Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-10

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:Example.jpg

Hello, I have an email from Dr. Bruce Durie,BSc PhD FLS FSAScot FIGRS FHEA is a Scottish neuroscientist, genealogist bd@brucedurie.co.uk releasing his copyright all together on the article he reached and produced for Clan MacAlpin(e) at the request of our Commander Michael T. McAlpin. He has agree to wikipedia "cc-by-nc icon.svg Attribution-NonCommercial". He only wants credit for his work and can be used in the formation of "Clan MacAlpin(e) Wikipedia Article. Please advise me of the next step Earl D. McAlpine earlmcalpine@yahoo.com 2605:E000:1417:1A0:A528:B681:E9E2:AF6C 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

File:LAWSUIT Vs Attorneys Austin Texas.jpg

Front Page of an active lawsuit in Austin Texas, the person who requested the deletion, also attack the other works published. It is unfortunate that retaliation can be found in Wikipedia to prevent the actual truth and original works be published. For any questions in regards to this file and others, you may contact me directly to sign any documents for the purpose of benefiting the Wikipedia users and the release of all rights for public domain You may contact me directly at facebook Daniel Pavon Cuellar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintexasart (talk • contribs) 18:41, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose 1. If there is an active lawsuit, hosting this image could be seen as prejudicial to that lawsuit; 2. If this is a court document, I would check out whether copyright is owned by the court, not being a Federal Court, and 3. It isn't clear what educational purpose this image could have, and 4. Commons would not contact you; you have to justify the image and I recommend that you do it via OTRS. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose as out of scope JGHowes talk - 23:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Outside the project scope. --Guanaco (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Remmina1.2.20-Ubuntu1710.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The screenshot is taken by myself, on my computer, and the software shown is Ubuntu and Remmina, that has a GPL V2 License. Dcavedon (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted, but Ubuntu is not licensed under a Creative Commons license @Dcavedon: . Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Wichelen-Koen-Van-Gerrit-Op-de-Beeck.jpg

Permission received per ticket:2017091110013828. Elly (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ellywa: ✓ Done please update the file discription. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Undelation request

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

File:FleursBlanches-ES.JPG File:IndianSummer-ES.JPG File:Musique-Couleur.JPG File:Sur l'étang.JPG File:Les Pavots 1.JPG File:"Les Pavots 2".JPG File:Art at Marygrove.JPG File:Tallin Portail.JPG File:A la montagne.JPG File:A la Recherche.jpg File:Autoportrait2111.jpg File:Yale Graduation.jpg File:Nude, oil on canvas,18"x30".jpg File:Autoportrait.E.S.jp

Bonjour, Vos fichiers n'ont pas été supprimés de Commons pour cause de problème de licence. Voir à ce sujet cette discussion de 2013 : Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Elz seweryn, alors qu'ils avaient été conservés conformément au ticket OTRS 2013091510004285. Toutefois, peu après, l'article de la Wikipédia francophone où ces images étaient utilisées a été supprimé de cette Wikipédia. La récente suppression des fichiers sur Commons découle de la discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Elz seweryn, où la raison de suppression est que, comte tenu de la suppression de l'article de Wikipédia, les fichiers ne seraient plus considérés comme correspondant à la mission de Commons selon Commons:Project scope/fr. Cela dit, votre site web s'en trouve en effet affecté, puisqu'il liait aux fichiers de Commons. Si vous ne possédez plus les originaux de vos fichiers dans vos archives et que vous souhaitez récupérer des copies des fichiers qui étaient sur Commons afin de pouvoir les transférer sur votre propre site web, veuillez le préciser très clairement. Dans ce cas, il est possible qu'un administrateur de Commons puisse effectivement vous aider à récupérer ces copies de vos fichiers. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done These images are not in the project scope of Commons as was already determined in the previous undeletion request. De728631 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Deleted files uploaded by sock Глинистый сланец

Temporarily undeleted

I received a ‎Talk page message from an anon IP requesting that certain files uploaded by sock Глинистый сланец that were ‎subsequently mass-deleted be undeleted, if they otherwise qualify for Commons.

File:Kaiser Franz Josef I. und Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand in Kutsche at Parliament Wien.jpg‎, for example, was deleted by INC in the mass-deletion‎ of contribs by Глинистый сланец‎ a/k/a A3cb1. Upon examination, it appears that this photo was first published in 1912, both because of its Viennese watermark and the fact that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914‎. Therefore, this file qualifies for {{PD-Austria-1932}}.

Should we restore any of these deleted files if they clearly qualify for a free license and there's a community consensus to do so, or list them here one-by-one‎? JGHowes talk - 19:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not being "suckered in", as you put it, but this does beg the question in my mind why a clearly PD work, as in the above example, should be permanently disqualified from Commons solely because its original uploader is now in disrepute. I mean, if an image is unquestionably PD, does it matter if the uploader was Beelzebub himself? JGHowes talk - 23:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The file is basically garbage, and I would imagine we have a better one of the same somewhere, if it's not somehow a copyvio. I'll temporarily undelete it for discussion. Guanaco (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This does seem to be the best version I can find online, including on Commons. I don't have a problem undeleting these, if you want to take responsibility for these and carefully review their copyright status. But note that A3cb1 has been extremely deceptive, and all claims must be verified independently. Guanaco (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It would appear to be an Austrian postcard from 1912, from the w:Eucharistic Congress in 1912 in Vienna. I have not seen a back from this one in particular, but there is an eBay version with the credit to a photographic society, and similar ones like this where the back has the same credit. So, I think that is clearly {{PD-anon-1923}}.  Support that one in particular, at least.
On the other hand, I do not understand the {{PD-Austria-1932}} template in the least. The 1953 law may have been non-retroactive, but the 1996 law implementing the EU directive certainly was. Austrian photos should be 70pma, or 70 years from publication if anonymous. Given the timing of the 1996 law, that may mean that any URAA restorations may be more based on that 1932 date and not 70pma, but any expired copyrights in Austria itself were restored in 1996 to the modern term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing to let you know that many of these files are in the PD license right and I think it makes no sense to penalize these files, because for now none of these files have been copyrighted, since some of these files have been restored some files, just think that analyzing each file individually has been corrected with the PD license, that means something? ;)--79.31.200.108 19:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone has to do the research on each one to identify a publication date and country, and determine an author or if the publication didn't credit an author. If that wasn't done on upload, there is no obligation for anyone else to do it. If they want to, fine, but in general undeletion requests are far better off coming with that research presented, rather than asking others to do it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Done for the one file. If there are other specific files, you can make a request, but in general let's not listen to A3cb1 socks. --Guanaco (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:suganuma01.jpeg

{{p|ファイル|○○○}}

画像情報and/orライセンス不備のため即時削除されてしまいました。復帰を希望します。この画像の制作者はMassan422であり、著作権者もMassan422です。ライセンスはフリーにする予定です。--Massan422 (talk) 13:53, 29 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 was a reupload of a file deleted as a copyvio with "unknown source, no license, no permission." Stop reuploading copyvios or you will find yourself blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jeff. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 3 October 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

最初の投稿から変えて、作者名をちゃんと記載し、議論にも書き込みをしたにもかかわらず、何の意見も無いままに勝手な削除が行われたため、削除撤回依頼を行うものです。

Requested by User:BATACHAN 2017-10-01T17:26:41. --miya (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Both deletion requests were left open for more than the standard time of one week. Unless the text on the plate is clearly old enough to be out of copyright, we cannot restore the file.
@Miya and Yasu: I used Google Translate to read this request. Can any of you two please check if there is any compelling argument why the file should be undeleted other than "the deletion discussions were closed too soon"? De728631 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

：Please read Commons:OTRS/ja#あなたが著作権者ではない場合. "作者名をちゃんと記載"(Writing the author's name) is not enough at all. You have to ask the permission of the copyright holder to publish the copyrighted content under free license and send the permission mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.　You can find E-mail template for release of rights to a copyrighted work here.

BATACHANさん、Commons:OTRS/ja#あなたが著作権者ではない場合をお読みください。「作者名をちゃんと記載」だけでは足りません。「作者/著作権者」に許可を得ることが必要です。それも「ウィキペディアで使用する」ことだけではなく、コモンズで受け入れ可能なライセンスによりコモンズ投稿すること（それはすなわち、ウィキメディアだけでなく全世界の人がそのライセンスに従って自由に改変や利用ができるようになること）を承諾していただく必要があります。許可をいただいたら、その証拠となる許諾メールをOTRSのpermissions-commons@wikimedia.orgに送付してください。承諾宣言書の電子メールひな型はCommons:メール・テンプレートにあります。--miya (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No valid reason given. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016. NCAA takes firmer stance against LGBT discrimination.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I got these images from the Wikipedia uploader itself, so I know there cannot be copyright issues, and I don't understand why there are. Tcobb25 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't know what you mean by the "Wikipedia uploader", but these images originate from websites which are clearly non-free. I see that you used {{PD-because|a photographer posted photos of the game for everyone to see}} for your license, which is not how the public domain works. Most images you find online will be copyrighted. Please read Commons:Licensing. Guanaco (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Guanaco. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:SOEUR MADELEINE JUNEAU Pierre Guzzo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017092210005647 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) 18:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Framawiki: please let me know if the file needs to be deleted again. Otherwise please update the OTRS tag. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS permission accepted by AntonierCH. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ring Rust Radio logo.jpg

I was given permission by Ring Rust Radio to use this logo. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscorbaz (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 October 2017‎ (UTC)

The file was deleted because in such cases we need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for details. It is also important to know that we do not accept media with a permission like "for Wikipedia only". All media at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial re-use and adaptations. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Francis_Vuillemin_(en_1995).jpeg

Hello and sorry for my english, I don't understand why this picture has been deleted twice. It's a picture of myself (Francis Vuillemin), taken by myself (self-portrait, personnal work) in 1995 on photography paper, then scanned later in order to have a numeric file of this picture. I need this picture in order to illustrate an article about me, as I am a notorious lawyer in France in criminal law for more than 20 years in several famous and historic cases. Would you be so kind as to undelete this file (picture) ? Otherwise, could you tell me what I must do in order to valid this picture ? Sincerely Yours, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Tridon (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour, Aviez-vous déjà publié cette photo ailleurs sans licence libre, avant de la verser sur Wikimedia ? Si oui, c'est ce qui expliquerait la suppression, qui est la règle en pareil cas, par prudence. Il faut pouvoir établir qu'il y a identité entre le photographe et l'utilisateur de Wikimedia. Pour ce faire, vous pouvez envoyer un courriel en suivant la procédure prévue à la page d'aide Commons:OTRS/fr. Ou vous pouvez ajouter la licence libre à l'endroit où la photo a été publiée à l'origine. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The image appears on Twitter. We have no way of knowing that User:Le Tridon is actually Francis Vuillemin and there are many vandals who make false claims here, so policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs free license via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Empaperem Òmnium cat.pdf

I request the undeletion of the file stated in the headline and the following files:


Rationale

Just received the permission from the association that owns the poster and image used in its design. In case needed, the messages translate as follow:

  1. Me: Hello @omnium @CridaDemocracia: do you authorise me to upload linked poster to @WikiCommons with a BY SA license? (link)
  2. Crida per la democràcia: All yours, Esther!
  3. Me: Thanks!

Thanks! --ESM (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, we do not keep PDFs of images, so the first and last images are not acceptable in any case. As for the other, the actual owner of the copyright must send a free license directly themselves using OTRS. Unfortunately, there are enough bad actors here so that Commons does not accept messages forwarded by third parties. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The pdf files are the ones originally offered both in the repository linked in their descripcion page and in the association's webpage; however, the pngs' quality is quite low and maybe those should be the ones discarded. Regarding the OTRS, I can understand you want things done in proper form, but these files are likely to be lost because of this process. The institution openly gave permission and despite I have asked them to send the OTRS authorisation model —and therefore I request the pdf versions of the files to be tagged {{subst:OP}}—, my demand will probably be ignored. --ESM (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to change Commons policy, you are welcome to try, but unless policy is changed, we do not keep PDFs of images because it makes them difficult or impossible to use in many applications and we require that the copyright holder send a free license directly using OTRS. Until that is done the PNGs above will not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I just want to make information access & reusage as easy as possible. Managing OTRS authorisations is probably a piece of cake for you, but not for outsiders, who find it way easier and less frustrating to share them through channels that won't observe copyright restrictions. And this is how this chance, as many others, will be lost. --ESM (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That is certainly true, but the basic founding premise of WMF is that all material that appears on its projects will be freely usable by all. Therefore we keep only material that is properly licensed. If the copyright holder cannot be bothered to fill in the blanks at OTRS and send the message, then we won't keep their material. That might be different if we had many more volunteers, but we do the best with those we have.

