autorização, desde que mencionada a fonte. (This material may be published, transmitted by broadcasting or redistributed without prior authorisation provided that the source is mentioned.)" However, media at Wikimedia Commons must also be free to be changed and adapted, so derivative works can be made. This permission is not included in the disclaimer on the gallery page. In fact, the photograph can also be found at Leite's Flickr account where it is "all rights reserved". De728631 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The files will be restored when the agents will process the OTRS tickets. Ruthven (msg) 14:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dorsten-Hervest St. Marien (16).jpg

Moin liebes Team, bitte die Bilder wiederherstellen im OTRS Ticket#2017070510008082 ist die Genehmigung am 05.07 eingegangen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: bitte setze die endgültigen OTRS-Bausteine auf die Dateiseiten. Gruß, De728631 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Game of Thrones Time-lapse Episode 4.webm undelete

I hadn't finished submitting all the details before this assest was removed. I have since submitted an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org providing you more information.

I was the producer of the campaign and I commissioned the film & photography. I am having lots of trouble uploading contact into commons wikimedia. It is really not that easy.

Can you confirm the simplest way i can get my footage into wikimedia without the rounds of refusals.

Thanks, Kal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kal242382 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 September 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 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Game of Thrones is copyrighted by its authors or production companies, and the Standard YouTube License is incompatible with Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The [ttps://www.laagendalsposten.no/sport/basket/kongsberg-miners/seriegullet-er-klart/s/5-64-314383 source] claims Laagendalsposten Copyright © 2014. The consent from the photographer must be sent to permission@wikimedia.org (not the screenshot!). Ruthven (msg) 14:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Colorsyntax.png

I happen to be the author of the screen shot and of the included software. I am trying to get it clear but -honestly- don't know where I should add what information.

The code snippet is mine and I freely make it free as much as needed. The screen shot is mine and I freely make it free as much as needed. CC BY is what I intend... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploum's (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

But I have no clue what, in all the banners added to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Colorsyntax.png#filelinks, I have to use. Ploum's (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:LatinEmpire-ar.png

The Mentioned picture was deleted by my request, since at first it wasn't merged with a newer version, but sometime later the problem was solved, and i thought the deletion request isn't an issue any more. In short, the reason for asking its deletion has been solved and i wish to restore it. Thank you--باسم (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: perhaps an admin could view the following files and determine which one contains the graphic. The deletion reasons were either "scaled down duplicate" of each other, or "broken redirect" assumedly of each other, rather than copyright or scope.
seb26 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Correct file restored. Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Stamps of Tanganyika/Tanzania

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IBEAC-section a number of stamps were deleted. Those of Tanganyika up to 1966 were covered by {{PD-UKGov}} per all other former colonies per Commons:Stamps/Public_domain_templates when a new copyright law in 1966 was passed but appears to have continued the 50 year rule: see Page 2 of this WIPO document. In 1999 a new act was passed that provided from a 50 year PMA for known authors and 50 years from publication for anonymous works: see page 8 of this WIPO document It is not clear if, after 1999, corporate works are treated the same as anonymous works with a 50 years from publication rule but the stamps listed were freely licenced at the time of deletion being more than 50 years old.

I cannot tell if any other deleted files from this deletion nomination were stamps but these ones do have the word stamp in the file name and can be reasonably easily identified in stamp catalogues; there could have been others but I never saw this discussion, otherwise I might have been able to fixed these files. Ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: I believe most of these files did not have any verifiable source information, or were falsely claimed to have been created by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment @LX: Be that as it may, these stamp images could have been fixed and I believe can still be fixed even though I have not seen them but their description alone convince me. Sourcing of stamps is not usually an issue because the real source of the slavish copy is the postal administration that issued it, but licensing is. There seems to be a failing in our process whereby knowledgeable interested projects cannot be notified of such deletions prior to closure, we have to find such nomination by chance. Ww2censor (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support undeletion. Note, source information is not required if it is irrelevant for copyright (eg. for expired copyright works). Ankry (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 Question@Ww2censor: Could you please clarify the 1966 date/PD-UKGov rationale? per Tanganyika, "Tanganyika was a sovereign state that existed from 9 December 1961 until 26 April 1964...". If, post-1961 it was a sovereign state, would PD-UKGov still apply? Storkk (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
According to this publication there was no separate Tanganyika/Tanzania copyright law before 1966. So either Tanganyika inherited British copyright law or had no copyright law at all (unsure here). In both cases these stamps are PD. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Storkk Yes indeed, and per Ankry, as a state of the w:Commonwealth realm from 1961-1966, and as stated in my first post, {{PD-UKGov}} applied until 1966 when they introduced their own copyright law, which essentially followed the existing law, so can be added to these stamps. Thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I've added a new section to the general territory licensing page at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Tanzania/Tanganyika if you would like to review it. Ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ww2censor. Ruthven (msg) 12:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Public Domain?

I think that this file belongs to the public domain.

http://icon-park.com/icon/iphone-6s-plus-rose-gold-vector-data-for-free/

Please let me know if I make a wrong decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukichi7 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This probably relates to File:IPhone 6s Plus Rose Gold.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). seb26 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Although the image is marked "public domain" at the source site, I strongly suspect that the uploader there did not have the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Info If the public domain declaration at the source site can be considered valid, the license template may be easily fixed after the image is restored. Ankry (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Belongs to an Apple presskit, which are considered fair use. Ruthven (msg) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

King George

A list of files containing paintings by some sovereigns of the kingdom united from the 18th Century to 1936, for copyright licensing we are between the PD-100 & PD-UKGov--Andrassy66 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support Commons has no "created by abuser" clause. These should have had DRs. PD is PD. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh, how are these PD uploads "Content intended as vandalism, threat, or attack"? --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The uploader has a long habit of mixing false information about origin, period, author, etc. with random PD images and sometimes also artwork that is still copyrighted. Individual uploads with reliable sourcing and author attribution would be much better than the batch restorations which have recently been requested. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This does also happen. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: They are vandalizing and attacking our legal position by uploading known copyvios while pretending to be new users. They are also editing while blocked using sockpuppetry. Nuking their uploads is consistent with WP:DENY and WP:RBI in the face of similar behavior on enwp, except we don't have a banning policy or an ARBCOM.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It is best to stick to Commons policies. The current deletion policies are fine, copyvios can be speedied, the rest go to DR where everyone interested can help triage or even suggest sources. Anything left gets deleted after 7 days. Punishing whomever is bending the rules takes second place to keeping PD content.
However this is argued, I see no reason why an image of a 200 year old painting has to be speedied. --Fæ (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Fæ. Files that are valid under normal circumstances and possible assets to Wikipedia articles should be rescued, researched and reuploaded with valid copyright tags, replaced globally, and then original uploads from sockpuppets nuked. Wikimandia (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: The files uploaded by abusers should be deleted for sure, but they can be recovered if needed by the project. I restored all the files but Portrait of King George IV.jpg which is copyrighted. Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:L. L. M. M. Nicola II e Vittorio Emanuele III.jpg

The request for the restoration of the file shows a photograph of the beginning of the twentieth century in 1902 for accuracy, photographed, where the source is the entire photographic collection of the visit of the King of Italy in Russia, the author of the photographs is unknown, but can always permit us to enter a license either PD-100 or PD-70 ??

source: http://humus.livejournal.com/4175039.html --87.8.134.47 23:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Can be still copyrighted; let's wait a few years. Ruthven (msg) 12:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:BiscoSmithPortrait.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017041010012367 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 06:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: If accepted, the categories should be improved. Ruthven (msg) 12:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016112320161123cat00m200038000c-002.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017062310014319 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: In case the authorisation is fine, please fill a rename request. Ruthven (msg) 12:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Barbara Grace Tucker

Dear Jcb

I noticed that in the article Barbara Grace Tucker which I contributed two images were deleted from both the article and from Wikimedia Commons. These two images were taken by me and I also loaded them up to Indymedia before I wrote the Wikipedia article. Can I ask for them to be reinstated in the article. Thanks, Novak123Novak123 (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Novak123: If you are Paul O'Hanlon, please either post a Commons-compatible license on each Indymedia page which contains images you intend to upload here or specify there that you are Novak123 here, and specify in your upload where to find that info. If you are not, please have him send permission via OTRS. @Jcb: This appears to concern File:Babs and Brian in 2009.jpg and File:Babs in Square 2012.JPG.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I post a Commons-compatible license on each Indymedia page? Please remember that Indymedia UK is now only an archive and cannot accept postings anymore. Paul O'Hanlon aka Novak123Novak123 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Novak123: I guess you don't, so now you have to email OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hilma.jpg

Hi,

I would like to ask you not to delete my content. I have a written permission from our supplier, which I have sent you in e-mail. The Roemheld-Gruppe gave us their permission to use every content, which are avaiable on their website: https://www.roemheld-gruppe.de/

Thanks

Annamária Görcs 05.09.2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimexhidraulika (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Please note that claiming that you are the photographer when you are not is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you continue to do it, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.

The web site which you cite is clearly marked "Copyright © Römheld GmbH Friedrichshütte"

In order for this image to be restored, the actual copyright holder -- not you -- must send a free license using OTRS. Forwarded e-mails are not acceptable -- we see too many forgeries. The image will be then restored automatically when and if the e-mail 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 several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Perfekt, danke Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Сторожевая Застава.jpg

Восстановите наш постер — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman2864 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Three versions of this have been uploaded and deleted:

File:Сторожевая Застава вертикальный постер RU.jpg
File:Сторожевая Застава.jpg
File:Сторожова Застава.jpg.

One of them can be restored if and only if the actual copyright holder sends a free license using OTRS. Until that is done and processed, which may take several months, do not upload the image again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. --Yann (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Eisdigital logo.png

Please undelete the image logo. Because its solely owned by the www.eisdigital.com parent company EZEON TECHNOSOLUTIONS PVT LTD and not under any copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etindia2009 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose A legal representative from the company has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. All created works have copyrights and this is no exception. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:W85 W. Schneider, etwa 1930 Chemiepark.jpg

bitte um Wiederherstellung Ticket#2017062710005947 -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: bitte ersetze die OTRS-Vorlage auf der Dateiseite. Außerdem brauchen wir wenn möglich den Namen des Photographen, da das Urheberrecht in D nicht übertragen werden kann. D. h. der Chemiepark kann nicht als Autor auftreten. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Zahnstangen-Zuendmaschine.jpg

bitte um Wiederherstellung Ticket#2017072410014735. -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: bitte passe das OTRS-Template auf der Seite an. De728631 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:RESTUBE classic red bag with bouy.jpg

auch hier Ticket#2017071110008141 Danke-- Ra Boe watt?? 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: bitte passe den OTRS-Baustein auf der Seite an. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Saluti da Mantova - Via Trento.jpg


Hello everyone, I would like to ask for the recovery for the following files, because they have been deleted from a banned sockpuppet Daphne Lantier, so without any motivation, at present these files have been deleted unnecessarily and without being subject to the views of the administrators, since Daphne Lantier has dismounted a sockpuppet--82.50.35.153 23:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requester is a sock of abuser A3cb1 requesting restoration of that abuser's files.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:অগ্নিময় জীবনপথ.jpeg

Delete this file please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devjyotibhakta (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ritratto di S.M. Carlo Emanuele III di Savoia.jpg

portrait of the King of Savoy, painting by Maria Giovanna Clementi (1692–1761), The following painting is excluded from copyright protection, since the 'AUTHOR OF THE PAINTING died more than 200 years ago, so for Lienz should adapt to the PD-100 license--82.52.13.76 11:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Request by LTA User:A3cb1. De728631 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dr. BOBE STEPHANE ENGUELEGUELE SPEAKS ON THE ANGLOPHONE CRISIS, RELEASE OF DETAINEES AND THE WAY FOREWARD FOR CAMEROON.jpg

This file is belongs to me, kindly put it back, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliseandchai (talk • contribs) 12:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a derivative work of the front page of a non-free newspaper. Even if you scanned or photographed the page yourself, you are not allowed to publish or license your image without consent from the writers and photographers who contributed to this page of the paper. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not your work. --Yann (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Court Banquet to celebrate the Engagement of Archduchess Marie Christine to Prince Albert of Saxony.jpg

the file is PD-100 licensed since the art died in 1770

I ask for the restoration of the paintings performed at the end of the 18th Century by Martin van Meytens (1695-1770), artist at the court of the Habsburgs, could you please restore it? This is a painting not covered by the copyright restrictions.--82.52.13.76 21:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by LTA. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BRA Review Autumn 1977.pdf

Hi - I contacted Arthritis Care (formerly BRA) back in Februaryrequesting that they grant a creative commons license to this material. They agreed to send you an email in the format required on your website, and they later confirmed they had done this. I don't know why I have never had an acknowledgement from wiki commons that the copyright license info was received, or why this page was deleted once the license was received, but I would appreciate it if you could rectify the situation so I can get on with writing up this whole thing. The copyright confirmation should have come from Nikki Hill <NikkiH@arthritiscare.org.uk> and should have been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Nikki sent me confirmation of this email on 17th February (2017) Best wishes, Jon Bowen --Jonbowenelsfield (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There is ticket:2017021710008069 which covers this file. There are two problems here.