 Not done: Needs free license via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:CDS Vida.png

no tienen el dercho a creerse dueños de la imagen de un club que por obvias razones pertenece al pueblo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelamher (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That is not correct. The copyright for this image belonged at first to the person who actually created it. He or she may or may not have transferred it to the club, but there is no evidence that you have the right to freely license it. In order for it to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs free license via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hyland Software Building 1 20170426.png

Reasons for the request: I have an approval to use this picture from Hyland Software, Inc. Please contact to Hyland Software Tokyo when you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyland Tokyo (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In order for these to be restored, an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs free license via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mario Brandenburg FDP.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) 15:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there at Wikimedia Commons, please restore my File File:Mario Brandenburg FDP.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) 16:00, 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)

Hallo De728631, ich habe dazu bereits an [permission-de@wikimedia.org] geschrieben. Passt diese Adresse auch? Wenn ja, wie lange ist "einige Zeit"? Und werden die Fotos dann automatisch wiederhergestellt oder muss ich dann nach der Prüfung die erneute Wiederherstellung beantragen? Was muss ein Fotograf an Informationen angeben, damit alles richtig zugeordnet werden kann? Die Bildnamen? Die Vorgangsnummer meiner E-Mail an die Permissions-Adresse?--Michael.ziegler (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, Michael. Permissions-de passt auch, aber hier wie dort muss man mit ein paar Wochen Bearbeitungszeit rechnen. Auf Commons gilt derzeit:
Current backlog (oldest unanswered mail or ticket) in permissions-commons queue is 7 days.
, zu de.wikipedia kann ich leider nichts sagen. Aber nach der Prüfung werden die Dateien vom Email-Team selbständig zur Wiederherstellung angemeldet, da musst Du nichts unternehmen. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: if a valid permission is received, the file will be automatically restored. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Battle Thrash Live обложка.jpg

я являюсь автором этой обложки, у меня есть все права на использование этой картинки — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirron Mirron (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is not clear that this group is notable, see COM:SCOPE. The article Battle Thrash live.Альбом группы Путь Солнца is up for deletion for lack of notability.

Second, assuming that it can be proven that the album is in scope. then in order to restore it, the actual copyright holder -- usually the album publisher -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, the copyright holder, even if it is you, must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Fæ

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of them are photographs of automobiles or automobile parts and within scope. They were already categorised in proper categories. The deletion process was too fast for regular DRs (within hours instead of a week) as they were converted to them . Steinfeld-feld (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

For those that don't want to research what's going on, these deletions are trimming down a Flickrstream by Alan Levine, a long term established blogger, where the proportion of copyvios and out of scope images was too high. So far we have removed about 20%, leaving under 11,000 photographs. You can read the discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/09/Category:Photographs_by_Alan_Levine. Consequently you can expect that a few marginal value images have been caught up in our rapid visual review based on Flickr Album names, including some car and dog photographs which I thought were unlikely to be useful. I do not want to spend time challenging any undeletions, so long as someone believes there is reasonable expectation that they can be categorized, perhaps renamed, and remain non-contentious as in-scope.

I do note that one DR which replaced a speedy was for a copyvio photograph of a large poster featuring a modern artwork, and a removed speedy of a statue in Garlic City made less than ten years ago which I had to spend time creating a DR for; it's understandable, but I suggest a careful look at any undeletion to ensure there are not more complex copyright issues rather than the simpler judgement about scope.

@Steinfeld-feld: is correct, the community agreed procedure is that once a speedy deletion has been converted to a deletion request, they should be considered controversial DRs which require the full 7 day period. No administrator should bypass this procedure unless they provide strong reasons for doing so (which in my opinion should be added to the DR to avoid confusion or disruption), such as being a demonstrable copyvio or being used for active harassment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment In the extend that the only opposition to the undelete seems a rationale more on the principle "I trust that user's judgement in this matter" rather than a rationale about potential scope issues, in the extend I don't found copyrighted prior publications, and in the extend that at least one user seems to think the photos are in scope. I don't see a good reason not to undelete the files. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per my comment above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BLJ Issue 6.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2017100310009846 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission accepted. --Guanaco (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Still of the film Tradition(2016).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The still is a official still pic of the film "Tradition" You can find the film still bellow websites also. Official website: https://lankyfilm.wordpress.com/tradition/ Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6233844/?ref_=rvi_tt Ransu601 (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That doesn't mean that there is a free license for anyone to use the image for any purpose. Even "official" releases are usually copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Taivo (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Artofwootha

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received Ticket:2017100510003848. Please undelete these files temporarily so that I can process the ticket. I would let you know if they needed to be deleted again. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @4nn1l2: fyi. De728631 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MGR LUC BOUCHARD Robert Sauvageau.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017092210005763 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) 17:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Framawiki: FYI. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks De728631 :) --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:5, 10, 25 poisa of Bangladesh.jpg

File:5, 10, 25 poisa of Bangladesh.jpg File:50 poisa and 1 taka coin of Bangladesh.jpg

This files are made by me. I attached them in Bangladeshi Taka page and it jas a necessity for adding the coin's image beside it's description. How can I add these picture in the page. --Md. Anik Solaiman (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)user:Md. Anik Solaiman

These have not yet been deleted. You must comment at:

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Formal close, not a matter of undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Debut Video Capture and Screen Recorder Icon.jpg

Hi

I would like the above stated image undeleted. I ended up uploading it the first time as 'not our own content' when in fact it is. and therefore had to reload it with modified permissions.

--Merrymonger (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Merrymonger, 5th Oct 2017

 Oppose The Debut Video Capture and Screen Recorder software does not have a free licence as in "free to adapt, re-use and resell". To host this logo, we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder via the COM:OTRS process. De728631 (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Gaybears.png

Gaybears.png created by Sallay Zoltan in 2003 in Hungary. It is for a personal blog, used for personal use only! Not Copyrighted or TM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNC~huwiki (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 October 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 00:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff, an OTRS permission must be sent to OTRS by the copyright holder + the file must fall within the Commons scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Daniel Pavon Cuellar Miniature Forest Austin Texas.jpg

THE FOLLOWING IMAGES STATES THE FOLLOWING: As in the previously-deleted other batches, no evidence of permission. Instead, I found some on https://danielpavoncuellar.wordpress.com and there is no open license asserted there. Nevertheless, does not appear in the talk nor profile of DMacks Therefore:


 Support OPEN LICENSE ASSERTED HERE: NOTICE: I have published several original artworks of Daniel Pavon Cuellar under permission granted in writing by the artists itself at http://danielpavoncuellar.com/PUBLICDOMAIN.html, around August 2017, his websites, blogs, and also all works released in wikepedia since before 2014, were attacked. It is groundless the claims of the user(s) who requested the deletion, but has taken a behavior to attack all works of the artist released for the benefit of Wikipedia users and legally granting the rights as stated therein. For this purpose is hereby requested all deletions be reinstated, and the user(s) of wikipedia be investigated or removed, since two of these users have removed most the artworks legally released under the license carefully chosen.

=== Files uploaded by Austintexasart (talk · contribs) ===

As in the previously-deleted other batches, no evidence of permission. Instead, I found some on https://danielpavoncuellar.wordpress.com and there is no open license asserted there.

DMacks (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

[1]

 Not done: The files listed here have not been deleted, so this is the wrong place for comments. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Martin Sostre.jpg

on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Sostre

the photo had been deleted. Please undelete and restore that photo.

I hereby declare I am the author of the artwork and photo thereof and give full, unconditional copywriter permission to Wikipedia Commons for publication and use of said image.

!!!!

Jerry Ross Pittore44

  •  Oppose You said in the DR that you created the artwork "Inspired by the mug shot photo in the newspapers". This is therefore a derivative work, and the copyright holder of the "mug shot photo in the newspapers" own some rights too on your artwork. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
"Inspired by" does not mean it is a derivative work. But, if the original photograph's framing, angle, etc. are duplicated, then some of the expression may be copied, and be a derivative work. But a photographer has no rights over the subject being photographed, so using a photo as a general guide for a drawing, it is possible to create a non-derivative work. I can't see this one, so no idea. If it was a lightly processed photo, then it would not be OK, or if they are duplicating the photo very closely, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it's the same image as one of the deleted images but, for example, how would File:PortraitOfMartinGonzalesSostre.jpg, which was not nominated for deletion, qualify in relation to the photograph? Strongly inspired? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I might put that one just outside of being a derivative work. There are enough changes in the angle, and the specific lines, that the expression in the photograph was not copied. Bit different angle to the face, etc., and did not copy all the small details. For photographs, the expression itself is typically in the framing, angle, possibly timing, maybe camera settings, for a portrait possibly the expression evoked from the subject, etc. The look of someone's face is not part of the photographer's expression. So if that is the only stuff you copied -- and the angle, framing, and very specific look facial expression/details were not copied -- then probably not derivative. The "Hope" poster was derivative -- you could tell the specific source photograph, versus one taken nearby at a similar time. If the mugshot photographer took two photos, one shortly after the other, the two photos are not derivative of each other -- so if you could not identify which of the two was a source photograph, you may have avoided copying the expression. (For photographers who also set up the scene being photographed, that is completely different -- they could well have a selection and arrangement copyright on the subject matter. But snapshots, not usually.) On the other hand, running a photograph through a particular filter would likely be derivative. That drawing does look changed in other ways though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
" "Inspired by" does not mean it is a derivative work. " : but does not mean the opposite either. I agree with Carl, if we don't see the original artwork that mean all and nothing, as a precaution we must consider this as a potential derivative work. (a version of the deleted image is still available on the web) Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so if that is the photo that was "File:Martin Sostre.jpg", then it's not the painting inspired by the mugshot. Instead, it would be the photo of which the uploader spoke when he said: "The current image on the page (which I believe is the subject of this discussion) is a photo of Martin softer that I own and have in my possession and, again, I gave my full copyright permission for this photo to be used." That seems to be the only sentence in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martin Sostre.jpg where the uploader actually spoke of the file which was the object of that DR. He seems to say that he believes he owns the copyright in the photo because he owns a copy of the photo. The rest of his comments in that DR are about other things. So, it seems that the file was correctly deleted, but for the wrong reason. By the way, the uploader reuploaded this photo yesterday as "File:MRSostre.jpg". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Asclepias. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:LAWSUIT Vs Attorneys Austin Texas.jpg

The rights for publishing the document are found at http://danielpavoncuellar.com/PUBLICDOMAIN.html The actual proceedings are found at http://Traviscountycourt.com The purpose is educational, for the use of legal and law students, as well as attorneys. Within one single page, complies with all the requirements by law, and emphasis added; the document is filed in actual and ongoing proceedings in Austin Texas Travis County Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintexasart (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 October 2017‎ (UTC) 

 Oppose I'm not sure the public domain is applicable, by yourself, on any "private and civil complaints", as it have by definition a private side, therefore it may have some privacy rights issues. I don't think either there is a PD licence tag valid for this document, because the facts described are not by an official entity but by a private plaintiff. In addition to be potentially out of project scope, as it is not a court decision but a private complaint, it may have potential privacy right issues. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is out of scope and serves no general educational purpose. Second, the copyright belongs to the author, whoever that might be. Third, if the author is Daniel Pavon Cuellar (and that is unproven), the "license" on the cited page is not irrevocable and therefore does not meet our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Austintexasart (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


RESPONSE by AUSTINTEXASART FIRST: THE AUTHOR IS THE PLAINTIFF, DANIEL PAVON CUELLAR, proven with his signature and name SECOND: AS AUTHOR OF THE DOCUMENT CAN GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED http://danielpavoncuellar.com/PUBLICDOMAIN.html permissions are fully granted and legally binding,INCLUDING FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN AND PERPETUITY, THIRD: IT DOES HAVE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, SINCE PROVIDES all requirements by law within one page, and together with Traviscountycourt.com more extensive education, "Multidimensional Justice" but the questions is; Are you a law student, are you an attorney? therefore you cannot generalize to your personal interest only. An author may grant the copyrights of his works, and did so as stated above. Would you agree, that education is to provide access to the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, also includes the style of writing, called essence writing, unique to the artist itself. Honestly, " I do not think" "I m not sure" "it may" does not justifies the removal of all works all of the sudden, when is not based on specific guidelines of Wikipedia, same that to the best of my knowledge, have been followed accordingly and last when is granted in perpetuity, or for public domain, it is tacit is irrevocable. As for private complaint, is a legal court proceeding to be determined by the courts AustintexasartAustintexasart (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Iwannabeonwikipediawithmylawsuit request. Out of scope, no EDUSE whatsoever. Yelling doesn't help either. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Commons:Undeletion requests

Hi, I am writing to ask the community if it is possible to restore the following deleted files in the past. many of them were part of some of the wikipedia entries posted by various users of wikipedia in various ways to which the page is dedicated:

most of these paintings listed have the name of a deceased artist in the second half of the 18th Century--87.8.134.87 18:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you list the artists, and when they died, for each of these? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I can not see the names, only one administrator can do this, but many of them have a valid license to be restored--87.8.134.87 21:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Austintexasart