First, the OTRS volunteer responded to Ms Hill with concerns about the copyright status of the various individual contributions, both text and photographs. It is not clear that Arthritis Care has the right to freely license them beyond their use in the BRA Review. Ms Hill did not respond, so the ticket is still open.

Second, more generally, it is not clear that this lies within the scope of Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ach! This is ridiculous! This isn't a platform to publish historical documents of common interest, this is a platform for would-be copyright lawyers to be as obstructive as possible. I'm just going to create my own website and publish all my materials there. --Jonbowenelsfield (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS in progress. Further discussion can be kept atCommons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Thuresson (talk)<

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

File:BL3SSON_Logo.png

I have the complete copyright rights of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessonbabujoseph (talk • contribs) 01:15, 7 September 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 03:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Blessonbabujoseph:  Oppose due to lack of expressed permission and reuploading.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BL3SSON.jpg

I have the complete copyright rights for this media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessonbabujoseph (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 September 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 03:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Blessonbabujoseph:  Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:BL3SSON.jpg and reuploading.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Andre Borell.jpg

This does not infringe any copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreborell (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright belongs to eventpix.com.au Thuresson (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Karl Heinz Bartels 2010.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung, diese Bild konnte einem Ticket nicht zugeordnet werden. Ticket#2017090710023807 und Ticket#2017052510009734. Danke -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OR added --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Gotch.jpg

I have used this picture of Masafumi Gotoh on Wikipedia after asking people from the lable only in dreams, which was founded by this person. And they have responded that I was free to use this picture here, on Wikipedia. I also have to mention that the picture is originally placed on their site, that's why I asked them for permission to use it.

Here is a screenshot of the mail they sent me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhai Kinoko (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose A permission for Wikipedia only is not acceptable, see Commons:First steps. Thuresson (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dony and Casimir at SDM 2016.jpg

Hi. This photo was taken at my request, for my use and I myself am in it. My friend took this photo. It does not voliate any copyright. I am quite disappointed in its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman433 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment There is a watermark. Could you ask the photographer to send a permission via COM:OTRS, or to upload the original unmodified picture here? Regards, Yann (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Malikkeith96

This is a photo of Lege at a live performance in San Diego in 2017, I am a member of Lege's Management Team and Label, and am requesting the reestablishment of that photo. We have clearance from the photographer who took the original photo, and are allowed to use it in any way we (or Lege) sees fit. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.20.31.114 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the official artwork for Khary & Lege's Project "Tidal Graves". The photo was taken by Sergey Kolivayko in San Diego. We are reaching out on behalf of Lege & Khary, and we represent them on all management matters. We have legal copyright and clearance to put the cover wherever we see fit, and would like to ask that it be restated as soon as possible. Thank you for your time.

- AWA Management Team — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.20.31.114 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Jeff G. Please read COM:OTRS and COM:ET for more details. Green Giant (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Maria Redko.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017070110011334 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: please see below for same request from @Seb26: . Green Giant (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Unmani Liza Hyde 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071010008769 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: please let me know when you've had a look and whether it needs deleting. Green Giant (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

OTRS requests: 12:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Request normal undeletion of the following files as permission was confirmed by their tickets.

seb26 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Added one more. seb26 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Seb26: I've restored File:Maria_Redko.jpg. Please adjust the OTRS template on the file page. Green Giant (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a tiny query about File:Antonio_Castellanos_Mata.jpg - the email is from a Gmail address but could you request that they send it from their university email to confirm they are definitely that person. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Green Giant: thanks. I left a note explaining (not sure if you saw it) why I believed in that case there was sufficient information to confirm the association between the customer and the URL where it was first published, but it does not look like it is likely the photo belongs to the university. The URL (from the deletion request) and the site suggests to me that it is a custom group page that staff members can add (custom university web page hosting, e.g. http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/). The links in the note I left suggest an appropriate relationship between the name of the person emailing and the university (but not a staff relationship to the point where a person would have a @university email). I think it is reasonable that the image is from a personal collection and can't see any other reason to doubt it. seb26 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per comments by @Seb26: .Please amend the OTRS template on the file page as appropriate. Green Giant (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SpaceNet Award Gala 2014 - Sebastian von Bomhard erhält Auszeichnung Säule des Internets Foto von Stephan Görlich.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung Ticket#2017050410016515 Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

File:SpaceNet Award 2014, Preisträger Alejandro Pérez Ponce, Foto von Stephan Görlich.jpg vom gleichen Fotografen.

✓ Done: @Raboe001: please adjust the OTRS templates as appropriate. Green Giant (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Files of Vodorosli

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017060910010653 alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

They were all tagged as missing permission by EugeneZelenko and deleted by JuTa.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: I've added the OTRS_received template which makes them all eligible for deletion in 30 days if the ticket isn't resolved. Let me know if you decide they should be deleted any earlier. Green Giant (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:حسن جنگجو.png

Considering Iran's copyright rules, photos would become a part of public domain after 30 years from their publication. [3]. The person in the photo has passed away 34 years before and it is considered that the photo has been taken 3 years before his death. The photo is one of the most iconic photos from Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The photographer of this photo is Alfred Yaghobzadeh [[4]] Shahrestan (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That all may be true, but is largely irrelevant. Since no proof of publication is given, we have no way of knowing whether it is actually PD in Iran. However, since it cannot have been taken before 1980, it cannot have been PD in Iran before 1996 and therefore has a US copyright under the URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim's comment. Green Giant (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Heinrich Herzig, Ausstellungskatalog 1923.jpg

Ab wann ist es gemeinfrei? Ticket#2017072710013285 -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Dieses Blatt scheint sowieso nicht geschützt zu sein. Das ist kein kreativer Text, sondern nur eine Liste mit Namen und Öffnungzeiten. Die Voraussetzung für urheberr. Schutz in der Schweiz ist eine "geistige Schöpfung und "individueller Charakter". Das beides scheint hier nicht vorzuliegen, da weder Grafiken noch ein spezielles Design gibt. Einfache Informationen sind nicht schutzfähig, also ist das {{PD-text}}. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done – Restored as PD-text. @Raboe001: das OTRS-Ticket brauchen wir hier m. M. nach gar nicht. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sunil K. Dutt with Mother Teresa.jpg

File:photo album of Sunil K. Dutt with Mother Teresa on the release of the photo album "Mother Teresa - Down Memory Lane" obtained from Sunil K. Dutt for WIKIMEDIA COMMONS publication to undelete.jpg--Photographer Sunil K. Dutt (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) We are creating the biography of photographer Sunil K. Dutt in WIKIPEDIA with the kind permission of Sri Sunil K. Dutt and whatever photographs /documents we are producing, have been obtained from Sri. Dutt himself and we are exclusively permitted to produce those documents by Sri.Dutt for WIKIPEDIA/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS publication. Thus we request for undeletion of the photo . --Photographer Sunil K. Dutt (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose User:Photographer Sunil K. Dutt is permanently blocked on WP:EN for violating the WP:EN equivalent of COM:ADVERT. The WP:EN article mentioned above has been declined four times there. I see no reason to restore this even if permission is received. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not OK. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:תיעוד מבצעי.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is my original work and is not licensed anywhere RotemBenHamo (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Did you create this logo for the IDF? Do you have a contract to verify this? Otherwise we do not usually host artwork by non-notable artists. Thuresson (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The copyright holder has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Djibril.jr10

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017082510008622 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Award letter from Nikon to Sunil K. Dutt.jpg

We are creating the biography of photographer Sunil K. Dutt in WIKIPEDIA with the kind permission of Mr. Sunil K. Dutt and whatever photographs /documents we are producing, have been obtained from Mr. Dutt himself and we are exclusively permitted to produce those documents by Mr. Dutt for WIKIPEDIA/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS publication. Thus we request for undeletion of the photo.--Photographer Sunil K. Dutt (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Jeff is certainly correct that the copyright for the subject letter rests with Nikon and the recipient does not have the right to freely license it. However, I doubt very much that a letter documenting an award of a third prize in 1977 is within the scope of Commons. The award might be mentioned in a WP article, but not illustrated.

I note also that User:Photographer Sunil K. Dutt is permanently blocked on WP:EN for violating the WP:EN equivalent of COM:ADVERT and that the WP:EN article mentioned above has been declined four times there.

Therefore I think that even if Nikon does give permission, this should not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not OK. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

OTRS requests: 15:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets. There is a note inside the ticket which explains how the customer's identity and the legitimacy of the permission was confirmed by me, but I want to visually look at these before I consider them completely done.

seb26 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Seb26: Please complete the permission and the license. --Yann (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Skudai.jpg

The image is a school logo which belongs to the school that I'm currently working at. I am the admin for the official school blog at http://smkskudai.edu.my. The image doesn't belong to me, but to my school. I uploaded the image on behalf of my school. The logo is used for this wikipedia page : https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekolah_Menengah_Kebangsaan_Skudai

--Steveyu85 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 03:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Maurice_Ruiz_and_Ben_Poon.jpg

Requesting temporary undeletion to investigate ticket:2017082210001563. Guanaco (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Guanaco: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Randall Richman.png Used with permission from subject & photographer

File:Randall Richman.png is a photo from Randall's personal Facebook page that I took with permission from Randall and his wife, the photographer. Please consider undeleting this photo.

--IvyGarlands (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to proceed with this request. Thuresson (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We need a permission coming directly from the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lionel 700e Hudson o guage.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent (verify) request: Permission provided with Ticket:2017071610000676. Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done The latter two images are duplicates so I restored only Hotel del charro la jolla jagrafx.jpg and Lionel 700e Hudson JAGRAFX.jpg. @Arthur Crbz: please add the appropriate OTRS templates. De728631 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Yuri Gutsatz Société Française des Parfumeurs Marseille, 1946.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071710008809 Should be considered under PD is in France as date written on the document is "1946". Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The logo/coat of arms in the head of the letter would only be PD if the designer was anonymous. The organisation was founded in 1942,[5] so it is very likely that the logo is still copyrighted. Unless the ticket provides evidence that the SFP owns the copyright and releases the logo under free licence, we should not restore the file. Copyright aside, what is the educational purpose of this photograph? Is it only about the logo? If so, the letter should be scanned or photographed with the document being spread evenly. The current image shows a wrinkled document that distorts the logo. De728631 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Agreed. The image shows only the top half of a letterhead with part of the very top cut off or wrinkled under. It certainly does not show the CoA in a useful form. Therefore the image is out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ian-Goldberg-faculty-portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting temporary undeletion and tag {{subst:npd}}, in order to investigate the user's uploads as a whole. ticket:2017090610029358 Guanaco (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Guanaco: please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Знак Лауреат государственной премии УССР.jpg

This file is URSR (USSR republic) state award medal and must be licensed as {{PD-RU-exempt|type=orders, decorations and medals}} and/or {{PD-UA-exempt}}. See also: w:ru:файл:Знак Лауреат государственной премии Украинской ССР.jpg). — ReAl (talk 19:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support As ReAl explained, the object itself is not copyrightable and in my opinion there is no creativity in this derivative photo either. De728631 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dallas Egbert Article 1979 MSU State News.jpg

This is a photograph taken of a portfolio of work (a clipbook) I created. I own the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoodst (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In such cases where your work has been published before without a free licence, we need a confirmation by email. Please see COM:OTRS for details. The reason is that from your Wikimedia account alone we cannot tell if you are actually the writer and photographer who is credited in the news article. De728631 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 17:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Two persons are here copyright holders: article author Michael Stewart and unknown photographer of Egbert photo. Both must give OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Viewbank College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbcwiki (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 September 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 00:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. This concerns File:Viewbank College Logo.png.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The logo surpasses threshold of originality and needs OTRS-permission from college representative. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GuillermoCenicerosMural.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017071410011981 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: please let me know if the file should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you. I have asked for date info about the underlying mural.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeff G., I did some further research and found out that the mural is actually covered by {{FoP-Mexico}}. It exempts works situated in both exterior and interior places accessible to the public from copyright. The Palacio Legislativo as a government facility is explicitely included. So we can keep this file. De728631 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: ✓ Done Thank you for that info, but considering the photographer's rights, I have left it as cc-by-sa-4.0.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
De728631 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:CENICEROS 2004 - 3 084.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017071410012078 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: please let me know if the file should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you. I have asked for permission from the photographer.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done   — Jeff G. ツ 00:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored per OTRS. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jonatan Quer, 1981.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per OTRS 2017082710015754 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 16:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Kvardek du: please update the file page. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

OTRS requests: 17:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

seb26 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Seb26: please let me know if any of these need to get deleted again. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
After evaluating, all were approved and marked accordingly. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Taras Shevchenko in Beltsy.jpg

What's the problem with this file? {{FoP-Moldova}} is OK. If there are no other problems, it should be (re-)restored. --XXN, 22:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The file was deleted by INC with incorrect reason: there's really FoP in Moldova. But I decline the request due to other reason. This is small photo without metadata and the uploader is indefinitely blocked due to uploading copyright violations. Probably the photo is also not own work, but real photographer's copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PortraitOfMartinGonzalesSostre.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS received, ticket:2017090410006626. Guanaco (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, @Guanaco: . Taivo (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jakob's_voice_Jakob_Oakey.jpg

Some guy put one of my private photos of my son as a copyright violation! I took the photo with my own personal camera! How on earth is this a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.104.151 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Where does the logo come from? And this probably out of scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Logo is a copyvio and almost certainly out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Image Alisa Krylova.jpg

Permission received Ticket:2017072710010341 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ restored Mardetanha talk 08:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

OTRS requests: 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

seb26 (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Seb26: please let me know if the files need to get deleted again. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Another agent noticed a detail which we need to follow up on before approving, so I reset the OTRS pending timer on these and will keep an eye on them & the ticket. Closing this request. seb26 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


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

OTRS requests: 14:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

seb26 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Seb26: please adjust the files as appropriate but also note that File:Eliezer Sherbatov hockey image.jpg has an older OTRS ticket. Green Giant (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mean Mary.jpg

OTRS permission has been received, ticket:2017091010001861. Guanaco (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Guanaco: please modify the file page as necessary. Green Giant (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Aya Hijazi.jpg

Hello, I am the owner of the image that was deleted, and there are no copyrights for it. I have the original file as proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimowiki (talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Small image with copies on the Net. Please upload the unmodified original file with full EXIF data, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Owing a photo does not mean owing its copyright. "There are no copyrights for it" is probably wrong. OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means from photographer, not from image owner) is needed. Taivo (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Cartel N'R.jpg

This image hasn't got copyright, is free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Est 96 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This looks like a movie poster. Published at [6] with the copyright statement "© Copyright Apetece Cine 2015". Thuresson (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 02:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. OTRS-permission from Apetece Cine representative is needed. Taivo (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Engadine Golf Club Golfanlage Zuoz-Madulain.jpg

Mit der Bitte um Wiederherstellung damit ich es mir ansehen kann Ticket Nr 2017080410018302 Tschüß - Ra Boe watt??

✓ Done: @Raboe001: Bitte Dateibeschreibung prüffen und Taggen. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ravi Karunanayake in 2017.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071610004798 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: please let me know if the file should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SteamHammerVR - Trailer.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071610011422 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: please let me know if the file should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bak 1.0.wav

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071610012271 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: please let me know if the files should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you for handling this request. These files seem to be out of the scope, what do you think about it? --Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There's an article about Dino Residbegovic at en-wp where the sound files could be used as an example for his compositions. So unless there is any copyright concern left OTRS-wise, let's keep them. De728631 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Fine, ty. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gerhard Liebmann.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071710007408 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: please let me know if the file should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Terminal 2 Hotel CGI.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017072510010504 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Crbz, done. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait of Roman painter Umberto Coromaldi by Jerry Ross.jpg

• Actually Jerry Ross (painter) is pittore44 and is one and the same person who has uploaded and indeed given his permission for the free use of these images. Firstly, as author of the Buffalo Nine article for Wikipedia, I am the owner and source for the uploaded photo, pamphlet, and other photos that were deleted. I have requested that all those files be restored. There may be an element of confusion because my original name ws "Gross" which I had to change to "Ross" in the Tombstone, Arizona Courthouse. But I have used Wikipedia Commons to share and freely allow use off the images on the Martin Sostre, the Buffalo Nine, the Jerry Ross (painter), the Pier Cesare Bori, and the Umberto Coromaldi articles. Recently all these articles have seen images removed that are mine, freely uploaded to Wikipedia commons with the intent too share these freely. If you are able, please restore these images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:King George V's Silver Jubilee.jpg

painting Presentation of the Address by the Lords and Commons in Westminster Hall during silver jubilee of King George V, 9 May 1935, painting by Taylor, Frederick (1875-1963), the license of this painting should be PD-UKGov

LINK: https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/search#/11/collection/921140/king-george-vs-silver-jubilee-9-may-1935

I submit this file to reset request also to ask if the following file is excluded from copyright protection, despite the special license used in files that closely cover photos and paintings about the English Royal Family at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning and the second half of the 20th Century--82.50.35.241 20:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The file was deleted not due to copyright violations, but because it was uploaded by indefinitely blocked abuser. The requester is anonymous, probably the same person. Taivo (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Taivo. Feel free to reupload. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:An English-Chinese dictionary of the Foochow dialect.pdf

I believe this file is in the public domain. It was published before 1923, and was offered for download at HathiTrust. However, I did not assign a license to the file at upload due to the overwhelming number of options in the dropdown list, and the file was subsequently deleted, but not before I had already started a transcription project at Wikisource. I would like to humbly request that this deletion be reviewed and that its license be corrected. Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the catalog record link in the source parameter. Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BAK 1.wav

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017071610012271 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.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: please let me know if the file should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kirogi Aug 8 2012.jpg

Source of this image. --B dash (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @B Dash: please provide more refined source. Green Giant (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Kirogi Aug 10 2012.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Source of this image. B dash (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @B dash: please provide a more refined source. Green Giant (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Laumans Dachziegel IdealVariabel.jpg

Mit der Bitte um Wiederherstellung damit ich es mir ansehen kann Ticket Nr 2017070510016377 Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Raboe001: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sourgrapes.jpg

This was a book cover and was quickly deleted without a full discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 September 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 02:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Book covers are generally copyrighted by book publishers. If you can track down the sources of both photos (along with photographer, year of photographer's death, and country in which they were photographed) and a cite for the book, please present that info here.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is true that the DR was closed without addressing the issues that User:Randy Kryn raised, so here's an explanation:
"The Nixon/Ford photo was on a series of famous impeachment political posters of the day and was recognizable to a lot of people; these were used again during the Carter/Ford campaign under the slogan "Lest We Forget"...if it is copyrighted it was never enforced; the photo was used thousands of times."
That may be, but images on Commons must be free and our Precautionary Principle explicitly forbids considering whether the copyright was enforced in the past.
"The photo of Patty Hearst was of course taken by the Symbionese Liberation Army--the photographer Angela Atwood was nastily fried in the ensuing shoot-out and subsequent fire... I don't think the copyright extends beyond the kidnappers' deaths, does it?"
Yes, copyright extends well after death. In most countries, including the USA today it extends for 70 years after the death of the creator. A pre-1978 USA copyright extends for 95 years after first publication.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Nmalario

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017072610007365 alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MMClogo.png

The logo is owned by Municipal Commissioner of Meerut Municipal Corporation. So I am authorized to give its copyright on his behalf being his Public Rrlation Officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat.varsh (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We will need you to send a permission statement by email. See COM:CONSENT for instructions on how to do this. Guanaco (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sandeep Kishore.jpg

This image is owned by Sandeep Kishore. Sandeep Kishore has full rights to use and reproduce this image. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.77.148.58 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Requested by IP address, therefore request violates the guidelines. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment That's not a valid reason, but I doubt this is the work of the uploader. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Hansjürg Saager (2017).jpg

Der Rechteinhaber hat am 14. August 2017 (!) eine Freigabeerklärung an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org gesandt unter dem Betreff Ticket#: 2017081310002874! Wie ist es möglich, dass die Datei trotzdem gelöscht wird? --Peteremueller (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket bearbeitet. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ferriscope.png

This file is not copyrighted and it can be freely used by anyone.

--Ekely (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Written COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Landrat Arndt Steinbach (CDU).JPG

Bitte wiederherstellen, kommen momentan nicht nach, von daher bitte nicht so schnell löschen, bzw. mich fragen ob da ein Ticket sein können, ich arbeite so schnell ich kann und hoffe keine Fehler zu machen ;) Ticket#2017090410009258 -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Raboe001: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Files of User:Mikelelgediento

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017071310000074 alleges permission for these files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: please let me know if the files should be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you. @Mikelelgediento: I have been going through these uploads of yours, all allegedly licensed cc-by-sa-4.0 and credited as "own work", and I have some concerns. They seem to be vectorizations of emblems and flags of various groups with incomplete information about the source, author, creation year, author death, and license of underlying works, Without that information about the underlying works, I cannot recommend keeping these uploads here.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Local Kids posing infront of tomb.jpg

i haven't follow the earlier debate but now i want to know why that particular picture is deleted ?? It doesn't contain any inappropriate content nor it does have any copyright issue. So i please respond on this issue. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myselfkumail (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Could be useful. --Yann (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Boa tarde A Bandeira de Araguari está errada, pois as listas laranjas são na verdade amarelas. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 179.104.252.0 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No account, no file name provided. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Paul Barney

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS received, ticket:2017090110012946. Guanaco (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted. @Guanaco: Please add the OTRS templates. --Mates (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Aya Hijazi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission received: ticket:2017091310010489 Guanaco (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. @Guanaco: Please add the OTRS template. --Mates (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The Weeknd - Reminder (Remix).png

Sorry i'am deteled cover so dot not add remix — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 112.215.124.171 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There was no such file. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rus-1113-1194.png, File:Rus-1389.png and File:Rus-1389-lg.png

Three my maps (File:Rus-1113-1194.png, File:Rus-1389.png and File:Rus-1389-lg.png) were deleted about a year ago (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rus-1389-lg.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rus-1113-1194.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rus-1389.png), since they seemed to be derivative works. But in fact, none of the deleted maps are derived from copyrighted maps. They had the underlying (geographical) base map created by me on base of data from OpenStreetMaps. Unfortunately in Deletion requests I used usual but possibly misleading abbreviation OSM in my answer. Also by mentioning "printed maps" I meant just consulting them with my eyes in complex cases like finding out the position of certain populated places, swamps, names of rivers and so on. I ask to undelete these maps since they were used in many articles in Russian and other wikipedias. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Koryakov Yuri: "on base of several cartographic sources including printed ones (in Russian language) and digital ones (DCW, OSM, gadm.org). Historical content is based on maps in historical atlases and other printed works" in this edit is inconsistent with your request above.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    What I meant by "on base of several cartographic sources including printed ones (in Russian language)" is that I consulted them with my eyes - where else can I obtain the information about geographical and historical situation? To invent the time machine? And, as is written here, "Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable." and "Place names. Those aren't copyrightable." Of digital ones (DCW, OSM, gadm.org), as I revised later, I actually used only OSM, that is OpenStreetMaps. And I repeat again: all these maps I created completely by myself, using only OpenStreetMaps as a base for geography which I then generalised and supplemented by myself. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment In cartography we have see the difference: some information (geographic name, coordinates or geographic object shape) can not be copyrighted as this data are objectively present in reality. But copyrighted is a cartographic map/atlas as it is a result of original generalization of not copyrighted data. It is other motif for a map to be copyrighted - if this map content is a sort of original scientific/commercial research. Only making copy of an original map (in raster or vector form) is illegal, but all maps were created using (=processing, =generalization) previous maps. That's only way of maps creation. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bogomolov.PL: Original maps are made by physically exploring the mapped area, like the first explorers did and the first cartographers documented.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Small scale maps are made from other maps (maps of scale 1:200,000 are made using maps of scale 1:100,000, maps of scale 1:500,000 are made using maps 1:200,000 etc.), only large scale maps are the result of geodetic surveying and/or photogrammetric vectorization of the remote sensing imagery.
      • Again: it is no copyright of information considering cities, international or provincial boundaries. Location of this geographic objects is a trivial public information. But cartographic presentation can be copyrighted, that is why I can use names and coordinates from copyrighted Google Maps, but I can not use a copy of the cartographic presentation. Everybody can freely get coordinates and/or names from paper/raster/vector maps, but can not copy these maps.
      • With the scientific thematic mapping content is the same: we can not copy these original copyrighted maps, but we can get data (information) from these maps and use them in our original scientific synthesis of previously published data (from maps or books) and our original new data.
      • In simple words: we can use information and data from the book (map), but we can not copy this book (map). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not own work. Note that uploader apparently thinks he should reupload deleted files if deletion is in his eyes 'abuse', see here. Jcb (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Not own work" means these maps were created by other author(s), isn't it? Were these map published anywhere before or not? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please mention this discussion in the DRs. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:AliAbdolmaleki.jpg

الکی پاک شده — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamed0253 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Copy from the Internet. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 15 September 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 Steinschreiber