 Support The file was wrongfully removed I have published several original artworks of Daniel Pavon Cuellar under permission granted in writing by the artist itself at http://danielpavoncuellar.com/PUBLICDOMAIN.html For this purpose is hereby requested all deletions be reinstated, the artworks were legally released under the license carefully chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintexasart (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is not at all clear that these images are in scope. The artist does not have a WP article and the Google hits do not suggest that he meets our requirements. Second, the "license" at the subject page is not irrevocable, so it does not meet our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support RESPONSE BY AUSTINTEXASART: RESPONSE BY AUSTINTEXASART: FIRST: to the best of my knowledge, images published do not need to have a wp article, otherwise, will be published directly in the articles (Please provide were you find this claim), same with google hits. Please provide the exact location of those requirements. "Non notable artists", please provide WIKIPEDIA scope, since this artist as you claim, is in bellasartes.tv as well as with extensive followers on twitter and facebook and also known as artist dapacu and for arte.land , as well as planet Austin, in Austin Texas. With recognition in Mexico, USA and abroad. SECOND: it is clear the rights granted DIRECTLY BY THE ARTIST, IN WRITTING AND PUBLICLY AT http://danielpavoncuellar.com/PUBLICDOMAIN.html and this proves the false claim of there is no evidence .... THIRD: the license at http://danielpavoncuellar.com/PUBLICDOMAIN.html provides PERPETUITY and including PUBLIC DOMAIN, without restrictions, and austintexasart published under the license deemed proper, "it does not meet our requirements" the requirements are those established by Wikipedia, please provide the exact location of any breach or non compliance with the guidelines of Wikipedia.Austintexasart (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is Commons, not Wikipedia. While we generally follow the lead of the various WPs, Commons rules control what is kept here. I linked COM:SCOPE above. I suggest you read that. I also note that the Commons community is the ultimate judge of whether material is in scope or not. We have consistently refused to keep artworks by artists who do not have WP articles or who have no evident public presence. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not notable enuf, lawsuit yeller. Abusing Commons as a repository for personal BS is not in scope. Use IMGUR, Fbook, etc. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Commons:Undeletion requests

Hi, I am writing to ask the community if it is possible to restore the following deleted files in the past. many of them were part of some of the wikipedia entries posted by various users of wikipedia in various ways to which the page is dedicated:

(Redacted)

most of these paintings listed have the name of a deceased artist in the second half of the 18th Century--87.8.134.87 18:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you list the artists, and when they died, for each of these? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I can not see the names, only one administrator can do this, but many of them have a valid license to be restored--87.8.55.180 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Clindberg: , I putted a few infos for you above taken from the former files page, at first view the files are ok, note that the 3d frames have been removed on the four files above, I've not checked the others Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC) though some source point to catalogs page and not to individual image pages Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: If you check the history, Clindberg did not post the above comment, though the original is in the archives of this page. They may or may not support the comment. The misleading nature of the post is why I have twice reverted these edits, along with the fact that it repeats a post on Krd's talk page, and that png files are likely to be harvested indiscriminately and be unlikely to be the best quality available. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
oups sorry if I made something inappropriate, thank you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
At what point in time will you, A3cb1, finally understand that you are not welcome here anymore? All your socks are being blocked, your IPs as well. Yeah, I know, you are so smart using a dynamic telecomitalia.it-ip. Nobody cares about you, you are globally blocked => globally not wanted on our projects. Find something else to do if you really like Wikipedia and stop your disruptions. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't take request from LTAs. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Biot.jpg

The photo was deleted in the Maurice Biot page:

(cur | prev) 16:27, 15 February 2017‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,953 bytes) (-24)‎ . . (Removing Biot.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: Copyright violation: https://tineye.com/search/c4bc0a580c6dcd31ab1e853f2d654f6deca69d55/?sort=size&order=desc.) (undo)

The photo and image belongs to Mme. Biot, the widow of Maurice Biot. Her email address is

Nady Biot (mail address removed)

Address: Madame M. A. Biot, [address removed]

She provided the photo and image. She wishes and allows the image to be in the public domain and used by anyone. She will attest it if you contact her.

Alex Cheng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodocheng (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 October 2017‎ (UTC)

E-mail removed. Thuresson (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please do not claim "own work" unless the image actually is your own work. This appears to be a formal studio portrait. Second, while Mme Biot may own a paper copy of the photograph, it is extremely unlikely that she owns the right to freely license the image. That right is almost always held by the photographer or his heirs. Third, the image appears widely on the Web without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that in order for the image to be restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, a permission must be given by the copyright holder. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Märchen Mädchen Logo.png

The file has been deleted without a standard deletion request. Since it just shows a 2D メルヘン・メドヘン text logo, it is not a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain. Therefore, it does not surpass COM:TOO#Japan.--Sakretsu (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Logo is way above Com:TOO. Looks like a neon-art-installation. This is NOT a simple text logo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: As per Hedwig in Washington, the logo is complex and we need a permission from the copyright holder, they can send it to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Thittam Poattu Thirudura Kootam - First Look Poster.jpg

We own the copyright of this image.

This is the official poster of the feature film and was released by our team to the media.

Hence, I request the undeletion of this image.

--2mbwikieditor (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose For any works that have been released elsewhere under a non-free licence, we require a written permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631, a permission must be sent to OTRS by the copyright holder. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Heather Dorff.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted: Ticket:2017100310010978. 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) 05:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS member request. @4nn1l2: Thuresson (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tautpah, South Biboki, North Timor Tengah Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia - panoramio (1).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I can't see, why this image should be "out of scope", as deleting Admin User:Shizhao gave as deletion cause. For 4 and a half month, this image was on Commons and also used in minimum one Wikipedia article. Now to come as admin and be judge and henchman in one person, is nut just bad stile. Admins should go in such cases the way of a 4-eyes-review. As written - I can't se any cause for deletion. This is not a hollyday snaphot. Deletion because of a person is visible would mean, we have to delete very much images from New York, Paris or Berlin. So I request the restoration of the image and ask Shizhao to go in the future not longer such a way. We have a more eyes system - and this has good causes. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

the file in Category:Personal files from panoramio--shizhao (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the file.

I am not the uploader, but I added the photo to de:Nordzentraltimor. It is not "Out of project scope", it is showing a local resident (quite small) in the nature of the regency. Not the best thinkable photo for the rticle, but the best available at Commons (Category:North Central Timor Regency). I think, it is very unusual to delete an image, which is in use by this reason. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: File was legitimately in use, so I don't think this is blatantly out of scope. I'll restore the image on Wikipedia and start a DR. --Guanaco (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I need those images please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhwdah (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Your only uploads were deleted for good reason in 2011. The fact that you need them is not a reason to restore them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OP has not explained which files. Thuresson (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Areti Ketime in Ioannina, Greece (April 2013).jpg

This photo was given by Areti Ketime and the photographer to be used for any purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrath0 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says that the photographer was Vassilis Giotopoulos. In order for the image to be restored, he, or the actual photographer if it is not him, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gaurav Sharma (author).jpg

I created this file. I took the picture. How come it has been marked as a violation of copyright?--Dial911 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image appears at higher resolution in a number of places on the Web. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, a permission must be sent to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:AmerikarEuskaldunartzaiakSunbillan.jpg is in a public wall (see File:Sunbilla udaletxeko bertsoa eta zubia.jpg)

The picture File:AmerikarEuskaldunartzaiakSunbillan.jpg was deleted, but it is in a public wall in Sunbilla (Nafarroa). You can see it in this picture:File:Sunbilla udaletxeko bertsoa eta zubia.jpg


And also in this other picture: File:Sunbilla udaletxea.jpg

In Basque: Argazkia horma publiko batean dago, ez du lizentziarik behar. Nafarroan dagoen Sunbilla herriko udaletxeko fatxada batean dago, zubizaharreko aldean.Ksarasola (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: ok, clearly a FoP case, and not a "no permission" one. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Works of Stéphane Lemarchand Caricaturiste

L'auteur de l'affiche Stéphane Lemarchand caricaturiste vous a adressé un courrier autorisant Armorino à publier toutes ses oeuvres. J'avais malencontreusement cliqué sur le fait que j'en étais l'auteur.--Armorino--Armorino (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC) le 10/10/ 2017

L'auteur de l'affiche Stéphane Lemarchand Caricaturiste vous a adressé un courrier autorisant Armorino à faire publier sous licence libre toutes ses oeuvres. J'avais malencontreusement appuyé sur le fait que j'en étais l'auteur--Armorino (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Armorino le 10/10/2017

 Not done: per Jeff -- needs a license from the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Inglehart Values Map2.svg

This image consists of publicly available statistical data from World Value Survey, plotted on an x and y axis. While there are some labels and groupings, they are simple enough that they should not be copyrightable; further this image was not copied but recreated from original data by User:DancingPhilosopher. Further variants of this image exist at Category:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world anyway, so what made that one problematic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The uploader says, in one of his upload comments:

"It shows that the map uploaded by me is based on the published data from the authors' website and doesn't differ significantly from the map published in a journal."

While it is true that points plotted on an x/y graph are not themselves copyrightable, the arbitrary shapes used to group the points are creative and it is clear, both from the uploader's words and from a look at File:Wikimedia map compared to published 2010 map.png that DancingPhilosopher had the copyrighted journal version in front of him when he created the subject version. The remaining versions cited above should probably also be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that arbitrary shapes used to group points can be copyrighted. They are stills statistical data. That's why you cannot copyright geographical information and claim that a map of city borders for example is copyrighted, because you happened to be the first to draw it. Academic theories are not subject to copyright. Inglehart-Values drew some lines on the graph and called them cultural clusters. That's non-copyrightable science, just like many other maps (like File:Archaic globalization.svg) or diagrams (like File:Mertons social strain theory.svg), just to point to some examples. You cannot copyright a theory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support I support Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, given his explanation about copyright circularity ("citogenesis") here. This map seems to have been released under CC anyway, by virtue of it being uploaded to YT, check the theory, but then I do not have time to delve into the nitty-gritty of the copyright of individual frames.) Zezen (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't see what the piece on copyright circularity has to do with this image. The uploader of this image, as quoted above, admits that he copied it from a journal. Second, most YouTube uploads claim copyright. CC licenses are the exception there, not the rule, and unless you can cite a YT page that this appears on, with a CC-BY license, the mention of YT is not helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Open for almost two months with no answer to my questions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BuffaloNinePamphet 01.jpg

This is the cover of an anti-war pamphlet created and published by the Buffalo Nine Committee at the University of Buffalo during the 1968-70 time period when the campus was invaded and occupied by Buffalo police. I had a hand in creating the pamphlet a copy of which is in my possession. It has no printed copyright but has, on the last page, "A Plea" for donations from The Buffalo Nine Defense Committee, PO Box 399, Elliott Station, Buffalo, New York, 14205. Since there is no copyright on the pamphlet I see no reason why I cannot make my own copy freely available on Wikipedia Commons. I hereby give my own permission based on ownership of said pamphlet to use the cover image and any other images inside as long as they are refernced in the same manner as in the publication. For example, on page eight of the pamphlet is a photo of Bruce Beyer being arrested and the reference is to "Gruber" and Spectrum (the student newspaper, Sept 20th, (1968 assumed). I request that this image be restored to the article. -- Jerry Ross Pittore44 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeff -- that's correct only if there was notice. According to Pittore44, there is no copyright notice in the pamphlet.
Yann -- I agree with you that no-notice could apply, but I strongly suspect that the cover image was not properly licensed to the Buffalo Nine Committee -- it seems to me a long stretch to believe that a protest group actually bothered to have the photographer execute a written license of the copyright. Unless such a license was executed, the photograph is not covered by the lack of notice and therefore remains under copyright. Therefore I  Oppose this..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Then we would need more information about the source of the image. Who is the original photographer? Whether it was published previously, where and in which conditions... Regards, Yann (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
There would not need to be a written license, just that it was used with permission. But if it was used without permission, then it would not count as publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Carl, I thought that all copyright licenses and transfers had to be in writing (see 17 USC 204(a)). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A license is not a transfer of ownership. Well, an exclusive license might depending on the details, but not a regular license -- there is no transfer of rights, such that the other party can then further transfer them to others. Licensees usually can't, so there is no transfer, and no writing requirement (i.e. 17 USC 204 is not involved). [2][3][4] If the photos were published with permission, that was a non-exclusive license, and would count as an authorized publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. At 17 USC 201 we have "The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part", which suggests to me that 17 USC 204 applies to all transfers of any of the rights. Nowhere in 17 USC 200 is there any mention of being able to grant any of the rights in an oral contract. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: A license is not a transfer, even in part. They are not the same thing. You are not giving out any ownership at all, simply giving up your own right to sue for infringement on specified usages. They do not have to be in writing. This link (the third one I listed above) explicitly states that. Some exclusive licenses may effectively be transfers, but even then it's not a given, and definitely not for non-exclusive licenses. For example, a non-exclusive licensee could not sue someone for infringement on the work, I don't think -- you need to be an owner of an exclusive right for that (17 USC 501). This link talks about a case where a non-exclusive licensee was ruled to not be able to sue (even though it sort of sounded exclusive). You also need an exclusive right in order to register with the Copyright Office, etc. Basically, there is no transfer of rights at all with a non-exclusive license, best I can tell. They can be oral. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Open for two weeks -- no evidence of a reason to restore. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:NeaSNOM from neaspec GmbH.png

The copyright owner (neaSPEC GmbH) has agreed to the publication of this image in wikipedia. I made the attribution by placing a link to their website. Please, undelete the image or let me know what else is needed in order to do so. Thank you. --Clearscience (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not Wikipedia, "for-Wikipedia-only" licenses are not acceptable. The copyright owner can use the process outlined at Commons:OTRS instead to submit files under an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Joel Levine

Please restore my Wikipedia page. Thank you. Joel Levine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.220.130 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2017‎ (UTC)

@Codaaladdin: You will need clear and convincing evidence that refutes w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Levine for your post at w:Wikipedia:Deletion review (not here, this is the wrong project).   — Jeff G. ツ 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a WP:EN matter -- nothing to do with Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Eclipse Solar Anular. 26.02.2017 - Argentina.png

File:Eclipse Solar Anular. 26.02.2017 - Argentina.png

UNDELETION REQUEST.