I created this DR for a potential problem of DW regarding the images on each cigarette packs. It was closed as deleted by Jcb. Following this discussion on my talk page initiated by Steinschreiber, I'm wonder if we can restore the images. The images were published there and without any special restrictions. Your opinions? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The copyright notice does not explicitly allow derivative work, which is mandatory to comply with COM:L. So I am afraid the permission is not compatible. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That is true that the legal notice point to this decision. And in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents", and it looks great to no derivative restriction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A) As Christian Ferrer (talk) correctly stated, that in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents" (or same in official German version of this EU decision: Artikel 6 Bedingungen für die Weiterverwendung von Dokumenten (2)b "die Verpflichtung, die ursprüngliche Bedeutung oder Botschaft des Dokuments nicht verzerrt darzustellen;".
A 'distortion' of a health warning
- is *not* just a photo of the health warning with the same content (i.e. same picture of health warning and same text of health warning) on another background or context or use
- but a 'distortion' is a change which changes the *message*, e.g. changing the text from to "smoking can kill you" to "smoking is healthy" or changing the picture from a person spitting blood to a person smiling happily.
=> undelete
B) Besides that (i.e. even if it would be a distortion), the [Article 6] states that "Conditions for reuse of documents
1. Documents shall be available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified and without restrictions or, where appropriate, an open licence or disclaimer setting out conditions explaining the rights of reusers.
2. Those conditions, which shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for reuse, may include the following: [..]
(b) the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents"
but it only may include "the obligation not to distort" but not do include "the obligation not to distort", because it is not mentioned that this obligation applies in that case/web page. The right to use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes is explicitely stated [see copyright notice]
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If still not convinced, please note: According to the German implementation of the EU Tobacco Product Directive 2 [Directive 2014/40/EU] into German national law [Verordnung über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisverordnung - TabakerzV) § 11 Allgemeine Vorschriften zur Kennzeichnung von Tabakerzeugnissen] (1) Für die Gestaltung und Anbringung der gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise nach den §§ 12 bis 17 auf Packungen und Außenverpackungen von Tabakerzeugnissen gelten folgende allgemeine Anforderungen: Die gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise [..] 4. dürfen zum Zeitpunkt des Inverkehrbringens, einschließlich des Anbietens zum Verkauf, nicht teilweise oder vollständig verdeckt oder getrennt werden; [...] (2) Abbildungen von Packungen und Außenverpackungen, die für an Verbraucher gerichtete Werbemaßnahmen in der Europäischen Union bestimmt sind, müssen den Anforderungen dieses Unterabschnitts genügen. in conjunction with: [Gesetz über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisgesetz - TabakerzG) § 35 Bußgeldvorschriften]
it is an offence under German law to use photos of cigarette packs, on which the graphic health warnings are hidden, for advertising to end customers within the EU (with a fine of up to 30 000 €). (The same is valid for presenting them in a shop (included into the paragraph listed above by Bundesrat (German States Council), Drucksache, 221/17 on 12 May 2017) i.e. the whole idea of the EU law is to enforce the use of graphic health warnings and *not* to hide them. The graphic health warnings were made purely by the EU to spread their messages.
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed my quote did not include the beginning, and my understanding was maybe wrong. My quote above is about one possible condition, but this part only applies when it is specified : "...available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified". Therefore I tend to  Support undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The photographs used on the packs are NOT covered by {{PD-GermanGov}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. There is no CC license attached to those photographs. The photographs are still covered 70 years pma if author is known and 70 years after publication if not. Everything else quoted above is procedural / moral rights and has nothing to do with Commons-compatible licensing. A transfer of the copyright (e.g. to the DE-GOV) is only possible by inheritance, as § 29 UrhG clearly states. The intention of showing the photos and not hiding them seems logical, but is NOT a valid license statement. There's no way Commons can keep these photos. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Except where otherwise stated, reuse of the EUR-Lex data for commercial or non-commercial purposes is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. According to this and ensuing from the image descriptions provided by User:Steinschreiber restoral and tagging with {{European Union Government}} should be fine cause there's no such exception annotated on the page of EU government where the photographs you refer to were originally published. jm2c --Jotzet (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm for undel as the restriction not to change the meaning is a commercial law restriction but not a copyright restriction. Similar restrictions are also applying to law texts which are also PD but you are not allowed to change the meaning of the law (eg. publishing the criminal law where you change that murdering has no legal consequence).--Sanandros (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Photographs displayed at the packaging are covered by {{European Union Government}}. The packaging itself isn’t creative enough to be protected by copyright law. @Sanandros: could you please be so kind to update the file pages? Thanks in advance!. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Xonotic Screenshots

This screenshot of Xonotic title screen previously had a GPLv3+ license violation. It was not deleted because the the corresponding source code was identified and subsequently conveyed under the GNU GPLv3 license (or any later version).

Jcb who deleted File:Rising-of-the-phoenix.ogg from Xonotic which was undeleted in the meantime Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-08#File:Rising-of-the-phoenix.ogg also deleted some Xonotic Screenshots: File:Xonotic Game Play - Silent Siege.jpg, File:Xonotic gameplay - Newtonian Nightmare.jpg and File:Xonotic Game Play - Xoylent (image 3).jpg. This was wrong for the same reason (screenshot of free software), so I ask to undelete them too.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion was not wrong: the uploader is likely not the Xonotic author to {{Own}} exclusive copyright to its screenshots nor {{CC0}} is compatible with {{GPLv2}}. They can be reuploaded under correct license. Unless they are properly sourced, only the screenshotter is allowed to set proper license for screenshots, not me nor you.
Free license does not mean that something is not copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support Restore all these with the correct licence. We correct invalid licences all the time even if we are not the original uploaders. Unless you argue that a screenshot, i.e. a snapshot of a random situation, of a freely licensed online game is a creative work of its own, the only applicable licence is {{GPLv2}}. De728631 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
PS: We should use {{Free screenshot}} with the proper input. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per De728631.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per User:Ankry. I was the one who tagged these with {{Dw no source since}}. I don't mind I'm thankful how File:Rising-of-the-phoenix.ogg was restored, because the actual source (well, a binary OGG Vorbis sound) to the origin was provided (something I couldn't find myself before tagging the file). It is not the same with screenshots: Those were derivative works created by someone else than the copyright holder of the original work, and they did not heed to the license conditions with required instructions to reproduce the photographs. Tagging them with {{Free screenshot}} and/or {{GPLv2+}} is not enough to meet the license conditions. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC); edited 19:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • See also File:Xonotic menu (version 0.7).jpg: That screenshot had its version number clearly listed, so the corresponding source could be easily identified and there was no creativity in the screenshot itself. I fixed this to be in GPL compliance (see Special:Diff/215880923/255486216) so that redistributors can effectively comply with the license conditions, but other screenshots couldn't be identified and had to be deleted. For that reason, I strongly oppose this undeletion request and faithfully recommend to take new free and redistributable screenshots instead. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As for @De728631: Any screenshots of Xonotic would not be under GPLv2-only as you claim, but GPLv3+ due to LGPLv3 dependency, as explained in COPYING. GPLv2-only and GPLv2+ are backwards incompatible with GPLv3(+) and LGPLv3(+). 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC); edited 19:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If and when the authors of those screenshots listed (who is not the OP of this undeletion request) files an undeletion request, then I can consider supporting their undeletion again because they know better. Permission via Commons:OTRS from all the copyright holders is an alternative. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Only noticed now @Ankry restored File:Rising-of-the-phoenix.ogg per User:De728631's support, without providing the source to the preferred editing format and tagged GPLv2-only instead of GPLv2+. I fixed this again (Special:Diff/256322203/257480752), ugh. I'm upset for good reasons. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for mentioning the GPLv3+ dependencies. Would you mind sharing a link to this COPYING section you referenced? As per Xonotic's legal note, "Xonotic and everything that comes with our releases is licensed under the GNU General Public Licence v2 including the 'or any later version' clause. ... Some of our artwork may be licensed under different licenses, which must be GPL compatible." So where do GPLv3+/LGPLv3 come into play regarding the screenshots we're discussing? Do you know that these maps have different licences than the basic game code? De728631 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

        • I hold no copyright in Xonotic sources, to let you know that first. (I've also never played Xonotic.) I have once been on the development IRC channel and asked about copyright of screenshots depicting Xonotic, where one other unnamed user or developer was aware of the artwork being under some GPL version and claimed it to be unfortunate. (I have no IRC logs of the conversation, so you'll have to take my word on that.) Besides this information and the links provided here, that's as far as my knowledge of Xonotic's licensing policies reaches.

          The COPYING file is in the same repository you linked. It also comes with license texts: GPL-2 and GPL-3.

          Linux and Windows binaries however link to a library that is under the LGPL version 3 with the "or any later version" clause. Thus, they can only be distributed under the GPL version 3 or any later version, at your choice.

          Some of our artwork may be licensed under different licenses, which must be GPL compatible means the artwork may be CC BY licensed in example, but not CC BY-SA. In other words, more liberally licensed artistic works like CC BY licensed works may be adopted into a GPL work. But because screenshots are derivative works, they're still subject to the conditions of the underlying work. In other words, the screenshots are under the underlying license conditions (the GPL). Specifically the screenshots are object code (binary), not a preferred form of the work to make edits to (as explained in GPLv2 section 3, GPLv3 section 1).

          GPLv2 (section 0) and GPLv3 (section 2) make exceptions to output of the program from being under the GPL, but in this case I don't believe those exceptions don't apply because these screenshots constitute a work based on the Program. (To put this into another perspective: You can use a GPL'd compiler such as gcc to compile any program written in the C-language, but that executable you get from the compiler is not automatically under GPL too because it doesn't constitute a work based on the Program.)

          I hope this makes a bit more sense. Sorry for the length, I feel a need to repeat myself many times across many deletion nominations about the GPL to be well understood. But anytime, no problem. Education is good. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

        • Though I try to help as best as I can, unfortunately the burden of proof is on the uploader. In other words, sorry; can't really answer to your question if the maps have different licenses. Unless stated otherwise, my personal belief is they're under the GPLv2+. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you. The original Xonotic licence page makes it clear how version 3+ etc. may be involved. So for our purposes, {{GPLv2+}} would be sufficient because "v2 and any later versions" includes v3+. Now there's the question of individual originality of a screenshot from an an interactive game but I think we can agree to disagree on that issue. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of linked libraries and LGPLv3

Despite the concerns for lack of corresponding source and GPLv2+/GPLv3+ compliance, I did some research and evaluation should it prove useful.

Extended content

I attempted to determine if there's actual LGPLv3 libraries, and if screenshots are under GPLv2+ or GPLv3+. I'm using Xonotic 0.7 binary distribution (latest is 0.8.2), ran objdump -x ./xonotic-linux64-glx | grep NEEDED on binaries, giving the results to dpkg -S object-name.so for checking packages which provide the library and finally reading Debian's copyright files from the Debian package to quickly determine the copyright status.

Here's xonotic-linux64-glx:

libc6
LGPLv2.1+
libx11-6
X11 licenses?
libxpm4
X11 license?
libxext6
X11-like licenses
libxxf86vm1
X11 license
libasound2
LGPLv2.1+
libstdc++6
Mostly LGPLv2.1+, newlib parts under LGPLv3+

Nothing significant so far? But if I look at the SDL one, xonotic-linux64-sdl:

libc6
LGPLv2.1+
libsdl1.2debian
LGPLv2+, LGPLv2.1+, LGPLv3+, X11, GPLv2+ for with Autoconf/Libtool exceptions, other free licenses for small parts
libx11-6
X11 licenses?
libstdc++6
Mostly LGPLv2.1+, newlib parts under LGPLv3+

I can't say for sure if there's anything significant in the screenshots to consider LGPLv3+, since you can run Xonotic without SDL 1.2. I'd estimate SDL 1.2 is mostly used for keyboard/mouse input, maybe some interfaces and maybe audio output. {{GPLv2+}} for screenshots may be a possibility, though I don't want to say so for sure. Nothing is certain.

No warranty expressed for accuracy of licensing information. I did this out of personal frustration to answer to a disagreement with User:De728631 about GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ for screenshots. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to attribute any of these libraries. They either come as part of the Xonotic software or are already present on your OS. So if anyone has to attribute them, it is the Xonotic programmers. I have checked the game maps though for individual authors and applicable licenses:
Map Authors Licence
Newtonian Nightmare
(Xonotic 0.5 default map)		 CuBe0wL, Debugger GPLv2+ ?
Silent Siege Justin, kuniu the frogg no specific license mentioned, so GPLv2 inherited from the original game?
Xoylent
(Xonotic 0.5 default map)		 sev, Strahlemann GPLv2+
  • De728631 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

    • I don't believe the GPL to work as you attempt to describe it. If you convey a GPL'd program, you can't pass the offer received from the original distributor but only occasionally and noncommercially under GPLv2 section 3(c) or GPLv3 section 6(c) (which doesn't apply to Commons) if you've previously received the conveyed source from that offer. Remember, the conveyed corresponding source code must be "complete" under the license. The LGPL-licensed linked libraries alone may be a reason to distribute them, others less. The more low-level they are (the C library, kernel, …), the more likely they may qualify for "the System Library exception" (GPLv2 section 3, the System Libraries of GPLv3 section 1 & 5(d)). The goal of this exception is to not require disclosing the source code of proprietary system components like the Windows kernel, but the source code of major components. "The System Library exception" is also highly debated.

      One or the other way the environment where the screenshots was taken would be recommended to be known, at least (the Installation Instructions). The UI parts (SDL, maybe X11 parts) don't always come with a distribution, especially so on Windows or OS X if they use them. Whether Xonotic violates their own license when distributing binaries, I can't really comment on. At least their source code distribution seems to be on good track. On GNU/Linux systems the executables can also be compiled without SDL 1.2(?), let's not forget about that.

      Thanks for the table of maps. I think the attempt to restore these screenshots specifically is brave, but more effort than it needs to be versus creating new free screenshots while the authors are not present in this undeletion request. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment Bitrot happens. It's just a fact of life on the Internet that stuff disappears, accounts are terminated, service providers don't track changes, and people change their minds and move on. The way we on Commons have dealt with these issues has been to consider the intent of the creative mind behind the work and its copyleft perpetual licensing, whether or not the work and evidence of its licensing are still available from the original source. We have also had to mitigate rampant license laundering through the use of automated and manual license reviews, as well as a blacklist of known license laundering accounts on Flickr. Clickable links to CC, GPL, and other licenses on file description pages have long been accepted here, and there is no good reason for AGPL to be an exception to that. I highly doubt if any court would hold that an author could invalidate the license to its GPLd or AGPLd work by taking down that work's source code and then successfully sue for copyright infringement, therefore I take the perpetual need to have source code available in those licenses to be unconscionable and unenforceable.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I followed De728631's table. I fixed the license the best I could and gave the mappers credit. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it's a cropped of my own work, naturally after years (uploaded here) its published on the net and many time used by many website, so, the reason of deletion of this file is not right. --Chyah (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support The original image was uploaded by Chyah aka Sonia Sevilla. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I am not even sure this is OK, seeing [7], [8], [9]. None of these is credited, but this one and these are all derivative of the same picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The EXIF data credits one Sonia al-Baeiny. In this case I don't see a reason why our user Sonia Sevilla should not be identical with this person. De728631 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per De728631. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Category: Iloilo East Coast Road

Iloilo East Coast Road is a major thoroughfare and cross town street of Banate, Iloilo, and neighboring coastal towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy1022 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dandy1022: Hello. I've created the category for you, using the text you've written. This page isn't the place to post this, so please instead make the categories yourself. If you need help, you can write on my talk page. Guanaco (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Agia Fotini bell tower

(please undelete only the photos that show the bell tower, I don't remember which they are)

This files were deleted as Copyright violations, however I believe that the reasoning was there is no FoP in Greece. Although the architect of the church died in 1965, the bell tower of the church is a replica of a bell tower built in 1856 [10] and so there is no problem with FOP.--C messier (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Although it may have been intended to be an exact replica, building codes and constructions methods change over time, so it is highly unlikely that the "replica" does not have a new copyright. Although Bridgeman takes the opposite view with respect to photographs, if one paints an exact replica of a painting, the new painting has a copyright of its own. Similarly, if one builds an "exact replica" of an older building, the new building will have a new copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment That's certainly the case for the building map. However the picture only records the visual apparence, and if it is the same as the original, I don't see how there could be a new copyright. I don't know how the old building looked like, so I can't give a definitive opinion. Idem for the painting: if it is only distinguable from the original by an expert with a magnifying glass, that looks similar to our 2D art policy. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: You can see one photo of the old building here. --C messier (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yann, that's not the law with paintings -- if I could paint a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa, it would have a copyright. That's what makes the Bridgeman decision so important -- until Bridgeman, even a photograph of the Mona Lisa had a new copyright (and it still does in many countries outside of the USA). The same reasoning applies to all other created works. That may not be entirely logical, but it's clearly the law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Jim: OK for the painting. But what if we can't determine if the picture is one of the original or one of the copy? For the Mona Lisa, it may be obvious (probably for other reasons), but for other paintings, it may not. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely sure that is true. If two authors independently create the same exact work, they can each have a copyright. But if something is a slavish copy, i.e. the second author had access to another's work to start with, I don't think there is necessarily copyright in the resulting work. However, small differences (especially if intentional) can still cause a separate copyright, and given the nature of making a painting of another painting, it's likely that there are differences. But you'd have to identify something copyrightable in the supposed copy that did not exist in the original. For architecture, it should be similar -- if it's a slavish copy, it should not get a new copyright, but if it's a new work made to look similar but not exact, that can be different. Differences in construction methods have nothing to do with the architect's expression, so they should not enter into the copyright. As the Copyright Compendium says, The U.S. Copyright Office will not register purely functional elements of an architectural work, such as innovations in architectural engineering or construction techniques. Similar for models -- A model of a useful article or a model of an architectural work generally is protectable if it includes a substantial amount of original authorship and if it contains some original differences from the object depicted, but by the same token, The copyright law does not protect models that are exact copies of the source work, regardless of how much skill or labor was involved in creating the replica. Merely reducing or enlarging the size of the source work or producing the source work in a new medium is not sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Likewise, the copyright law does not protect models if the differences between the model and the source work were dictated by manufacturing or material requirements. But this kind of thing can be very difficult to really distinguish between a slavish copy versus one that has some small, original details, so it can be difficult to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt on such things. Looking at the photos, the old[11] and new[12] buildings do look very similar. But, some of the arches look a little smaller in the modern building -- if that was mandated by modern construction techniques or building codes, that would probably not be copyrightable, but if they were because the architect thought they looked better for this era, they could be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Carl it could be also a projection effect (the photos are from different angles and distances). --C messier (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Carl, in general I agree with you, but I would put a slightly different emphasis on it. I am very aware that it took Bridgeman to eliminate the copyright from slavish photographic copies and even that is not honored in many countries. Therefore in looking at a reproduction of something as complex as a building, I think we must assume there is a new copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It took Feist to eliminate the sweat of the brow doctrine, or confirm that it had never been valid, and Bridgeman just applied that principle to photographs. Photographic copyright is a little bit different -- in that case, the subject matter itself is not part of a photographer's copyright in any case (unless it was something the photographer arranged as well). A photograph's copyright depends on the framing, angle, timing, and other factors specific to a photograph. For a photograph of a painting though, the angle is always straight-on, the framing is determined by the painting, there is no timing to speak of, etc. In short, the normal expression that makes a photograph copyrightable was basically predetermined, so there was no expression attributable to the photographer anymore, or at least not enough. It still takes skill, but not creativity. That is the same principle which would extend to other places -- you have to identify new expression, above the threshold of originality, attributable to the new author. The more slavish the copy, the less likely you will find new expression. However, small differences can still qualify -- the technique of mezzotint introduced its own copyrightable expression, it has been ruled, so a mezzotint copy of a painting did have a copyright. On the other hand, a 3-D model of a car which was done by laser measurements of an actual car was ruled to not have any copyright, since it was a slavish copy at that point with no real human expression added. The author of a copy of the Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas has claimed a copyright, as there were slight but intentional alterations done which gave it a bit different look, and that is going to trial tomorrow (judge refused summary judgement either way). Differences due to construction techniques have nothing to do with an architect, therefore they are not part of his or her expression. The difficulty is that there are almost always going to be differences, and it's very hard for us to know if they were simply mandated by the newer materials or techniques, or if they were small stylistic differences introduced by the newer architect. On the third hand, it gets even harder when it comes to a photograph of the entire building -- if most of the building is PD due to age of the original expression, but just small details have a new copyright, it's possible the photo may be OK since the small details could be de minimis in the photo. The problem still though is that we would almost need testimony from the architect to determine what parts are new, which we are not going to get. I would not sound as certain that there is a new copyright or that the photo is a problem, just that there is still too much uncertainty for us and COM:PRP applies. But it's certainly arguable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose. Copyright of Eiffel tower is expired. But there are a lot of scaled-down copies of Eiffel tower in the world and they are copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Taivo, are you sure for that? --C messier (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, more-less sure. For example, there's a wooden scaled-down replica in my home island, that's almost surely copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 Support In the extend that I assume the bell tower were re-built at the same place, it now look very (enough) similar to the former version, thereforee I support the undeletion of the images showing exterior views of the bell tower: File:AGIA-FOTINI-5.JPG, File:Nea Smyrni Agia Fotini bell tower.jpg Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Explanations: I said above "at the same place", because if the place is different then I agree with Jim and Taivo on the fact it is a new work with a new copyright. However if the place is the same that's mean the building is the same that it would have been without any destruction, therefore the reconstruction is no more than a renovation without additional artistic creations (I assume that after to have check the photos available in the web of the former building, see my links above) therefore no new copyrights. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl and Christian above. BTW these should never have been speedy deleted. A regular DR is necessary in such a complex case. --Yann (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vlasov 14.jpg

This file belongs to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvvla (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Yann. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kákonyi Tibor.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been arrived (ticket:2017091710014852). Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Bencemac: please add the final OTRS templates to the files. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Categoty:Banate National High School / Banate National High School

Banate National High School (abbreviated as BNHS, Tagalog: Mataas Na Pambambansang Paaralan Ng Banate) is a Department of Education Managed rural Secondary Public School located in Banate, Iloilo. It was founded in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy1022 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dandy1022: I see that you made a gallery, Banate National High School, which was deleted. Do you want this to be undeleted and placed as a category? Guanaco (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I deleted the gallery because it had only one file in it and that was a copyvio which I also deleted. Since this would be an empty category, I see little point in creating it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make a new request or re-create the gallery if we have images of the school in the future. Any such images must be under an acceptable license. Guanaco (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Google Chrome Screenshot of Wikipedia.png

Only contains {{PD-shape}} elements and elements from Wikipedia. -FASTILY 07:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fastily: I made this same request above at #File:Google Chrome Screenshot.png. Guanaco (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed: duplicate request. Guanaco (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Juman Mall.jpg

This photo is for a famous media presenter، and the photo is from her own personal library and it is found in an official website for the European Union about Experts in Jordan:

https://jordan.khabirat.org/ar/users/جمان-مجلي-الخريشة


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olkd37M8fU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4emjk8F4dmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSkYy0tmSA4


--JordanMedia (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Jordan Media

This photo has not been deleted. Discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juman Mall.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not yet deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg

Please, restore the following speedy-deleted file and nominate for deletion to discuss it: File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg. The source, an academic work (Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár: Magyar miniszterelnökök 1848–2002 [Prime ministers of Hungary 1848–2002], Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. p. 85. and 227.) clearly says the author is unknown and the photo was taken in 1920 (thus it is more than 70 years old). User:Hungarikusz Firkász nominated the image for speedy deletion without giving a reason. When I asked him to describe the reasons, he reverted my edit without comment both in Commons and Hungarian Wiki. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A kép szerzője Halmi Béla, aki 1962-ben hunyt el. Attól, hogy egy könyvben nem tüntetik fel a szerzőket, nem azt jelenti, hogy a könyv szerzői szerint ismeretlen, hanem csak annyit, hogy nem tüntették fel. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A megadott könyv konkrétan írja, hogy ismeretlen szerző, illetve 1934 helyett 1920 szerepel dátumként. De ha Halmi a fényképész, akkor a kép még nem közkincs (majd 2033-ban). Ugye, hogy nem fájt annyira a válaszadás. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nem neked válaszoltam. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose Hmm. I don't think so. The Hungarian law is 70 years pma in the case of published works. Published works by unknown authors are copyrighted for 70 years after publication, but we have no evidence of any publication before 2002. While the 2002 book cited above could publish it legally under the rule that unpublished works by unknown authors are PD 70 years after creation, the publisher of that book has a new 25 year copyright for the work.

(After edit conflict) If HF has correctly named the author above, then the work will be under copyright until 1/1/2033 (1962+70). If not, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 (2003+25)..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Egyébként az europeana.eu sem feltétlenül hiteles forrás. Itt például ismeretlen fényképezőt ír, miközben erről a képről egyértelműen lehet tudni, hogy a készítő Jelfy Gyula. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Meg gondolom, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum sem feltétlenül megbízható, ami a kép adatszolgáltatója. (Institution: Hungarian National Museum) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk)
Jól gondolod, egyetértek. A kép a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti Fényképtár (Historical Photo Collection of the Hungarian National Museum) része, a miniszterelnöki protokollkép 1920-ban készült. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Halmi Béla akkor is 1962-ben hunyt el, a lényegen ez nem változtat. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ha a honlap téved a dátumban (1934), akkor a szerzőt illetően is tévedhet. Főleg, hogy Halminak 1920-ban még nem is volt műterme. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Tehát a Múzeum csak abban téved, amiben neked jól esik? Gondolod, az élet így működik? Attól, hogy valakinek nincs műterme, még fényképezhet. :-) Az pedig még véletlenül sem fordulhat elő, hogy a Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár szerzők tévednek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Legalább most ne légy ostoba, bár nyilván, nehéz ezt kérni tőled. :) Az adott kor feltételei mellett a beállított fotók műtermekben készültek. Halmi az 1920-as években még nem volt aktív (maximum tanonc lehetett). A kép más könyvekben is előfordul (pl. legújabban A Horthy-korszak, Helikon, 2017), szintén 1920 és ismeretlen fényképész megjelöléssel. De nekem mindegy, hogy a kép marad-e vagy sem, mert Simonyi-Semadamról legalább van még fotó, igaz, ez volt a legjobb, lévén, hivatalos miniszterelnöki portré. További jó ámokfutást. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Látom, nem sokáig bírod ki személyeskedés nélkül, ha nem bírod a véleményedet ráerőszakolni a másikra, de csak saját magadat minősíted. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ez van. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Én tőlem, lehet akár ez is, engem nem zavar, ha ilyenképpen mutatkozol be. :-D Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Jameslwoodward, this is a well-known official photograph of a prime minister (1920, so I doubt the date of 1934). It already appeared in the book Magyarország miniszterelnökei 1848-1990, published in 1993. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if HF is wrong and the author is actually unknown, then a 1993 publication has a 25 year copyright that expires on 1/1/2019. The only way to have it be PD today is to show that it was first published either (a) after 1/1/1991 and before 1/1/1992 (so that the original 70 years had passed, and that the 25 year copyright has also passed) or (b) before 1/1/1926, so that the original 70 years had passed before the URAA date. ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Which, anyway, is not a criteria for speedy deletion. :) 1993 was just an example, the photo already appeared in earlier works, for example daily 8 Órai Ujság (after his appointment in March 1920). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
But the author is not unknown. The Hungarian National Museum supports Béla Halmi (see Provenance-Institution: Hungarian National Museum). There is no proof that the museum is wrong, so it is not proven that the author is unknown. (machine translation). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Another, academic sources, which also confirm that the photo belongs to the Hungarian National Museum, say the author is unknown. An academic source is more relevant than a website (in other case, it claims the author is unknown, while, in fact, the photographer is Gyula Jelfy (d. 1945). Thus this website is not so reliable as Hungarikusz Firkász suggests. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Csakhogy én nem az Eeuropeana megbízhatóságáról beszélek, hanem a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum megbízhatóságáról. Inkább hiszek ennek az intézménynek, mint annak, aki jogsértő képeket töltöget fel. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hát igen, a Fortepan üldöztetése ezek után különösen vicces. :) Egyébként is irreleváns, hogy te mit hiszel. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Norden1990, Hungarikusz Firkász, and Jameslwoodward: Feel free to nominate to deletion again (not speedy). You can continue the discussione there. Ruthven (msg) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:L. L. M. M. Nicola II e Vittorio Emanuele III.jpg

В запросе на восстановление файла изображена фотография начала ХХ века в 1902 году с целью точности, сфотографирована, где источником является целая фотографическая коллекция визита короля Италии в России, автор фотографий неизвестен, но может всегда разрешайте нам вводить лицензию или PD-100 или PD-70 ??