THIS FILE WAS CREATED AND DESIGNED BY ME Fernando de Gorocica, THE VIOLATION IS FROM KN3.NETǃǃǃ...
PLEASE DONT DELETEǃ... THANKSǃ...

Fernando T. de Gorocica 12:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
File hasn't been deleted, it was marked as speedy but I've since changed it to a DR since you've disputed it. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eclipse Solar Anular. 26.02.2017 - Argentina.png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Internationale melody

See also b:The Internationale/Performing and respecting copyright calculating the likely date of French copyright expiration. If expired, please undelete related template and files.Jusjih (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support per Wikibooks. De728631 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support per the normal undeletion already planned in the deletion discussion itself and as we explained in the associated VP/C discussion. The nominator of the deletion request mentioned that the files could be undeleted in the fall of 2017 and that this DR was categorized in the category "undelete in 2018" instead of "undelete in 2017" only to avoid the possible mistake of an undeletion in January 2017. But now more than 272 days have passed since the beginning of 2017 and the files can be undeleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Are we *sure* the math is calculated that way? Seems like it may be just as logical to add the wartime extension periods to the author's date of death, then extend to the end of the calendar year of the resulting calculation. Otherwise, you have copyrights expiring mid-year, which seems to be against the intent of the law. I may be missing something, but January 1 may be safer to undelete. I'm not sure there was too much discussion if courts indicated how the math should be calculated. Not sure the 1866 law, which the wartime extensions are explicitly added to, had the "calendar year" part -- that may have been an extension of later law. If there was court guidance on how to do the math, that is fine -- it just seems more logical to me that the "end of calendar" year would be applied after the extensions themselves were added to the date of death. But, it's only a mild objection -- maybe there was separate guidance for this, and there is no U.S. issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we're sure. For an example, see at the bottom of this page by the SACEM. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Material identificatio nith nano-FTIR.png

I would like to certify that this image is an original scientific figure (done by me) and is different from the image used in the publication at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl301159v. Please, compare the scale bar location, middle panel title, bold fonts, etc. The similarity arises from the fact that this image was compiled from the same measurements dataset that was used in the publication of http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl301159v. This dataset is not owned by the journal and is not subject to its copyrights (I am a coauthor of this dataset). Please, undelete this image. Thank you. --Clearscience (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose While the individual graphs may not have a copyright, the presentation as a whole certainly does. While, as noted above, there may be subtle differences between the two, the two are so similar that even looking at them side by side it is hard to tell the difference. I don't know what the image on the left is, but it may also have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, first it is very similar, secondly the image at left have likely a copyright, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GO WEAST, Original Montreal run poster, 1996.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017100610218865 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) 21:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Framawiki: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per hedwig. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Portraet Markus Beile.JPG

Ich bitte Wiederherstellung, es ist ein Ticket mit der Nummer 2017082410006564 bei uns eingegangen und ich würde gerne die Lizenz usw. prüfen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS member request. @Raboe001: . Thuresson (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Peter Marggraf (talk · contribs

The artist have send permission(s) to OTRS Ticket#2017083110018396 -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The images above appear to have been restored without a consensus and without comment by User:Reinhard Kraasch. In fact, the OTRS ticket cited above lists 12 specific images:

None of the images restored above are included in the cited ticket. Reinhard may have a good reason for restoring these, but it would be good if he shared it with the rest of us. In the absence of that, the images in the list at the top (not the second list) must be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, The ticket is meanwhile a bit confusing, but under [5] the artist also mentions the images I restored. -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Right you are -- my apologies.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Reinhard Kraasch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Curatron-logo.jpg

We at Platform Stockholm are the creators of this image and we give it a commons licence so that it can remain on Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.56.186 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 October 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 13:21, 15 October 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 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Innovativeartist.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose A request from an anonymous IP contributor claiming to be the owner of the copyright has no validity. We see far too many people here who claim to be something they are not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gennaro Nigliato - curva Parabolica Autodromo Nazionale Monza.jpg

Foto veritiera della gara Gennaro Nigliato nel Formula Monza del 2013, dove raffigura la curva Parabolica del'Autodromo Nazionale di Monza. Foto scattata, acquistata, in mio possesso. Sono l'unico proprietario del file. Gennaro Nigliato — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gennaro Nigliato (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it here. The image's EXIF is clear:

"Author: Morgese
"Copyright holder: FotoMorAle"

In order for the image to be restored to Commons, FotoMorAle must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, OTRS permission needed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svg

See also [6]. Looking for an alternative depiction of that image, I found that the image the SVG is based on does not come originally from [7], but it was instead taken from [8] (for proof, see http://web.archive.org/web/20030129101711/www.ngw.nl/). Images from NGW are very commonly used here, although NGW does not appply a specific licence to its images.--Antemister (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are not uploads by Copyviol

Are not randomly extracted images the copyright of the following images is correct (ANSWERED FILES),,, Can you explain what is the problem of images? They only deal with portraits, photographs and paintings of various times, why then? --79.31.200.43 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that Commons has apparently used a great many images from NGW is not relevant to this discussion. At http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Heraldry_of_the_World:About there is a clear copyright notice "© since 1996, Heraldry of the World, Ralf Hartemink" and no evidence of a free license. Therefore it appears that the many uses of works from the NGW site are copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I hate to re-open a closed request, but there is additional information if the source was ngw.nl. The author, Ralf Hartemink, was a contributor here (User:Knorrepoes) and I believe licensed images from ngw.nl that he created ({{NGW}}). There is apparently an OTRS ticket to that effect (2008040910005359). So... if this SVG was in fact based on a graphic done by that author, it may well be fine. That is also the reason we have so many NGW images (and they are likely not copyvios). ngw.nl also does copy images from external sources, and we can't host those, but I believe that images created by Mr. Hartemink are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Ruthven (msg) 13:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-opening Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Support I stand corrected. The Cook Islands image is one of those from NGW that is covered by {{NGW}}. Thanks, Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Carl & Jim. --Storkk (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Drake Jensen NAC.jpg

Hello,

I first loaded the file File:Drake Jensen NAC.jpg on Wikimedia Commons but I did not make it right. I sent an email to 'permissions-fr@wikimedia.org' because I thought I made a mistake. The file was deleted. A wikipedian User:MelAntipam told me that he acted for me to make the image acceptable but meanwhile the file was deleted. So I tried another time following the right way to download it on Wikmedia Commons.

You tell me that my account on Wikipedia can be deleted because of what I did. I remind you that I am a new Wikipedian (since September 30th 2017) and I am not aware of all the rules that's why I asked help to do my best.

To prevent being alarmed, I will not include a picture on the French Wikipedia about Dranke Jensen.

Sincerely yours.

--Dominique BLOUET (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There is still a copy of File:Drake Jensen NAC.jpg in the Google cache, so I can see that the photo is on the singer's facebook page, where it was posted on 20 March 2012: image, set. There is no free license there. A user uploaded a cropped copy of the photo to en.wikipedia on 5 May 2014. Thus, possibly a copyvio, unless the en.wikipedia copy had OTRS validation there, which was probably not the case because it was deleted from en.wikipedia yesterday, apparently on the basis of the publication of the cropped version in a magazine in April 2012 [9], [10], although the en.wikipedia uploader replied that he is the author. The reply seems strange however, because why did he upload to en.wikipedia the cropped version taken from the magazine instead of the uncropped original photo? And why did he never refer to the set on the singer's page? I suppose this can be cleared up if the first publisher (the singer) sends a mail to OTRS saying that he received the set of photos from the uploader. But unless confirmation is received, the file should probably remain deleted. @Dominique BLOUET: Rassurez-vous, vous ne risquez rien pour un seul re-versement fait de bonne foi. Le bandeau d'avertissement pré-rédigé sert à informer sur la bonne façon de faire une demande, ce que vous avez bien fait ci-dessus. La phrase qui évoque un blocage s'adresse plutôt aux utilisateurs qui reversent un fichier de nombreuses fois sans tenir compte des avertissements. Même si ce n'était pas ce que vous aviez prévu, votre versement de ce fichier sur Commons a eu comme effet bénéfique d'attirer l'attention d'autres utilisateurs et ainsi de permettre d'identifier qu'il y avait un problème préexistant avec le fichier qui se trouvait sur la Wikipédia de langue anglaise (en.wikipedia) depuis 2014. En effet, ce fichier était en situation de possible contravention aux droits d'auteur. À moins d'une validation, le fichier ne pourra probablement pas être remis en ligne. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm notified on this : I transferred the picture from en.wikipedia to Commons October 1st according to the recommended procedure (check that the file was a candidate for a transfer to Commons, keep the name of the original uploader, indicate the original license and finally tag the picture for removal from en.wikipedia). I did this because the picture's license was considered valid on en.wikipedia already for some time. In addition, I did the transfer myself because the previous upload by Dominique BLOUET did not maintain the original license and changed the name of the uploader, which would have for sure lead to its speedy deletion from Commons. Now I agree with Asclepias that the full picture is also found on the Internet (at various places) and that Eagle65ca(the original uploader) reply was surprising. Nevertheless it was accepted on en.wikipedia and the rules have been followed to our best.
Deleting this picture from Commons for copyright violation means that the file was not transferable to Commons, contrary to what was clearly stated on its en.wikipedia page. The sad part of this story is that picture on the English page of Drake Jensen has been removed just because I tagged it as having been transferred, as required... MelAntipam (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Il ne faut pas être désolé. Si on regarde la raison de suppression de suppression sur en.wikipedia, ce n'est pas parce que vous avez marqué le fichier comme ayant été transféré, mais c'est plutôt parce que ce fichier n'était pas conforme aux règles et qu'il y avait possibilité d'une contravention aux droits d'auteur. Ce problème existait déjà depuis le versement du fichier sur en.wikipedia. Le transfert sur Commons a simplement permis de constater ce problème, qui était passé inaperçu jusque là mais qui aurait risqué de faire surface tôt ou tard. C'est aussi bien que ce soit maintenant plutôt que plus tard. C'est une bonne chose de toutes façons, puisque cela permet de clarifier la situation. S'il y a confirmation de la validité du fichier, sa situation s'en trouvera régularisée. S'il s'agissait d'une contravention aux droits d'auteur, il ne peut pas être conservé. De ce que j'en comprends, on ne peut pas dire que le fichier avait été «accepté» sur en.wikipedia. Les fichiers ne font pas l'objet d'un examen systématique lors de leur versement. Ils sont examinés lorsqu'un utilisateur remarque un problème possible. Le problème était passé inaperçu jusqu'à maintenant. Le transfert a attiré l'attention d'utilisateurs. D'où les suppressions. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Short story: The user believed the deletion resulted from his mistake. It's not the case. The deletion was because there is doubt about the source and the copyright status of the file originally uploaded by a wikipedia user. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Photographer (as opposed to uploader) must confirm license by contacting OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Or Ilan 8.jpg

I hold the copy right of all of the photos I uploaded. Please undeleted it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Or ilan (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 October 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 04:14, 15 October 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 04:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jeff, photographer should confirm license or transfer of copyright by contacting OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Дорожка через болото на Монзино.jpg

I asked Yann but he may be busy to reply.

Don't undelete, but tell:

  • do we have an old copy?
  • any private/personal life on this photo?
  • anything else other than nature?

d1g 17:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it is an apparently recent image with source and author shown as "unknown" (in Russian). Therefore it is a copyvio. It is a simple image of a path, with no people or much else of interest. Since it has no categories and no useful description, it might well have been deleted as useless even if it were not a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Image is not educational, but (based on name) is useful to describe landmarks and actual usage in project is not controversial
I have a sympathy to geo things, so I cannot skip this :-)
We cannot be sure about copyvio
Шалфей-НТ actually claimed to upload at least some original files. But he go really frustrated how slow everything is :-( d1g 19:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @D1gggg: Re: We cannot be sure about copyvio. And we shouldn't, see COM:PRP and COM:EVID. Sealle (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear -- in this case we can be completely certain that it is a copyright violation. The uploader did not claim "own work" -- he said that the photographer was unknown. Since the image is obviously too recent for the copyright to have expired in Russia or the United States, and the unknown photographer has obviously not given a free license, it must be a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

> "it must be a copyright violation"
Wrong modal verb here. It might be how Wikipedia agreed to proceed (COM:EVID)
But it has nothing to do how things can be in USA/Russia/<country> (not speaking about North Korea)
It can be their own image (with a low? chance of it).
Court can reject not a serious COPYVIO claims. my talk page, my greatest edits and me d1g 12:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
My comment has nothing to with "we are more clever than you (COM:PRP)" my talk page, my greatest edits and me d1g 12:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I chose to use "must" because it is correct. Again, it is a recent image with an unknown photographer. Therefore it must infringe on the copyright belonging to the unknown photographer -- that is true, as I said, in both the USA and Russia (and in almost every other country in the world). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim/Sealle. Actual copyright holder must confirm license via OTRS. It is not plausible that the uploader is the actual photographer. --Storkk (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The editorial cartoons of Dr Seuss. One was deleted, its file name was: File:10425cs.jpg

These cartoons were owned by PM Magazine, which was owned by Marshall Field (I think) and I and other users have not found evidence that the copyright was renewed.

See discussion here at the Village Pump: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/09#I_want_to_add_some_of_Dr._Seuss.27_Japanese_Internment_cartoons

I apologize if I'm not quite doing this right. H0n0r (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support At Commons:Deletion requests/Image:10425cs.jpg, Carl states fairly strongly that the copyrights to PM were not renewed and therefore this image and others like it are PD. While non-renewal is difficult to prove with absolute certainty, I think this has been proven beyond our standard of "significant doubt". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Uragano Irma ISS.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Reason: Image likely from NASA, Under {{PD-USGov-NASA}} license, Commons are acceptable. 158.182.230.60 02:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • What's the basis to presume it wouldn't be ESA, which (I believe) has restrictions not compatible with Commons? The source it came from claimed to reserve all rights (probably a bogus claim), but we need a positive reason to believe it is in the public domain or free-licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The photographer is Italian astronaut Paolo Nespoli of ESA who claims "All rights reserved" (link, link). Thuresson (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Storkk (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Andmetics BROW Wax Strips Men.png

I have permission from the owner to use this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.169.98 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 16 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Com:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and Com:What Commons is not#Commons is not a place to advertise --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Also, these are advertising images and the copyright is held by a company. The uploader claimed "own work" but that is obviously wrong. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: These are advertisement images with no likely educational use. --Guanaco (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Adriana Pincherle, ritratto di Angelica Martinelli.JPG

Non c'è violazione del diritto d'autore, sono l'erede dell'autore. --Alealeale7 (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The painting is, therefore, not actually the work of the uploader as claimed. Policy requires that the person who actually holds the copyright to the painting must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: The image can be restored once we receive a valid permission statement. --Guanaco (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hull Montage.jpg

I would like to know what it takes to have this image not be deleted all the time now. Should I reference and mention the original photo takers? As I said, tons of other towns and have cities have similar images with TAKEN photos compiled into a montage, and that's just what this is. What is being broken here? I made this image and licensed it. What must be done to have this not be deleted. --ShizlGzngar (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)ShizlGzngar 18th October 2017

  • Any montage like this must provide (possibly via internal link) source and license information for each image, and they must all be compatible with the license you issue. Yes, the montage is a "work" but it is a derivative work and the copyrights of all the underlying images are relevant. Normally, the simplest way to show that all the licensing is OK is to have each of the images be already on Commons with the appropriate license. See File:NYC Montage 2014 4 - Jleon.jpg for a good example. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hull Montage.jpg makes it perfectly clear that at least two of the images in this montage were taken by third parties and used here without permission or even attribution. This image cannot be restored without free licenses via OTRS from at least those two, and from the actual photographers of the other images if they were not taken by ShizlGzngar.
Note please, ShizlGzngar, that claiming that photographs taken by others is your "own work" is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, a free source must be given for each images, or the permissions have to be sent to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:10526cs.jpg, File:10602cs.jpg, File:10704acs.jpg

Per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-10#The editorial cartoons of Dr Seuss. One was deleted, its file name was: File:10425cs.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support These appear to be the same situation as the previously restored image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-US-not-renewed per previous discussion. --Guanaco (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MVS8dvGFGCI2.jpg

Файл выложен разработчиками в свободный доступ: https://vk.com/album-61855301_240386872. Более того, сами разработчики не против, чтобы это изображение использовали на странице их игры (если это надо как-то доказать, как?)

The file is laid out by developers in free access. Moreover, the developers themselves do not mind that this image was used on the page of their game (if it should somehow prove how?)

 Oppose This is an image of box art for a commercial game. As such it is clearly under copyright. The Commons image was taken from vk.com. It is not clear whether the upload to vk.com was done by the copyright holder or someone else, but the terms of use at https://vk.com/terms, at paragraph 7, are very clearly not acceptable to Commons. Therefore I don't see any way we can keep the image without a free license from the game developer, Dino Games. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, the permission from Dino Games is needed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Restore file of user: Lûgnûg

Goodmorning i am a whriting I will write to you to ask if you would please restore all the files of Lûgnûg, which has been deleted from thousands of files including paintings by Italian painters and over the ocean; and portraits of the Italian nobility, and all of these files were deleted by the user krd only because he was suspected of being an A3cb1 sockpuppet, but he was not in such a great misunderstanding, here is the file link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/L%C3%BBgn%C3%BBg?uselang=it good day at all --87.0.97.106 12:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)--87.0.97.106 12:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No author, no source. ”Painting” is not a source. Thuresson (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sain Mustafa Sarkar.jpg

I request to the administrator to undelete my file. Because it is my own work and I have agreed all the terms and policies of Commons. I have also cleared my copyrights.It is not any waste thing it is very valuable for users of the Sindhi Wikipedia. ~~Sarmad Mustafa Jatoi~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmad Mustafa Jatoi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Not done: The file has not been deleted, altough it probably will be. Comments must be made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sain Mustafa Sarkar.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg Asteroide DX

Olá pessoal Sou o Asteroide thumb|Este é o André Kanga a minha conta do facebook é André Kanga

 Not done: No undeletion request -- inappropriate comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Slotarena logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We as a company own this logo and do not see why it was removed. Noli65 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 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 12:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff, the logo is above threshold of originality, and we don't have any valid permission, the logo must fall within the Commons scope too. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tuetego Logo.png

I have direct permission to upload this file, a specific email confirmation that I can use it to create an article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissumisha (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 October 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 23:46, 20 October 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 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Though the logo may be simple enough to be exempted of copyright protection, it seems to be currently outside of our Commons scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Cuadernos de Etnología y Etnografía de Navarra.jpg File:Fontes Linguae Vasconum.jpg File:Revista Príncipe de Viana.jpg File:Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra.jpg

Hi, there:

When I uploaded all these files unknew the right license about them. But I have found in another website from the same institution (Gobierno de Navarra / Navarre Gouvernement) the right licence. Unfortunately this website is only in spanish and basque.

But each page for each journal are the following:

You can search the words "Open Access" and you can see a license text as this:

La Institución Príncipe de Viana facilita el acceso en línea sin restricciones a todos los contenidos de sus revistas desde el momento de su publicación, bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.


The Institution Príncipe de Viana facilitates unrestricted online access to all the contents of its journals from the time of its publication, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International license.

Certainly, the site where I get the images Revistas Príncipe de Viana), also owner the authority.

Maybe help you to considerate the undeletion.

Best regards, Jialxv (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Although Commons does not permit images with non-commercial licenses, none of these have a copyright -- they all qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}, so no action is necessary to keep them..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: There is nothing to do here -- these have not been deleted and have not been nominated for DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:AlixBenezech.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017101710011414 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) 12:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Although the uploader has a web site, www.carpuatemilie.com, the gmail used for the OTRS message is used on at least one page on that site, so it appears to be authentic. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Khamovniki District, Moscow, Russia - panoramio (385).jpg

Please review the delete decision by Daphne Lantier. I still believe that this kind of distortion is unacceptable for illustrating, but I could be wrong, too. If the deletion was valid, then there's a bunch of similar panoramio uploads (with numbers 372...384) to go. Retired electrician (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: unuseful. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Erhall car model.jpg

This file is a photograph of a model of a car made in 1933. I took the photograph and it is not subject to copyright. The file seems to have been deleted because of a belief that the model itself might be copyright. It is not. Even if it was, precluding any picture of it would mean that photographs of any copyrighted material (e.g. all cars, commercial aircraft - virtually every manufactured item) would be impossible to include in Wiki archives.

Glachlan (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You misunderstand the situation. Copyright law, in both the USA and the UK, covers models as sculptures, so this model has a copyright unless the creator died before 1947. If you can prove that, then the image can be restored. On the other hand, actual cars and most other manufactured items do not have copyrights because they are utilitarian.

And, by the way, although it is not important here, your statement, "I took the photograph and it is not subject to copyright", is incorrect, All created works, including your photograph, have copyrights from the moment of creation unless they are exempt for some reason such as being utilitarian. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Anomalocaris canadensis 3d.jpg

This image I have posted has been deleted twice presumably due to the copyright violation. The image is my own artwork and I own all the rights for the usage of this image. It is present on my company website here: http://3depix.com/scientific-medical-and-educational.html and on my DeviantArt profile page: https://3depix.deviantart.com/theerfor I would like to request undeletion of this Anomalocaris canadensis 3d.jpg image as I am the creator and owner of this artwork. If further proof is needed I will willingly submit it. --3depix (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, do not upload the image again. Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.

Second, although you may own http://3depix.com/scientific-medical-and-educational.html, we have no way of knowing that. User:3depix could be anybody -- we frequently get both fans and vandals who adopt the names of people or sites whose work they want to upload. Therefore, since the image has appeared on the web without a free license, there are two ways to have it restored here. You can either send a free license from an address at 3depix.com using OTRS or add a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the site. In the former case, 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. In the latter case, restoration can be immediate if you post a note here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. .Will be undeleted if proper license authorization is provided through OTRS. --Platonides (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I tagged these files with {{Npd}}, and they got deleted. The uploader has requested [11] at my talk page in Persian to undelete these files temporarily, so that he can transfer them to Persian and English Wikipedia. Alternatively, you can send the files to him via email. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You can also send them to me. My email address can be found at otrs-wiki. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. @Firouzyan and 4nn1l2: Go ahead and transfer the files. --Guanaco (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

The Image we have uploaded in wiki common is our authorized property we have not used any reference or any other copyrighted picture, we contain its all rights and we can avail these rights to any use of content on any medium since it has captured by our media department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samaira khan (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Both of the files you have uploaded are images of the same film poster. In order for the image to be restored, an authorized official of the production company, usually the Producer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)  Comment - reuploading the file won't bring you any further, unless your goal is to get blocked. Jcb (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, a permission must be sent. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:C6H3Cl2NH2.png

I have filed Commons:Deletion requests/File:C6H3Cl2NH2.png, asserting that the file was redundant. This is in keeping with COM:EDUSE, which states that each image should be "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". User:Jcornelius closed the DR as keep/"no valid reason for deletion" and declined to respond to my request on his talkpage that he clarify his reasoning vs that commons policy. So here we are...could anyone please explain how this image has an educational use beyond the several formats of images for this compound already present in Category:Dichloroaniline? DMacks (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This page was listed as the place to discuss/dispute COM:DR closures after not getting response from the closing admin, according to Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions (which explicitly indicates both "delete" and "non-delete" closures as its scope). I would be happy to hear a more appropriate place. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have misread COM:DR. It actually says, "you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)". [emphasis added]
So, as noted there, you need to nominate it for deletion again. Your previous nomination was not specific enough. I might say,
"Unused duplicate of
(sig)"
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A-hah thanks. I had parsed it as that bold being an optional alternative if kept, rather than the route in that situation. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have clarified the wording there to avoid this problem in the future..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: I think we are done with this request -- or, rather, there is nothing for us to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

238 files from Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red

I request that all the files that were deleted from Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red be speedily reinstated to as to minimise collateral damage caused by potentially inappropriate and certainly premature deletions. A total of 238 files were deleted some of which were used in any one of over 200 Wikimedia projects.

I and a number of other editors (User:Victuallers, User:Nick Moyes and User:Mike Peel) have posted requests on the home page of User:Jameslwoodward (the closing administrator) requesting that he reverse his actions on grounds that he had misjudged the discussion to be "stale" when in fact feedback was awaited from a non-Wikimedia party. The closing administrator appears to have not only ignored our requests but has added his own input to the discussion. After reading the case Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc, I believe that his opinions need a much closed examination. I believe furthermore that this case has a large bearing on the copyright status of the files concerned.