источник фотографии: http://humus.livejournal.com/4175039.html --87.8.55.236 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Google translation: "The request to restore the file shows a photograph of the beginning of the twentieth century in 1902 for accuracy, photographed, where the source is the entire photographic collection of the visit of the King of Italy in Russia, the author of the photographs is unknown, but can always permit us to enter a license either PD-100 or PD-70 ?? source of the photo: http://humus.livejournal.com/4175039.html" Translation added by Thuresson (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: 1902 photo shot in France (Nice). Not sure it is PD yet, without any info about the author. Ruthven (msg) 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Rajendra Shakya (Dijendra)

Profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijendra2008 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is probably about File:Rajendra Shakya.jpg. Copied from the Internet, no permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 13:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. Ruthven (msg) 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Fujifilmfinepixs9200.jpg

this is my pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssefbidak (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Watermark. Thuresson (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS authorisation needed from the author. Ruthven (msg) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Universal Orlando Resort Wikivoyage banner.JPG and any source images

Request temporary undeletion for File:Universal Orlando Resort Wikivoyage banner.JPG for transfer to English Wikivoyage, and, if its source image was once on Commons, undeletion of that file as well for the same purpose. Powers (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ping me back if you need it deleted again. Ruthven (msg) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Topics_Covered_(6.002x-3).webm

This is video from coures 6.002x on MITx has been released under CC-SA: 6.002x. You have to log in (but can use a made-up email); the license is on each page at the bottom-right. Each professor is free to choose any license they wish to on EdX -- In this case, the professor is also the head of the project, and has given explicit permission and updated those webpages with a CC-SA license. Please undelete all:

Regards, --SJ+ 15:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Question Hi SJ,
There was no license. What should be the license? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Yann! The license is CC-SA. I've added a screenshot to the right. --SJ+ 19:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. SJ: I added {{Cc-by-2.0}}, please change if it need to be. I reviewed the license. --Yann (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by CrutchCargo

Please undelete the following files in order to investigate ticket:2017091110006667:

Guanaco (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Can you take a look at this and tell me what you think? If these are what I think, there have been many similar images uploaded to Wikia under free licenses, but nowhere online that is nonfree. Guanaco (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: They are the same as the ones indicated on the Flickr account. --Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I think we can undelete these on a permanent basis. This artwork has been consistently released under free licenses, and I'm unable to find it online except on Wikia and Flickr. Guanaco (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Guanaco: I leave you the pleasure of adding the PermissionOTRS. Ruthven (msg) 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Craig Chaquico in Starship (David Plastik).png

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017072610015392 and another ticket referenced only in the deleted file description page allege permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeff: ✓ Done Yann (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Yann. Ruthven (msg) 11:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Arbatska strilka .webm

Please restore File:Arbatska strilka .webm we have received OTRS permission from copyright holder (Ticket:2017091210025421). --sasha (krassotkin) 21:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per #Ticket 2017091210025421. Ruthven (msg) 11:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:File:Cocktail Trolley.jpg

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing in relation to images uploaded of George Freedman.

These are a listing of his completed projects

I own these images therefore I do not need permission

The images deleted twice now after I have already responded to copyright are:

Kraanberg Cocktail Trolley Bilsons Quay Centennial Park Pool


Can you please add them as it is all genuine, accurate, and better describes the article

I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,

Peter Sunnywintermorning (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

We have received your email (ticket:2017091410027871) but it is insufficient to restore these images at this time. Guanaco (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Permission statement received. Please temporarily undelete the following files so I can evaluate them and their description pages:
Guanaco (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. Ruthven (msg) 12:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Tampon seul.png, File:Nadar jeune & cie 17 bld des italiens.png, File:1ere signature.png, File:Nadar jne.png, File:Carte visite.png et File:Cachet adrien.png

Ces images ont été supprimées à tort car elles sont dans le domaine public (les dates le justifiant sont dans la description des images supprimées). O.Taris (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support These look OK. Yann (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Yann. Ruthven (msg) 12:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:烟台南山学院体育馆.jpg

此照片在2016年4月被提删，其给出的原因荒谬为"no metadata".此照片为使用Letv1s手机拍摄，元数据比较全面。且确为本人于龙口市出行时所拍摄，可用在完善中文维基百科烟台南山学院条目。请管理员复核恢复。谢谢。--Charlie Qi (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This photo was deleted in April,2016.It was taken by me in 2016.It was a Student Card of Yantai Nanshan College in Shandong,China. It can be a useful photo in 烟台南山学院 in Wikipedia(Chinese) --Charlie Qi (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jeff. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:В.В.Мартынов.jpg

Прошу не удалять файл File:В.В.Мартынов.jpg , поскольку я являюсь автором фотографии В.В. Мартынова. Предыдущий файл (File:В.В.Мартынов(8).jpg) был ранее выложен моим учеником с моего разрешения, однако был удален из-за нарушений авторских прав.

Please, do not delete the file File:В.В.Мартынов.jpg, because I'm the author of the photo of V.V. Matrynov. Previous file (File:В.В.Мартынов(8).jpg) was uploaded under my permission by my student, but it was also deleted because of copyright. --AliaksanderHardzei (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jeff. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Australian aboriginal flags

I am requesting undeletion of my two files (File:Flag of the MeeWee.svg and File:Flag of the Anangu Traditional Owners.svg), discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Australian Aboriginal flags. The nomination relates to a variety of files that are derivatives of this flag, where the designer holds and exercises his copyright. My two files however are not derived from that flag in any way or designed by the same person, and there was no evidence provided that they are also contested under copyright. I believe it is therefore unfair to lump my files in with the others under the same reasoning, when there is no real connection at all to the original work which is used as the reasoning for deleting the other files. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support as per Fry1989. Yann (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support, per Fry. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I never stated it was a derivative of the Australian Aboriginal flag for the two files I had stated "No free license, while it may seem "simple" under Australian law it is copyrightable (just like the Aboriginal flag)". They maybe simple shapes but Threshold of originality is "very low" in Australia and as Commons requires it to be free in the "source" country (not just the host) it can't be on Commons under a free license. FYI, sources (Anangu Traditional Owners and MeeWee) that Fry used to create the svg files. Bidgee (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It is problematic to enlarge the decision to anything coming from Australia. Unless there is a pattern, we can't presume these flags are also under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge that the TOO in Australia may be low, but I see this as a special case. The designer of the Aboriginal Flag exercises his copyright in a way that usually one would not. It is supposed to be a symbol for all Aboriginal Australians, but he maintains copyright as a way of control to stop what he views as misuse. There's no evidence that the designers of the two flags I recreated have a similar interest in controlling these flags from what they consider disrespectful or misuse. It's a connection that I see as very thin at best, and that is why I object to their deletion. Fry1989 eh? 16:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Fry1989: According to COM:PCP it is not subject whether they will do it; it is subject whether they can do it effectively. Ankry (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
          • That is not the point I am making at all. Whether they can or can't is not exactly clear, because there is no proper section for the Australian threshold of originality. The only example is the copyright of the Australian Aboriginal Flag, which I strongly believe to be a special case because of the creator's intentions, which are very bizarre. There is no way of telling what is and isn't copyrightable without a proper entry with at least 4-5 examples. The nomination is based on the fact we know the author of the Aborginal Flag maintains his copyright. Extending that to other flags created by other people which are not derived from the same image is unfair without a way to measure the threshold to tell if they also fall under the potential of being copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Australia's TOO will be very similar to the UK's, since they share the same legal and copyright law history. The UK has had to move somewhat to conform to the EU TOO, but Australia has not. The simple lack of more explicit examples does not mean that we keep stuff -- we use the best evidence we have, and if something as simple as the Aboriginal flag got a valid copyright, then it's reasonable to assume that any others of similar or more complexity would as well. If you have a court case which ruled the other way, showing the Aboriginal case to be an outlier, then please bring it up. Otherwise, I don't think we would treat the Aboriginal flag ruling as an exceptional case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
              • OK, I will follow Carl. Yann (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
                • I may not be able to prove it, but I KNOW it is an outlier. This is absolutely ridiculous. Fry1989 eh? 16:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
                  • Fry1989, I am interested to know more. Could you expend please? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
                    • Because I have never seen a country where the threshold is slow low that two rectangles and a circle could be copyrighted. I am willing to bet good money that the E-passport symbol would not be copyrightable in Australia, and it's essentially the same thing. I am of the strong belief that the Aboriginal Flag was granted a copyright due to certain sensitivities around aboriginal relations in Australia. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
                      • We really need more information here, as this would not only change the status of these flags, but our policy regarding several items from Australia, i.e. logos. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
                      • Keep in mind that in the UK tradition, "original" has no implications of creativity at all, but rather that it originated with the author -- that is it. After that, it is a determination that there was sufficient "skill, judgment and labour" to carry a copyright. The concept and theory is not at all the same as the U.S. or European versions of "original". As such, bizarre things can be ruled copyrightable, if you are basing your opinions on a U.S.-style creativity requirement. A UK court ruled that en:File:EDGE_magazine_(logo).svg was copyrightable, because the font was stretched slightly from the standard font and the Es were modified a little bit. w:Walter v Lane is a famous UK case establishing their definition of "original". Australia has inherited these legal precedents -- for example a case Sands & McDougall Pty Ltd v Robinson in 1916 and 1917, where the Australian high court basically ruled that "original" meant "not copied". To my knowledge, subsequent rulings have not changed that -- a 2002 case explicitly rejected the U.S. Feist standard, and ruled that a white pages listing was copyrightable in Australia (Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited). I have seen some hints that the courts may have considered changing the standard to be more like Canada's (which moved partway between their old UK definition and the US definition due to NAFTA), but no indication they have actually ruled that way. Ironically the UK has been required to more conform with the EU definition, though with Brexit that may not continue, and their courts continue to use their old definition for anything outside EU copyright scope (so things which are not "works" in the EU may still be copyrighted in the UK). The Aboriginal case, while nowhere near the U.S. creativity level, is in line with UK cases unfortunately. Reading the text, I'm not sure they really even questioned the existence of a copyright all that much (it was more a case of which person owned it). And those are binding precedents, as well, such that lower courts cannot ignore them. While you may well KNOW in your heart this is an outlier, I don't see it, based on the cases that we know about -- and your gut feeling may well be based on a completely different theory of "originality" if you come from another country. We need evidence in the form of court cases or laws, since there are quite a few which indicate the level is quite low there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Unfortunately I cannot see the deleted file, but if it's not even a derivative of that flag, then it would be a new work created by Fry1989, thus Fry1989 is the copyright holder. Wikimandia (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Lama Gyurmé.jpg

As far as I remember, this file was taken via a smartphone or similar device, as shown by EXIF. Therefore, it was likely not a copyvio. Could anyone verify this file, and possibly others from the same contributor, that may have been deleted without proper review? Many thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support Sealle's deletion comment was "deleted page File:Lama Gyurmé.jpg (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing", but I can't see any reason not to assume good faith. The uploader claims "own work". The image does not show up on Google. It is 3,264 × 2,448px, which makes it unlikely to have been taken from someplace on the Web. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Looks like my fault – among their other contributions (see recent ones). Restored this one. Sealle (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Archie League Newspaper Article - Sunday 1938.jpg

OTRS permission received, ticket:2017091910001764. Guanaco (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Guanaco: please add the final OTRS tag. De728631 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Could you please undelete File:Tia Mowry on Sidewalks.jpg?