As result of his action a large number of articles (certainly into double figures, maybe even into three figures) in various Wikimedia projects now have red links. Editors of those articles might well have started to "repair" those red links. If it transpires that the administrator in question was wrong in deleting those files and that they are reinstated, who takes responsibility for reversing the unnecessary "repairs"? Is there even a list of which articles were originally linked to any of these files? In order to minimise such potential collateral damage I request that all the files be speedily reinstated and that they remain reinstated at least until the discussion has been properly closed.


Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-10
{{{1}}}

Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support reinstatement of these files until the discussion is properly concluded (which requires the pending off-wiki input from the artists involved). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I have been in active negotiations with the artists' representative from 14-18NOW and have provided detailed evidence and updates of ongoing positive communication with them on both the deletion discussion page and on the closing admin's Talk Page. Reversion of this untimely delete will enable those disccussions to continue and to gain a positive outcome for all. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - our established practice is that we first want a permission to be properly documented in OTRS and that we undeleted the files after that. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose putting the cart before the horse. A valid free license must be obtained and archived at OTRS before the restoration of the files can take place. DR closure does not seem to have been premature to me: it was open for ~5 weeks during which time permission was not successfully obtained. With luck, we can hopefully restore these soon - when a valid free license comes through and is accepted by the OTRS agent involved. Storkk (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not sure how I can both have "not only ignored our requests but has added his own input to the discussion."
It is clear that the poppies are copyrighted sculptures. It is also true that the arrangement of the poppies as flowing blood has a copyright. Therefore, under UK law, the images are derivative works. The discussion was open for five weeks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What is copyright – the poppy design or the poppies themselves?

@Mike Peel, Nick Moyes, Jcb, Storkk, and Jameslwoodward: I have done a little research:

  • In the case Interlego AG v Tyco Industries which centred around copyright considerations of LEGO bricks the judge ruled that for mass-produced objects, copyright subsisted in the design, not the object s themselves.
  • Although each of the poppies are marginally different from any other poppy, it is unlikely that this difference is sufficiently significant to meet the Threshold of originality, especially as UK Law is moving away from the "sweat of the brow" doctrine to the doctrine that "copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’". In the case of the poppies, the craftsmen who made the poppies followed instructions so for purposes of copyright and design law, the poppies were "mass produced".

I believe that this research demonstrates that the poppies themselves are not copyrighted, but that the designs and templates used to manufacture the poppies are copyright. Thus copyright will only be breached if you make reproductions of the poppies, not if you photograph them. Since the poppies themselves are not copyrighted, I request that all the files be reinstated and that any deletion process started anew on the premise that the poppies themselves are not copyrighted. Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Whether each individual poppy is copyrighted or not seems (to me) tangential to the main point: the installation as a whole is clearly above the TOO. A dot of paint might be uncopyrightable, but a combination of dots would be. UK Freedom of Panorama applies to 3D works only if they are permanently installed in a public place, and this was a temporary installation. That said, I don't follow your argument that the poppies would not be copyrightable of themselves either. Storkk (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Storkk: You wrote and I amended "UK Freedom of Panorama applies to 3D works [that are otherwise protected by copyright] only if they are permanently installed in a public place ..." hence my argument that if the poppies themselves were not protected by copyright, then there is no copyright to be breached. Martinvl (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless I am misreading you, your argument doesn't address the copyright of the work as a whole, which was my main point. Even if we stipulate that the individual poppies are below the TOO (and I lean towards Jim's view that they likely aren't), the work made out of those poppies clearly crosses the threshold. Storkk (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The cited case determined that the LEGO bricks did not qualify for copyright because there was not enough creativity in them -- they are basically rectangles with attachment dots on top. The statement "the judge ruled that for mass-produced objects, copyright subsisted in the design, not the objects themselves" misinterprets the decision. It has nothing to do with mass production and everything to do with the threshold of originality. There is nothing in the decision that even suggests that mass produced non-utilitarian sculptural works do not have a copyright. The poppies are clearly sculptures of flowers, far above the necessary level of creativity for copyright. It would not matter whether they were identical, stamped out of a mold, or, as is apparently the case, slightly different. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed in every way. Each "false" flowers are copyrightable, the voluntary arrangement of these single elements is also artistic and copyrightable. The exhibition lasted a limited time, therefore there is no FoP exemption. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gobierno de Romanones (2).jpg

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gobierno de Romanones (2).jpg. According to this the deleted file was a pic of members of a Romanones cabinet (taken in 1918-1919) by photographer José Vidal (d. 1935, complying to 80 pma in Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Spanish copyright expired on 1/1/2016, which is 20 years too late for the URAA. The US copyright will expire on 1/1/2031, 95 years after creation, see Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights#Examples. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: 95 years after creation (if such a rule existed) would mean 2014, which has passed. A possibility is 95 years after publication if published after 1922. But I find it difficult to believe that a picture of members of the government taken in 1919 by a press photographer would not have been published before 1923. May I ask what the source was? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support as PD-old-80 and PD-1923 for the U.S. side. Not sure where 2031 comes from -- the linked example is for a work published in 1935, which would expire in 2031, but a work published in 1919 at the latest would have been too old to have been restored by the URAA in the first place, and would remain public domain in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Carl, there is no proof that this was published anywhere until its appearance here. The image looks like a formal matted and framed group portrait that has, perhaps, been hanging on someone's wall. I see no evidence of halftone at all, even at very high magnification. Therefore, I think the URAA applies. You are correct that the my 2031 date is wrong -- URAA copyright would run for 120 years after creation -- until 1/1/2040. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is a specific reason to assume otherwise -- such as the photo came from the photographer's archives after his death, or something like that -- we generally assume publication around the time it was created. Most photos were not taken to be private. For U.S. purposes, even a portrait at a photography shop should usually be considered published (if you think the photographer retains the copyright). The copies given out to be hung on a wall would usually be considered general publication -- highly unlikely the photographer put any restrictions on further publication. Limited publication was copies given out to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no right of further distribution -- all three had to be satisfied. Commissioned portraits like that would qualify on the first one, but usually not the second two. Furthermore, the photographer received payment for the photos, which would virtually always qualify them for publication. And a government cabinet portrait would have been highly unlikely to be unpublished, as well. Assuming unpublished status to me is a highly theoretical doubt which does not qualify for COM:PRP, unless there is specific documentation that it may not have been published until long after it was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ restored. Carl's arguments are more convincing here, very likely the photo was published soon after creation. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Naturism in Europe.jpg.

Hi,here the permission ticket for this file ːTicket#2017101710016106

Tx Alot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngman24 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is 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.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Restoration will happen automatically when and if the OTRS ticket is processed and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The.Illustrated.London.News.Aug.01.1914.Issue.3928.Vol.CXLV.Page.17.Image.13.png

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The.Illustrated.London.News.Aug.01.1914.Issue.3928.Vol.CXLV.Page.17.Image.13.png and the link in the deleted description page to the full copy of the original publication showing evidence that the image is credited to the agency Topical, with no specific photographer named. The license tag used by the uploader was wrong, but it could be replaced by the proper PD tags, as suggested in the DR discussion. The closing statement of the DR is unrelated to the discussion and is demanding proof of the death year of the unknown/anonymous photographer, which is not logical. N.B.: This file is a reproduction of poor quality and it would not be a big loss if deleted, but that was not the reason in this DR. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support "Topical" would be the "Topical Press Agency", which in turn means the photo was published anonymously and {{PD-UK-unknown}} should apply (as well as {{PD-1923}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - no indication that the author would have died before 1947, no indication that PD-UK-unknown would apply - Jcb (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If it was published in the Illustrated London News without naming a human author, it was published anonymously. That pretty directly means that 70 years from publication should be the copyright term, per EU and UK law. If the human author became known before 1984, then that would change things -- but with no evidence of such presented, we would otherwise assume anonymous publication (since we can show the initial publication was anonymous). It's one thing if we don't have publication history, but quite another when we do. That pushes things well beyond the significant doubt of COM:PRP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Restored per Carl Lindberg. Taivo (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Fernando-velloso.jpg

I uploaded an image from a web journal about this author and then replaced it with an image of my own. In fact it should have come up as a new file rather than replacing an existing one. When I try to upload the image of my own the system recognizes and says that it is an image that has been deleted. How can I resolve this? I'm afraid to upload the image and have it deleted again.

--Dudusandf (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You gave the source as http://www.funceb.org.br/images/revista/29_REV_FUNCEB_1y8c2e.pdf, where it appears without a free license. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim; we need OTRS permission. --Guanaco (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:F18 Raid Worlds 2017-8660.jpg‬

We have approval from the author to publish on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaloesje (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, approval to publish on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anybody, anywhere, including commercial use. Second, since we don't know who you are, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim; we need OTRS permission. --Guanaco (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Selda Terek Bilecen.jpg

Is Selda Terek Bilecen out of project scope? Is this a joke? Since when writers who are so notable are out of scope? Is it because she does not have a page in TR:VP or only has one in TR:VP? Is notability decided by taking place at WPs or by the prestige of those WP versions where they appear? I thought all WPs were considered unreliable sources, per WP policies and principles, BTW. If we return to reliable sources, such as national newspapers and specialized internet sites, have a look at here please: Interview with Selda Terek Bilecen at Hürriyet, one of the two most-selling (and prestigious) newspapers of Turkey. Interview with Selda Terek Bilecen at Sözcü, one of the two most-selling (and prestigious) newspapers of Turkey. Book review at Sözcü, one of the two most-selling (and prestigious) newspapers of Turkey. "She hit me on the face with her book Mahrem Gölgeler", by Hakan Urgancı, at Yeni Asır newspaper, a more than a hundred year old prestigious newspaper in Turkey. Another interview at a specialized book site such as "Kitap Gurmesi" (The Book Gourmet). Selda Terek Bilecen in a news story, at another national newspaper of Turkey. I can add more if asked for. Firstly, I cannot understand how and why she was deleted in 1 (one) day?! Was there something more than I can know? Even unused personal files are generally discussed a week or so or the DR stays open for a week -at times even a month, am I wrong? If you also had a Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selda Terek Bilecen Kitapları.jpg, which was also closed in a day, you knew that we were (supposed to) discuss(ing) a "writer". You can delete a file on book covers for copyright concerns, but the writer? Out of scope? If there were a copyright violation there should be mention of it in the DR presentation (made by an admin of TR:VP) or the closing admin should say that. No, they say "deleted per nomination". I don't know what else to say. Let me only remind a case: The same person tried to delete the pic of a notable journalist who now has bio articles in two WPs. (Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asli safak.jpg.) I have nothing else to add, for the moment. Anticipated thanks for the decision. --E4024 (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

And one knows that how? By uploading what could be a better staged selfie, no infobox, no categories. You know that we delete 1,000-1,500 files/day. Shit happens. No need to cry foul. No indication who actually took the picture and/or holds the IP rights. Could be a selfie, could not be a selfie. IMHO OTRS required. Peace and a decaf tea for you, E4024 C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 OpposeThe editors at WP:TR decided to delete the article about her there for lack of notability. If she is not in scope for her own national WP, then she is certainly not in scope for Commons. I also note that the image is claimed to be "own work", but does not appear to be a selfie. If another person actually took the photo, then that person holds the copyright. Finally, the image is derivative work of the painting which is prominent behind Selda Terek Bilecen and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the painter via OTRS. I suggest that in order to have this imaged restored, you must first get the article on her restored at WP:TR, then have the actual photographer and the artist who painted the painting both send free licenses using OTRS. Then and only then the image can be restored.
I also suggest that you lower the emotion level. As Hedwig says, we get around 10,000 new images every day and must delete 1,500+ of them. Because we work fast, we do make mistakes. In fact, it is amazing that fewer than one deletion in 500 is reversed because it was an error. While this was an entirely appropriate deletion, if it had been a mistake, it would have been reversed without all the emotion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment The threshold of notability for a picture on Commons is certainly lower than for a Wikipedia article. For example, we have (and want) photos of buildings and streets that do not merit articles; photos of political candidates who have not won public office and do not merit articles; photos of high school marching bands, few of which merit articles; etc. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the intervention, but, as I stated above, the writer has no notability issues anywhere. The strange thing is her pic has been deleted in "one day" and for "being out of scope". I always thought admins made a Google search in these cases. Now we learn there were other issues, decaf tea, emotions, a painting behind etc. Let me go to take a big mug of normal coffee. --E4024 (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the nominator is indeffed on three Wikipedia projects.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for hitting me below the belt. What was the reason for this? How many blocks have I collected in Commons? --E4024 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Please also note that this was the first time I requested an undeletion. I cannot think what would happen if I came to this page more often. Please nobody call me emotional, simply try to put yourselves in my shoes. --E4024 (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@E4024: I think you've done well here on Commons, and we shouldn't hold actions from over two years ago on other wikis against you. I have no objection to undeleting this image, except that we don't know for certain who took the photo. If it's a timer-selfie, we need confirmation of this from Selda Terek Bilecen. Otherwise we need permission from the photographer. Either way, we need an email at OTRS. Guanaco (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Guanaco, it is not (any more) an undeletion issue. I may spend time, money and energy and go to take a pic of that writer myself if need be. I reacted emotionally because I hardly saw the pic of a notable person for it was deleted so hastily, without being able to join the discussion, I don't know why. The last thing I wish to do here is to talk about users, myself included. (Your kind words about me too.) However, some users prefer to attack others (their "colleagues" in a collaborative voluntary project) with harsh words like "douchebag" (because I said I find some women beautiful), "nationalist" (an admin) or "religious fanatic" (or whatsoever, I don't feel like going back to find the exact words, only because I opposed something I considered an insult on a prophet). Now, the first time I come here, instead of discussing the picture we're discussing me. Why? Let's discuss what we should discuss and nothing else. I'm sorry I've written all the above, but some things hurt. --E4024 (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Burcu Kütük and Selda Terek Bilecen: Any comments?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is required. --Guanaco (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Beneficios enseñanza audiovisual