The license reviewer couldn't find the Vimeo license (admittedly, Vimeo does go to great lengths to make the license hard to find) and when I told him where to find the license, he ignored it - possibly because he hasn't edited in a week. The deleting administrator says I should post here. --GRuban (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done The file is in fact licensed under CC-by-3.0 and a link to COM:WHERE was provided by the uploader. At least the deleting admin should have checked the "license review" tag. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Nicoleboehm.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission. ticket:2017092110008342 Guanaco (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Guanaco: please add the final OTRS tag. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Calamus Atari ST 1987.png

This image I made, on my computer. It is screenshot of Calamus application from 1987. that I own for my Atari ST computer. Please undelete my image. --80.93.238.125 11:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a copy of an application does not give you the right to freely license it. Perhaps you did not see the prominent copyright notice in the center of this image? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted screenshot. Thuresson (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jose 2017-09-08 1425Z (alternate).jpg

There is a controversy about the size of this image. The alternate version provides a larger size of this image. Please help resume it, see the deletion log. --B dash (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

self close. --B dash (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

James D. Zirin - Wikipedia Wikipedia › wiki › James_D._Zirin

I do not understand why you have removed me from the website. I have published no copyrighted material. I took over the YV show from Goodale and was entitled to publish a link to his website. If this is inappropriate I would gladly remove it. I own all the rights to the headshot image of me which I used loaded from wiki commons. I am happy to use another image if that solves the problem. Please restore my biography to your website. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.219.26 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free educational media. However, the article James D. Zirin at the English Wikipedia was deleted because it was an unambiguous copyright infrigement of this website. For further questions, please contact Anthony Appleyard at the English Wikipedia. De728631 (talk)

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

File:Yogmaya Neupane.jpg

I request the undeletion of this picture, based on the following criteria:

1. This picture is officially being used by the Nepal Government in a postage stamp. Here is the link with the proof: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1124690884318182&id=210023792451567

The picture was provided to me by a local organization active in the matters of Yogmaya in Nepal called 'Yogmaya Shaktipith Tapobhumi Bikas Tatha Byawasthapan Sangh'. They hired artists to draw this portrait based on the information relayed by people who had seen her.

So, I will say that this deletion request is outright erroneous. This portrait is absolutely usable under fair-use policies and in fact, all members associated with the movement of Yogmaya are absolutely approving of its use in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.51.76.62 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons, and this project does not accept fair use material. Please upload the image locally at a Wikipedia that does accept fair use claims, e. g. the English Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 Not done OP claim fair use. Thuresson (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Siddiq Sazzad User.jpeg

Dear Admin,

This image/photo is for userpage. Not for articals. There is no copyrighted photo. Please undelete this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqsazzad001 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done File has not been deleted. Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Siddiqsazzad001. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted, although it probably will be. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:عشان_خارجين_(فيلم).jpg

The Publisher Of The Photo Has Been Publish it Under License CC So Why it Violates The Copyright.
The Source : http://www.elcinema.com/work/2044097/gallery/124095094
The Signature :AbdullRahman00013 (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The original uploader at the Elcinema.com website appears to be a random user there. There is no evidence that he is in a legal position to grant a free licence for this film poster at all so I suspect that this is just Commons:License laundering aka copyright violation. Only the copyright holder can grant a Creative Commons license, so we need a permission from theem via the COM:OTRS process. De728631 (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 00:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:jim_Zirin_in_2017.jpeg

This is a headshot that was taken at my CUNY TV studio by a photographer at my request. The photographer assigned all of his rights to me, and the photo has been published on my website www.jimzirin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzirin (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jeff -- needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Naman mishra in iifa.jpg

This is the real image take my me https://telugumoviesfilms.blogspot.in/2017/09/naman-mishra-biography-height-weight.html please dont delete this image — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2405:204:E183:3D99:6F4C:2ABD:8E61:86D3 (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jeff -- no reason given for undeletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Elisabetta dami.JPG File:Elisabetta Dami.jpg

Chiedo cortesemente non venga cancellata l'immagine in oggetto poiché scattata da me in occasione di uno shooting con la signora Dami. Ne ho scattate diverse di fotografie ma questa era stata scelta da lei anche per la sua Pagina personale in Facebook e canale Instagram. --Roghem (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says "author=Photography: Andrea Costa - Creative Director" which clearly contradicts your statement above. This can be restored only if the actual photographer, presumably Andrea Costa, sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Needs OTRS permission from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Schulschluss (talk · contribs)

Mit der Bitte um Wiederherstellung damit ich es mir ansehen kann Ticket Nr 2017083110018396 Tschüß - Ra Boe watt?? 15:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: wenn die Lizenz passt, entferne bitte die Bausteine {{Temporarily undeleted}} und setze die entsprechende OTRS-Notiz auf die Seiten. File:Peter Marggraf.jpg habe ich nicht wiederhegestellt, da es ein Duplikat von File:Portrait Peter Marggraf 2014.jpg ist. Falls die Lizenz nicht ok ist, bitte kurz bei mir Bescheid sagen, dann lösche ich das alles wieder. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Danke an De728631 Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Shaji Chen.jpg

Hi,

I could see that this file was deleted, sorry could not respond to you when the discussion started. Can you please let me know the reason for deletion. In this case the phot was Shaji Chen's photo itself, which no one should claim for copy right as that is an original one.

I checked the EXIF data and below is the content from the file "ICC_ Profile Profile Description sRGB built-in Profile Copyright No copyright, use freely"

Please let me know the details, I am also very new to Wikipedia contribution, it helps me in submitting in quality content in future.

Thanks,

Anumod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anumod.thomas (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Question @Anumod.thomas: Who is the photographer? Why is it so small (Facebook size)? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann/Moderators, This photo was taken by One Mr Prabhu Kalidasan, he is a reader and fanboy or Mr Shaji. Mr Prabhu Mailed the picture to Shaji. Mr Shaji passed on this picture to me. The reason being this is small, because we wanted to put it in passport size, so he gave me this size photo ..

Is there any problem with this approach. if so we will add some other photo.

Thanks --Anumod.thomas (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that the file description says that the photographer was Anumod.thomas. Now he says that the photographer was Prabhu Kalidasan. It is difficult to apply our general rule of "Assume Good Faith" when the uploader says two different things. If we keep this at all, it should be only if Prabhu Kalidasan sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It was my bad could be , I never intentionally gave my name as photographer. It could be a mistake as I was uploading the phot for the first time to Wikipedia. I will see whether we can get a permission from Actual Photographer. How do we submit the consent to Wikipedia .. --Anumod.thomas (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You do not submit the license -- it must come directly from the actual photographer, whoever that is. Note that OTRS is linked above -- you will find instructions there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The original photographer needs to send a license by email. See COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Major Philip Jackson and George Marrett USAF TPS 16A 20161209.jpg

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate permission in ticket:2017091810001873. Guanaco (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Guanaco: please let me know if the image needs to get deleted again. De728631 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've accepted it. Thank you. Guanaco (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored De728631 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:GW2 Path of Fire.png

This file is from the asset kit (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/media/asset-kit/), and it is fine to use according to their Content Terms of Use (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-content-terms-of-use/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devler (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The following are quoted from the page cited above:

"We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or remove portions of these Content Terms of Use, at any time."
Commons content must be licensed irrevocably, see COM:L.
"The content must be used in a non-commercial context for private, personal use only..."
Commons content must be available for commercial use.
"You agree that you will not alter, disassemble, decompile, reverse-engineer or in any other way modify the content."
Commons content must be modifiable.
"You agree that ArenaNet has the right to require removal of our content at any time, for any reason."
Again, Commons content must be licensed irrevocably, without the possibility of arbitrary takedown.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. The current terms at the source website are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ata bozaci-portrait-2017.jpg

bitte Anschauen ob das Bild wiederhergestellt werden kann. ;) Ticket#2017092110018617 Danke Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Moin, Raboe001. Schau's dir mal an, und lass es mich wissen, falls es wieder weg muss. Gruß, De728631 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored as OTRS permission has been found valid by Raboe001. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Youssef Bidak inc.jpg

it's i'm youssef bidak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssefbidak (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Youssef Bidak inc.jpg. Please clarify how you intend to use this file. Thuresson (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Raashi Khanna stills.png

Request temporary undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inofficial (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Requester is a sockpuppet of Virajmishr and the image is copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bog Studio 2 wiki.jpg

I own this photo. It was given to me by my grandfather, A.J. Bogdanove's wife. The photo is ca. 1930. It was an original photo, scanned by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogframe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bogframe: If this is Abraham Bogdanove, he died in 1946 thus a 70-year rule may apply; however, the date of publication in the US (if any) is relevant. Could you read this and advise which might apply? Please also note that owning a physical photograph is not the same as owning its copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two copyrights here -- that for the painting and that for the image itself. If you are the sole heir of the painter -- or one of several heirs if his will did not leave his copyrights to someone else, then you probably have the right to license the use of the painting. However, the right to license the photograph is owned by the photographer or his heirs. Unless it is PD (see below) it cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the actual owner of the copyright.

Bogdanove was a USA artist and therefore USA rules probably apply. If it can be shown that this was published without notice before 1990, then it is PD. However, it is more likely that it will be under copyright until 120 years after creation, around 2050. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Leon Miguel.jpg

this is my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmerioles (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image appears somewhat larger at http://richestcelebrities.org/wp-content/uploads/net-worth/leon-miguel-net-worth_.jpeg with an explicit copyright notice. If it is actually your image, please upload it again at full camera resolution using the same file name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:BILDNIS DES KURFÜRSTEN JOHANN WILHELM VON DER PFALZ.png

Hallo, Gute Nacht für alle, ich schreibe, um dich zu fragen, ob es möglich ist, die Wiederherstellung des File Slip durchzuführen, mit einem Porträt von Jan Frans van Douven (1656 - 1727), das folgende ausgesetzte Porträt aus dem 17. Jahrhundert, und daher ohne Urheberrechtsschutz, ist die Lizenz des Gemäldes ein PD-100, wenn Sie es ausprobieren möchten?--87.8.134.29 16:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Requester is a sock of abuser A3cb1 requesting restoration of that abuser's files. De728631 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:にしん街道標柱の説明板.jpg

説明板の作者名を表記しているのと、対価を獲ること無く一般公開している点を考え、削除は不適当と考えられます。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BATACHAN (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Suzy sec photo 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission provided with Ticket:2017092210024626. Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Wolfgang Vorwerk.jpg

Ticket#2017092010026824 Bildfreigabe ist angekommen. Bitte um Wiederherstellung. -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:30, 20 September 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) 13:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Moin (Jameslwoodward)
I have the permission here in the ticket, so I ask for restoration so I can see the picture, bye Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001: The current backlog in permissions-commons queue is 7 days.  — Jeff G. ツ 00:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Raboe001 is an OTRS agent who was asking for temporary undeletion so he could evaluate the image. De728631 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001 and De728631: Sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Great thanks and my english is not so good, otherwise I would have liked to apply as Admin. :) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored as OTRS permission has been accepted by Raboe001. De728631 (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Cahs Students Uper View.jpeg, File:Cahs Science Fair.jpeg, File:Cahs Book Fair.jpeg, File:Cahs Font View.jpeg

This photo is for educational artical. The photo content properly meet with Civil Aviation High School (est.1978). So Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqsazzad001 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Files have not been deleted. Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Siddiqsazzad001. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I have deleted three of the four as obvious copyvios. They all appear at http://www.cahss.edu.bd/2014 with "(C) All rights reserved, CAHS". The Science Fair image does not appear at that site, but is probably from the same source. The article on WP:EN is tagged for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done These cannot be restored without permission from the copyright holder(s). De728631 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Damidamon artist photo.jpg

Hello, I will like this image undeleted because i have the right to put it up. Damidamon is an upcoming artist and a personal friend whom i have been helping with his online presence. Although all his images are copyrighted, I have the permission to use them as i help him build a online presence. I am about to put up a small article of him on wiki. Thanks Staceyflyest (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. That applies to each image.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose both. Upcoming artists are not likely to be notable enough yet to be covered by Wikimedia Commons, so the images are not within our project scope. Apart from that, we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holders of the images. In case of the album cover, this would likely be the record label, and for the portrait we'd need a permission from the photographer. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jeff and DE728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rafael Vasquez Alvarez.jpg

Photography belongs to family, his grandchild asked me to share some pictures she had on her house, what can I do to be able to share it? Ronaldesc007 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Ronald Santizo

For a first estimate on any possible copyright, we need to know when and where this photograph was taken, i. e. the year and the country of origin. Depending on the country, we would also require the name of the photographer, if he is still alive, and if not, when he died. De728631 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose First, there does not appear to be any WP article on the subject and Google does not show any notable people with this name. Therefore it is unlikely that the image falls within the scope of Commons. That must be proven before any restoration can be considered.

Second, please understand that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it as required here. The copyright almost always rests with the photographer or his heirs. Since this appears to be a formal studio portrait, it is unlikely that the family has the right to license it. If the image was taken before 1947, it is possible that it is in the public domain, but that will depend entirely on where it was taken and if and when it was first published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and De728631. Eventually OTRS should be contacted by the photographer. Ruthven (msg) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Calamus Atari ST 1987.png

This is screenshot of program that I own. Screenshot is made by myself on Atari ST computer. --130.180.243.222 14:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Calamus for Atari ST is non-free, thus a screenshot of it was deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Still a opyrighted screenshot. Thuresson (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Una B. Herrick.jpg

on the page that I linked:

http://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item.php?id=1733

the description of the file is clear:

"Formal portrait of Una B. Herrick, Dean of Women, professor of Physical Education for Women, Director of Physical Education for Women & Vocational Guidance Advisor." Date: 1910-1934

Herrick died in 1950, therefore this portrait was published when she was still alive and per comment "the photo can be restored, if you give evidence, that the portrait was really published in her lifetime. Taivo (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)"

Further proof: it was used in an article about a strike at the university in 1920: The Town Talk, (Alexandria, Louisiana), 22 Nov 1930, Sat • Page 6 [13]

I kindly request for it to be restored. --Elisa Rolle 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Elisarolle: It doesn't help that you've gone and uploaded another photo with the same filename. It will need to be renamed or the older one moved to another name if it is restored. This is one of those difficult situations where evidence might point either way. From the same university website I note there are two more individual photos of her. One of them (arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item.php?id=1408) bears a startling resemblance to the one you uploaded. It seems to me that it may have been taken at the same photo shoot (unless she wore the same coat and had the same hair setting on a different occasion), but bears a date of 1930-40. I also assume that you meant 1930 for the news clipping. The question then might be whether this clipping was the first publication or was it published earlier? Was it published with or without a copyright notice? If with a notice, was it renewed? I know it seems like we are being cruel but our policy is that the burden of proof lies with the uploader or anyone supporting keeping the file. As it stands I'm not yet fully convinced that the photo was published without notice and it is not in the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
After requesting to undelete it I found a pre-1923 photo, so that was for sure good. The article was a DYK yesterday I did not want for it to remain without photo (a photo BTW I was sure was good to upload). For that reason I also wrote to the MSU library, asking if I could upload the photo, and they confirmed that, given source is maintained, I could do that, so I uploaded the other photo with another name giving the courtesy authorization. --Elisa Rolle 08:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Alternative photo has been uploaded. Green Giant (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Fox Sports Premium.png

That is the logo that uses the premium channel of Fox Sports Argentina.--SSV 17:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzola233 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fox Sports Premium.png. Thuresson (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 23:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson and Jeff. Ruthven (msg) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017.9.13.20.6 VAL GESTO SCUDDER.tif and four others.

Hi, these files were created by my digital painting team and we intend to store them (and more) here under a free license.

We looked into putting the files on the Internet Archive but we decided that Wikimedia Commons has a much better system for handling images longterm. These files are intended to educate and be available for my students and anyone else who may discover or be interested in the topic of Radical Digital Painting. Radical Digital Painting is a topic that covers politics of image ownership and copyright, methods of collaboration and group authorship, the importance of programming and computer literacy in the arts, and the incorporation of non-computational media into information theory. See also:

Please let me know if we are breaking the rules or if this is not possible here!

--Jeffrey Alan Scudder (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three problems here. First, TIF files are acceptable, but not preferred, particularly for very large images such as these (622 megabytes). Commons software would handle them better if they were JPGs and if they were smaller -- there is not much point in images that are 14,400 pixels each way. in images that are Second, it is not clear that they are within the scope of Commons. You do not appear to be a notable artist and we do not generally keep personal art. Third, it is not clear who owns the copyright -- you speak of a "digital painting team". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons:What Commons is not: Commons is not your personal free web host. Thuresson (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: For handling images longterm, it is better to open a personal hosting website. Ruthven (msg) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Adriane Carr.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2017092710016528. Please undelete temporarily, so that I can process the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @4nn1l2: please let me know if the file needs to get deleted again. De728631 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The permission is valid, so no need to delete it again. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Heuvel Eindhoven ingang westzijde.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2017092610008511. Please undelete the file temporarily, so that I can process the ticket. I will let you know if the file needs to be deleted again. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @4nn1l2: fyi. De728631 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Isometric tile projection.gif

This is a gif-animation of a GPL 2/GPL3 licensed program. At least it is GPL3 compliant: Inkscape: https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/blob/master/COPYING

Please restore it or tell me why GPL3 is not considered a free license. Manuel (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Jcb has restored the file so I think we can close this? De728631 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Uploader contacted me as deleting admin, parallel to this request. Jcb (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jcb. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mao Zedong Signature.png

Hello, I saw that you've deleted several images of signatures as part of this project. However at least two of them should have been allowed. It's these two:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100605021344/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Zedong_Signature.png

https://web.archive.org/web/20130518071037/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Zedong_Signature.svg

The PD signature page states that "If a signature is originally from documents of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, it is in the public domain" and these two were indeed done as part of Mao's administrative work, specifically he was signing official documents for the opening of a factory.

I had put the sources in both cases. Would it be possible to please restore these two?

Also now I'm wondering about the rest of the signatures? Were they checked before being deleted? Perhaps they were also in the public domain? Laurent (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(Initially posted on administrator talk page)

✓ Done: Ok undeleted as it seems to be from a document also linked as source.--Sanandros (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Undelation request from 37.97.111.96 for files of Elz seweryn

Argument to restaure files : Wikicommons acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.97.111.96 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Monsieur, Merci pour ré-intégrer les fichiers, renouveler la license, pour que le visuel s'affiche sur ma page existante http://elisabeth-seweryn.eu/ Cette licence existe depuis 4 ans, depuis 2013. Le lien a pour but uniquement la confirmation d'existence de mes œuvres, sans aucun discours ou prétention de notoriété. Voici le lien Dropbox vers un dossier contenant directement mes fichiers : <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6f1tz6m1ue71z9f/AACkxsUPBf-yG76U2qZ2Ji0ba?dl=0>

Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur attachés aux œuvres publiées à l'adresse https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Seweryn Je donne mon autorisation pour publier ces œuvres sous la licence: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Licence_Ouverte Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre, y compris dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. [DATE: 06.11.2013, NOM CIVIL DE L'AYANT-DROIT - SEWERYN COORDONNÉES: elz_seweryn@yahoo.fr 

 180 bd de la Villette, 75019 Paris, France

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.97.111.96 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann, Ruthven, and Thibaut120094: can you please have a look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 September 2017‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Our colleagues at WP:FR have removed the article on this artist as out of scope. We have no business second guessing them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Laforêt2.jpg

non capisco perché è stato cancellato il file in oggetto in violazione di un presunto diritto di copyright. L'immagine è mia ed è stata fatta alla mostra del cinema di Venezia, manifestazione da me seguita per quasi vent'anni. Gorupdebesanez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorupdebesanez (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 23:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support What De728631 said. The deletion is based on an unspecific google search link. This may be acceptable when requesting deletion of a relatively recent upload by a new or suspect user. But when it is an upload from many years ago by an established user, of a file used in the Wikipedias, of course the file is likely to have been reused from Commons by other websites. In this situation, the deletion request should point to something specific showing that the photo was published before being on Commons. The "oppose" comment above makes three strange accusations. 1. It states that the image was on the Internet before being uploaded to Commons, but it provides no evidence for that statement. 2. It invokes "small size", but if it is a 2700px image, it is not what is usually called small size in this context. 3. It invokes "lack of EXIF", but it may be excessive to invoke a lack of original EXIF for a 1994 photo. This photo, File:Laforêt2.jpg, was likely taken at the same time as the other photo File:Laforêt1.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Asclepias. --Sanandros (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:C-Train (MTR).jpg

See the page history of HK rail wikia, they have the same author. The author upload this image both at the commons and the HK rail wikia. --158.182.230.224 00:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support The file at HK Rail Wikia was uploaded a few hours later than the one at Commons [14], so the first publication was here. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per (Strange numbered username).--Sanandros (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:DPI Logo colour.jpg

File:DPI Logo colour.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md. Anik Solaiman (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 23:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:FigueirenseFC.png

The Brazilian soccer team, Figueirense Futebol Clube, modified small details of its shield and in wikipedia still shows the old shield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaposo (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 23:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GaviõesAlvinegros.png

Figueirense Futebol Clube Organized Cheerleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaposo (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 23:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:LOGO_IE_UFRJ.png

The logo is of property of my club, which I, together with my friends, own and represent. I have created a page for it in Wikipedia, so I can save its history and accomplishments, and also spread it. I firmly believe that I have every right to use its image and contents, together with the other files that I have posted. I would be deeply thankful to hear that they have been unblocked.

Sinceresly, Bernardo Piquet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepiquet (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 September 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 02:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. No such file found, perhaps you meant File:Logo IE UFRJ.png?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Carina Konrad 2017.jpg

Liebes Team der Wikimedia Commons, bitte stellt die oben genannte Datei wieder her. Ich habe die Zustimmung des Fotografen zu einer Veröffentlichung der Fotos in den Wikimedia Commons. Wenn es gewünscht ist, kann ich dazu auch eine schriftliche Erklärung mit Bestätigung des Fotografen einreichen. Sagt mir einfach, wo ich das einreichen kann. Danke.--Michael.ziegler (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there at Wikimedia Commons, please restore my File File:Carina Konrad 2017.jpg. I've got the fotographers approval to publish this file in the wikimedia commons. If you need, I can send you the fotographers approval letter.--Michael.ziegler (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Wir benötigen eine Freigabe per Email direkt vom Fotografen an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Weitergeleitete Emails oder gescannte Erklärungen können wir leider nicht annehmen, da in der Vergangenheit zuviel Unfug damit getrieben wurde. Wenn die Email des Fotografen geprüft worden ist, wird die Datei wieder hergestellt, aber das kann einige Zeit dauern, da unser Email-Team vollkommen überlastet ist. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sandra Weeser 2017.jpg

Liebes Team der Wikimedia Commons, bitte stellt die oben genannte Datei wieder her. Ich habe die Zustimmung des Fotografen zu einer Veröffentlichung der Fotos in den Wikimedia Commons. Wenn es gewünscht ist, kann ich dazu auch eine schriftliche Erklärung mit Bestätigung des Fotografen einreichen. Sagt mir einfach, wo ich das einreichen kann. Danke.--Michael.ziegler (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there at Wikimedia Commons, please restore my File File:Sandra Weeser 2017.jpg. I've got the fotographers approval to publish this file in the wikimedia commons. If you need, I can send you the fotographers approval letter. Thanks.--Michael.ziegler (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Wir benötigen eine Freigabe per Email direkt vom Fotografen an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Weitergeleitete Emails oder gescannte Erklärungen können wir leider nicht annehmen, da in der Vergangenheit zuviel Unfug damit getrieben wurde. Wenn die Email des Fotografen geprüft worden ist, wird die Datei wieder hergestellt, aber das kann einige Zeit dauern, da unser Email-Team vollkommen überlastet ist. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:02-58-01-detail 112 BFB OK.png

Thank you for the notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensport.idn (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And why do you think this should be undeleted? De728631 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. File appeared to lack license and permission.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:José Miguel Chueca Santa María.jpg

Quiero solicitar que restauren la imagen de José Miguel Chueca Santa María porque no está violando los derechos de autor. Es una fotografía que tomé personalmente y que posteriormente se la enviamos a algunas revistas del rubro de casinos y tragamonedas para colocarla en las noticas o notas de prensa que emitían. Estaría muy agradecida si consideran mi petición. --MarketingJMC (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. De728631 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Google News picture was deleted for no reason

This is a picture taken from Google News webpage (fair use).

News are freely distributed by newspapers and retristibuted by Google. (fair use).

There are plenty of pictures from webpages in Wikipedia. For example in the search engines webpage there is a picture of webpage.

Why are you deleting my picture for no reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutesolar (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair use isn't allowed on Commons. --Magnus (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not OK. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The slideshade website you reference took the image from Wikipedia. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Porträt König Friedrich II von Preußen.jpg

the following portrait depicts the King of Prussia Federico II, where the author is identified by the name of Antoine Pesne, the painting was performed towards the end of the 18th century--82.50.38.215 18:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted by Krd because the uploader was a known sock of a long term problem account. However, not everything that bad actors do is itself bad and this appears to be a portrait for which we do not have a better copy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. — JGHowes talk - 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Temporal bone - The Hungry Artist Multimedia.jpg

Received a notice of deletion on my talk page, with assertions that the work was derivative and non-educational. In response:

  1. Not derivative -- original drawn by myself.
  2. Regarding this statement: "Self-photographs or photographs of family members and friends, where these photographs are not educational and are not used on any project, are considered to be out of the project scope and may be subject to deletion." There is no portion of this that applies to the uploaded image.

-I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license as slide 14 at https://www.slideshare.net/AhmedHamdy263/pulstaile-tinitus-radiology. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder, usually the artist, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Envase tarrina bisagra plastico pet transparente.jpg

This photo is taken and edit by myself. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.estan (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This file has appeared at the internet before without a free licence. If you are a representative of Termoformadores Banyeres, please send an email as described in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:AnabelCover.jpg

We have the copyright of the cover, image in the cover, texts in the cover, printed version of that edition of the magazine. Can you explain the copyright infrigment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledarsema (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I dont get the deletion of this image. We have the copyrights of it. Can you please expain who pretend the copyrights of this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledarsema (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bledarsema: Please see above. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
We do not know who your "we" actually is -- Commons users are anonymous and User:Bledarsema could be anyone. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Rongxian Giant Buddha - Flickr 7020610761 67a8990828 o.jpg

Flickr Originator has changed the Flickr copyright settings on the Rongxian Giant Buddha photo to "Creative Commons Attribution license". --BeckenhamBear (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Rongxian Giant Buddha Flickr 6874487744 e83d48fe27 o.jpg

Flickr Originator has changed the Flickr copyright settings on the Rongxian Giant Buddha photo to "Creative Commons Attribution license". --BeckenhamBear (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-09&oldid=260502167"