File:10 beneficios del uso del lenguaje audiovisual en el aula.jpg

Tiene licencia creative commons Irene Aguilar Fernández (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Taivo's deletion comment says "Author requested deletion of page: author's request on creation day". I do not see that request anywhere, but the image itself is watermarked as CC-BY-NC-ND. NC and ND licenses are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave incorrect rationale.  Oppose undeletion due to NC-ND license. Taivo (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Then consider fixing the rationale in the deletion log (undelete+redelete) to avoid confusion. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Licencias Creative Commons NoComercial (-NC) y Creative Commons SinObraDerivada (-ND) no son permitidas aquí en Commons, leer Commons:Licensing/es. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Почему вы удаляете файлы фотографий раз за разом. Файлы фото мной взяты в открытых источниках в интернете. На их права никто не претендует, более того, они не используются мной в коммерческих целях. В чем же проблема? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Александр Сергеевич Головаха (talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are very few "открытых источниках в интернете" ("open sources on the Internet" per Google). Almost everything on the Internet is copyrighted. If the images you uploaded are, in fact, freely licensed, you must give a source so that that can be verified. And please note that Commons requires that images be free for commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, please read Commons:Licensing/ru. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Jcb

Please restore the following pages:

list
* File:Sunrise over Washington, D.C. (NHQ201707150001).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: "Flickrreview failed, NC restriction at source" is not a valid reason for deletion. These are all genuine NASA files and therefore Public Domain, see here. Ras67 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • No, the NC licences are not valid, it exists a FAR, that NASA works are in public domain. This is a higher instance as an incorrect "licence" on a private image service. --Ras67 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that not everything published by NASA is authored by NASA. If you want to demonstrate that a file is indeed a PD work from NASA, you cannot rely on an unfree Flickr file as a source like you did. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? Since few years, Flickr is the only source of current NASA images. In the metadata of every file this link is embedded. Until now, this guidelines were acceptable for Commons. With your opinion we have to delete all newer NASA images and are cut of from NASA's current image footage. I don't think, that you have right. --Ras67 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe this non-DR out of process mass deletion was sloppy, as the deletions are correctly contested, and had a DR been raised for these it would have been complex and debatable. The second image I looked at, out of two, is published at nasa.gov (archive) and credited "NASA", clearly making it public domain. That's a very poor hit rate for a random sample. For these reasons I would rather the images were undeleted and if a particular contractor photographer's set of images is problematic for NASA credits, those smaller sets can have their own DR, thereby avoiding accidentally blitzing some of our most valuable public domain materials. Doing these investigations post-deletion is really only possible for administrators, thereby locking out the rest of our community from helping with analysis, and the history of our UNDEL process tends to bias towards deletion in a way that does not happen with open DR discussions. It is worth highlighting again that Deletion Requests should always be the default process for any deletion action that is contested; speedy deletions must be obvious and in any reasonable circumstances where contributors are contesting the speedies, the deleting admin's first action should be to presume good faith and undelete so there can be proper review and open discussion. --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm with Yann and Fæ on this. Out of process mass deletions like this one by Jcb should not be tolerated. We need these files restored forthwith so that the whole community can research and decide which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees on the dates of photography, and start DRs by photographer as and when appropriate. Any photos just credited to NASA or one of its units should just be kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Please take back the accusation. I did follow proper process. I am aware that you cannot see the history of the deleted files, so that you cannot verify this, but you may ask another admin to have a look if you have any doubts. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I was using Fæ's words "out of process mass deletion" from the !vote directly above mine and I mentioned that user; perhaps I should have attributed (sorry for not doing so earlier). In my defense, I cite the truth of following facts in order: "out of process" there was no community involvement allowed in the decision making process evidenced in the deletion log; "mass" many files were deleted; "deletions like this one by Jcb" you did this mass deletion, and out of process mass deletions like this have happened before. In this case, via its Flickr account NASA is committing copyfraud re the PD photos its employees / unit employees took by even claiming licensing rights in the first place. Did you investigate which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees when they took those photos? What process did you follow that you consider proper?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, worth re-iterating. This was a mass speedy deletion which means that extra care should be taken that the deletions are justified as the administrator is taking full responsibility for skipping having an open mass deletion request where the community has 7 days to check, discuss and propose alternatives to mass deletion. As it took me literally 20 seconds of research using Google image searching (even without access to the actual files, as they have been deleted) to find that one of two searched for files is available as public domain, it is clear that the deletions are by default controversial. Though Jcb will argue that the deletions met COM:CSD criteria 1 or 4, the fact remains that while this may be sufficient for one file, it is not good enough for a mass deletion of multiple files where it must be clear to the community that the deleting admin has not taken enough care to avoid controversy, simply because the Flickrstream is known to contain public domain files. However this is turned around and wikilawyered, public domain is public domain and all administrators have a duty to take all reasonable precautions to avoid deleting public domain educational media from Wikimedia Commons.
      At the top of COM:CSD is the statement "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Jcb has failed to demonstrate that the required care was taken as these are not "obvious cases". If anyone should be apologizing and reversing their decisions, it is Jcb as the deleting administrator, not the few handful of community members prepared to both hold these sysop actions correctly to account and brace themselves for the defensive behaviour we see too often from Jcb when their actions are questioned. If anyone doubts this behaviour, they need to go research Jcb's talk page archives where the pattern is painfully clear. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: In addition, I was not accusing you, I was criticizing your actions (I'm not sure if deletions are considered "edits" per se). Potentially controversial deletions should always be via DR, rather than SD.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment These deletions by Jcb are not OK, but he is not the only one guilty here. Speedy requests by B dash are not OK either. :( Yann (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is an UNDEL, not a hunt for the guilty, but procedural responsibility lies fully with the deleting administrator as COM:CSD makes clear. If someone is using the speedy deletion template without sufficient care, that is a separate issue to address. The final decision to speedy delete rather than defaulting to having a deletion request is the acting administrator's alone. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I restored all images obviously by NASA. Those taken in Russia, and of the eclipse can be debated further. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll  Support temporary undeletion for discussion, any not proven specifically to be copyvios. We should all have a chance to look through these and decide based on the evidence. Guanaco (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Joel Kowsky

Photographs with NHQ numbers are original NASA commissions, going through the central request process. I suggest these are all undeleted and if anyone remains concerned that photographs, including those which have been released on nasa.gov, are given credits as NASA/<individual photographer name>, that DRs can be raised by photographer. If necessary to increase confidence, someone may want to write to the relevant photographer to check if their interpretation is that these are non-commercial use or public domain. Those I've checked appear to have active twitter accounts or instagram accounts.

As a starter, I have sent a twitter message to Joel Kowsky this evening:

Twitter msg 17 September 2017
Hi, I'm a long term volunteer at Wikimedia Commons, the site that supports Wikipedia with images and makes them available to the public. Some images that were hosted and originally came from NASA's Flickr account, were recently deleted because it was unclear if the credit "NASA/Joel Kowsky" meant that they were public domain as a Federal work with an expected credit, or if this meant they could not be freely reused as you retain a commercial copyright independent of NASA. Perhaps you could help by confirming your understanding, in particular for images which have "NHQ" numbers or are also available from the nasa.gov website?
Thanks Fae

--Fæ (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Kowsky has got back to me by direct message. Twitter DM notification copied to OTRS at ticket: 2017092010020535 (if needed I could screenshot the whole message, but almost all of it is in the notification).
Kowsky confirmed that the terms at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html apply, so commercial reuse is allowed so long as "it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services". It may be helpful to add the webpage link to the permissions parameter of the information box on each image page.
I find this encouraging, as it is likely to be the case for other NASA photographers credited in the same way.
Kowsky also confirmed that NHQ numbers are NASA asset numbers. Though Kowsky's message did not confirm how to interpret copyright for all NASA asset registered photographs, it seems unlikely that anything other than the standard terms would apply as linked above unless they were explicitly stated with the published image.
--Fæ (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody conclude this undeletion request? Andrej-airliner beginns to reupload "my" uploads with succeeding speedies! That's redicoules. How can "my" effort recreate correctly in that situation? --Ras67 (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Andrej-airliner has been stopped. Could you easily say which files are from Kowsky? We can at least proceed to undeleted these files. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
From Kowsky are the files from 26, 27 and 28 July 2017 (NHQ20170726xxxx), (NHQ20170727xxxx), (NHQ20170728xxxx) respectively Expedition 52 Soyuz Blessing, Expedition 52 Rollout, Expedition 52 Preflight and Expedition 52 Launch. Many others are from NASA senior photographer Bill Ingalls, we have over 1,000 images from him. --Ras67 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have restored these files. I have put some of the Joel Kowsky files on my watchlist, to prevent them from being deleted this way in the future. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Bill Ingalls

I have contacted Ingalls via their website, sending the following request:

Webmail 26 September 2017 - Wikimedia Commons photographs
Hi,

I'm a long term volunteer at Wikimedia Commons, the site that supports Wikipedia with images and makes them available to the public. Some images that were hosted and originally came from NASA's Flickr account, were recently deleted because it was unclear if the credit "NASA/Bill Ingalls" meant that they were public domain as a Federal work with an expected credit, or if this meant they could not be freely reused as you retain a commercial copyright independent of NASA. We would love to continue to make the photographs available, so could you help us out by confirming your understanding, in particular whether https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html applies, so they are free for commercial reuse?

Thanks [Fae]

--Fæ (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have received an email from Ingalls today. A copy has been lodged at ticket:2017101210013761. This confirms exactly the same release as previously, defaulting to the NASA guidelines, and so suitable to be hosted on Commons with attribution. On this basis any past photographs with the NASA/Ingalls credit can be safely undeleted. Fæ (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In the ticket, Bill Ingalls denies that the files would be Public Domain and does not state any compatible license. So this ticket seems useless for now. Jcb (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You opinion is contradictory to Fæ's regarding the same ticket. Who can resolve that? --Ras67 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's simple. Any OTRS agent can open the ticket and see that the Fæ interpretation is not in line with the ticket text. Jcb (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems a slightly silly discussion as I have the text in front of me. Bill Ingalls email was helpful, not a question of denying anything. The words used are non-controversial and do not need to be presumed a secret:

Bill Ingalls email 12 October 2017
They maybe be used and shared, but require that credit be given. They are not technically public domain, but may be used with credit and so long as they are not used to say that NASA endorses a product or service.

Thank you,

Bill

I do not need an OTRS volunteer, most of whom happen to be rather less experienced with Wikimedia Commons or copyright law than myself, to tell me the content or meaning of my own correspondence.

I have better things to do with my time than argue about this bizarre decision to delete NASA images available on the standard NASA license, published on the NASA website and ignores the consistency of replies we have had from the actual photographers. If there are administrators that want to delete these images under their own account, they should be responsible for their actions and if they want to keep on pestering top level NASA photographers about the obvious license that applies, they should invest their own volunteer time in sorting it out.

If Jcb wants to keep on deleting these fantastic photographs from our project, knock yourself out, but be responsible for your actions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Aubrey Gemignani

Based on Gemignani's website, http://aubreygemignani.com/bio/, they are a "full time" photographer for NASA and the NASA photograph archivist. Without Sysop tools, I cannot easily discover which deleted files were credited to Gemignani, instead this relies on a rather stupid waste of valuable volunteer time and energy. Again I propose that all NHQ files are undeleted and only redeleted via a correctly raised deletion request. As an example NHQ201708210116 was deleted and should be restored, if necessary with a DR to set out the facts. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In that bio, she lists NASA as a client, not as her employer. Jcb (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Write to her and ask. I even created an email boiler-plate for you above. Stop wasting everyone else's time with your aggressive deletions of entirely suitable content. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not the responsibility of deleting admin to try to obtain a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I think her works are "for Hire". NASA's Media Usage Guidelines, which are compatible with Commons, appear also in her images. --Ras67 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As you may have guessed, I wash my hands of this as I do not want to invest my remaining time on this project arguing the toss with someone who is not going to listen about files I did not even upload. I firmly hold that keeping these deleted is a bad decision and flies in the face of the responses being received from the photographers. I have no intention of writing to every NASA employed photographer individually and getting their confirmation that the default NASA license applies to their photographs published on the NASA website in the form NASA/<their name>. This is a terrible waste of our valuable unpaid volunteer time. If Jcb or another person responsible for deleting these files can think of a realistic solution that would satisfy their very literal understanding of "significant doubt", perhaps writing to the NASA website publishing team, then now would be a good time to suggest it. --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: I am closing this without further action. This is far too large an UnDr, with far too many different issues, to be dealt with intelligently here. I disagree with Fae's reading of the Kowsky and Ingalls OTRS tickets -- neither gives a clear license or status of the images involved -- but they should be handled individually and not as a part of a 4,000 word discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Selenium

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My name is Marcin Szczygielski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcin_Szczygielski) and I've upload all photos of Filipinki band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinki). I'm a writer and graphic designer. My mother is Iwona Racz-Szczygielski (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwona_Racz-Szczygielska) – one of the Filipinki singers. All band photos wich I've upload was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials (brochures, cards, concert programs and posters) WITHOUT copyright notes – {{PD-Polish}} Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band and I have their permission for publishing those photos in any media.

I wrote and published the book about a Filipinki band (http://latarnik.com.pl/filipinki-to-my-szczygielski) and I used all those photos in my book. Before that I carefully clear all rights and I made sure that there is no copyright violation. The book was published by Instytut Wydawniczy Latarnik (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instytut_Wydawniczy_Latarnik) – publishing house run by me and my partner Tomasz Raczek (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Raczek)

Bands Bez Atu (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bez_Atu), Coma 5 (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_5) and Warsaw Stompers (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warszawscy_Stompersi) cooperated with Filipinki as their musicians.

Photo File:Warszawscy Stompersi 1964.jpg was published on promotional card without copyright note in 1964.

Photo File:Coma 5 1964.jpg was published in concert programm in summer of 1964 without copyright note.

Photo File:Bez Atu 1969.jpg was published on promotional card in 1969 without copyright note.

File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg is a cover of Filipinki's longplay which was released by last year by my publishing house (http://latarnik.com.pl/pl/p/Filipinki-Bez-Atu-Nie-wierz-chlopcom-plyta-winylowa-fioletowa%2C-kolekcjonerska-numerowana-edycja-limitowana/380). I'm the author of layout. Photo used on cover was published in 1970 in Filipinki's concert tour promotional brochure without copyright note.

Im kindly asking for undeleted all those files. (Selenium (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph as in "Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band" does not give them any right to give permission for their use here or elsewhere. The copyright and right to freely license use almost always rests with the photographer or his heirs. In order to have the photos restored, you must either (a) prove that they are PD by proving that they were published without notice in Poland before 1994 or (b) have the actual photographers send free licenses using OTRS.

There are 27 files listed above. You have listed three of them as being published before 1994 without notice. Assuming that our colleagues are willing to accept your assertion that the three were published without notice, that still leaves 24 that have no claim to have been published before 1994. You also list a fourth file, which, as you say, appears on a web site. That site does not have a free license and therefore the use here requires that the actual owner of the copyright send a free license using OTRS or that the owner of the site adds a free license to it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for information. I already sent a free license using OTRS for File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg (ticket#2017092410011163), because I'm the author of this cover design, longplay was realesed by my publishing house and photo used in design was published in 1970 without copyright note in concert programm brochure of Filipikni band. All files mentioned above was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials without copyright notes – I got oryginals from archives of the band so I'm able to made good quality scans but I understand what is a difference between copyright holder and owner of photo. I have ower 1000 Filipinki's photos but I upload to wiki commons only files which I'm 100% sure that not violate copyright rights. I'll check my archives to find specified posters, articles, brochures, cards e.t.c where those photos was published and I'll describe each file and I'll send those information using OTRS. Is it ok? Should I than ask again for undeletion? Thank you for your help (Selenium (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
@Selenium: I suspect that request log in OTRS is slow and really long
As graphic designer, you can claim some images at your website under free license: Commons:OTRS#When_contacting_OTRS_is_unnecessary
But make sure that all copyright owners (your parent organization? if any? possible contractors?) agree yadada legal stuff. d1g 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: No input from Selenium for more than a month. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Elan Buller WR2011.jpg

Greetings,

I am interested in learning why this file was deleted. I am interested in getting it restored to Wikimedia commons.

All best, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaranski (talk • contribs)

It was deleted on September 9, 2017, with this comment: "Copyright violation; see COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on OTRS". Thuresson (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
El Funcionario nominated it for speedy deletion with reason "non-free media". Why it is non-free, that's not explained, but it has very small size and probably (s)he thought, that the file is not own work as claimed. So small photo is quite useless; if you have a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels, then you can re-upload it, bigger photo has bigger educational value and also then it's easier to believe own work. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Taivo -- too small to be useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:RENE VISCARRA.pdf

Como veran en las letras de abajo este archivo fue borrado el año 2015 cuando Rene Viscarra estaba vivo, el ahora esta muerto, fallecio el 14 de septiembre del 2017, por favor les pediria que restauren el file por lo largo de su carrera artistica que la comunidad boliviana debe saber gracias. (UNA SOLA VOZ)

Piensa si es adecuado continuar editando la página. A continuación, se proporciona el registro de borrado y traslados de esta página para más información: 

12:34 11 mar 2015 Basvb (discusión | contribuciones) borró la página File:RENE VISCARRA.pdf (Recreation of content deleted per community consensus: Deleted two weeks ago.)  (global usage; delinker log)
00:49 25 feb 2015 INeverCry (discusión | contribuciones) borró la página File:RENE VISCARRA.pdf (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:RENE VISCARRA.pdf)  (global usage; delinker log)

( UNA SOLA VOZ (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC) )

 Oppose We do not accept text articles. Please see Commons:Project scope/Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Guanaco (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: As Guanaco said, we do not host articles here. The text of this should be created on WP:ES. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Official Posters of all the entries.jpg

Dear users, I am requesting for undeletion of the file File:Official Posters of all the entries.jpg wherein this is my picture, I'm the one who took the picture. What's wrong with you all? Haroldok (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Jeff, you may want to revisit this. This was deleted because it is a photograph of a display of copyrighted posters and is therefore derivative of the copyrights of the posters. It cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holders of each of the posters.

It also serves no educational purpose because there is nothing in the filename, description, or categories that tells us anything about where, what, or when this is. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Derivative work of copyrighted posters. OTRS permission from each of the studios is highly unlikely. --Guanaco (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:CCGs.jpg deleted with no consensus because no final conclusion was met - it was still in the air when a user just deleted it in one fell swoop

The image in question was claimed to be derivative - but on another occasion it was claimed to not be De Minimis. Which is it? One or both? Concerning De Minimis I disagree, barely 10% of any single card was displayed and no logos or trademarks were displayed in their entirety, or even partial entirety in such a way that it could be recreated in whole again. Regarding derivative - the image was actually a conglomerate of many cards in an arrangement of my own creation. The top card was blank with no trademarks or logos, therefore nothing was fully displayed or fully distinguishable. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The first version, with the top card showing, clearly infringes on the copyright of the top card. The second version, with the top card blank, probably infringes on the copyrights of the remaining cards. Just as a paragraph from a long book has a copyright, so, a part of a graphic work has a copyright. Be that as it may, the second version is not useful for any educational purpose. This falls into one of our frequent traps -- if you had shown enough of the cards to be useful, you would infringe. If you don't infringe, then you haven't shown enough to be useful.

And, as for

"deleted with no consensus because no final conclusion was met - it was still in the air when a user just deleted it in one fell swoop"

the discussion was open for almost a month. It was long overdue to be closed. Only Leitmotiv supported keeping the image.

Finally, User:Leitmotiv, I see that you are new to Commons. Please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image again after it has been deleted. If you do so again, you may be blocked from editing here. The correct procedure is to bring the discussion here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  • JameslwoodwardJeff G. Not exactly new, but still green. I'll respond to your opinion that it is not of educational purpose. Even though the top card is blank it gives you an idea of size and shape of the cards below it. The cards below show a wide range of color and artistic styling to show you these aren't sports cards and do appear to have the finishings of game cards. So totally disagree - I mean by who's metric are you judging if something is educational or not? Yours? Why is yours the measuring bar? As for the discussion being closed, yeah it was summarily closed with no resolution. No one answered my questions which is frustrating. I can understand closing it, but if you put something up for discussion , then please discuss it. I can't learn if nothing is discussed. Having one person in the final seconds say "it's derivative" and then delete it, doesn't give me a chance to respond and nothing is being discussed. It's just a gavel coming down and the reason could have been anything such as "Because I said so." Leitmotiv (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Please understand that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 2,000 of them. About 10 Admins do most of that work, including reading and processing several hundred deletion requests. The average DR gets very little time spent on it. It would be better if we could spend more time and give more personal service, but we don't have enough volunteer time and the backlog is currently growing.
As far as who makes the decisions goes, the community does. So far four different experienced Commons users have spoken against this image: Hazmat2, Christian Ferrer, Jeff G., and me. Only you have spoken in favor of it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
To be fair Jameslwoodward Christian Ferrer had mixed answers as to why this file was deleted, and Hazmat2 never chimed in on the redone picture so his vote is nullified, though I would like to hear constructive criticism. Jeff G. has said he hasn't seen it, I would like him to. From you James, I would like an answer as to why this image is not educational. Humans have a strange ability to pull lots of information out of very little, so why can't an exception be made for this, which shows many cards in sum, if not in whole. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I haven't actually seen the images, but it does appear that Commons:Deletion requests/File:CCGs.jpg was closed properly.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Jeff G.Closed properly - sure I guess. Reviewed properly? Doubtful. Hazmat2 nominated the original file for deletion. I then altered per his comments. He then never further commented, so the original nomination was for something that no longer existed. Christian Ferrer closed the discussion down in one fell swoop (as I said before) after briefly commenting that it was derivative (which I object to) and I had no chance to comment. Coincidentally, on another talk page he said it wasn't De Minimis. For the inconsistency in his reasoning, I would like it re-reviewed with specific reasoning given. Because remember at the end of the day, I'm trying to learn so I can do this properly and add to the commons. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Leitmotiv: What Christian Ferrer did was not "briefly commenting", it is termed "Closure". Please read about it at Commons:Deletion policy#Closure. Derivative works of source works still under copyright in the country of creation or the US that do not use the source works in a de minimis fashion are not allowed here if even one of the source works were not allowed here.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Jeff G.Thanks for responding. Closure indeed without finalized commenting from Hazmat2 (because the file changed from the original). All right I understand de minimis, and I think my edited version of this file was de minimis. Jameslwoodward said if it's either too much or too little. Well I think I struck the right balance from the get go. It is minimal - nothing can be reproduced from it to recreate anything in the photo in entirety, let alone 25% or even 15%. However there are just enough slivers of cards visible to give a view of what card backs look like for these types of games. You get a striking comparison of colors and design. You get a sense of age for the cards pictured range from 24 years old to present. You can also identify that they don't look like sports cards as they're missing stats and other fine detail. You can also see they're not like regular playing cards (a la Poker or Gin Rummy). Jeff G. I know you haven't seen the photo, but I wish you could. As for derivative - I added enough cards from my personal collection that it's something someone couldn't specifically make or recreate unless they had the right combination of cards in their possession. The photo also features a splayed array of cards as if fanned out, perhaps if someone was viewing what cards they had in their hand or on the table top for the game they were playing. A faux wood background is also something none of these game publishers have created. The top card is not trademarked and is a blank and free for use. So I ask again why doesn't this picture qualify? On a side note, if someone could educate me, why is it that record album covers are allowed on Wikipedia? Leitmotiv (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"why is it that record album covers are allowed on Wikipedia?" First, WP rules are different from Commons -- fair use is allowed. Second, record album covers are not allowed on Commons unless (a) their copyright has expired or (b) we have a free license from the copyright holder.

De minimis applies only if the problem object is a small part of the image -- that the average viewer would not notice if it were removed. If you removed all of the problem objects from this image, then there would be nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward Could you please address my questions from earlier? (e.g. why is this picture not educational?) It's frustrating when I'm trying to do my due diligence and you guys aren't. As for your De minimis comment, I'm admittedly confused as to what you are trying to say and how this applies to the picture of discussion. As far as I'm concerned there are no problem objects because they are De minimis.
Also, concerning fair use on WP. Album covers seem to be very similar to game cards. How can I learn more? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hazmat2: any comment?   — Jeff G. ツ 11:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

De mimimis, again. The cards are copyrighted objects. De minimis applies only if the copyrighted object(s) could be removed from the image without the average viewer noticing the removal. Obviously, if the cards -- the copyrighted objects -- were removed from the subject image, there would be nothing left but a blank, so, again obviously, the average observer would notice the removal, and de minimis cannot apply. De minimis applies only to images that are almost entirely not copyrighted things -- for example, if you took a photo of a large room and this fan of cards was on a table to the side of the room -- not a central element -- then the fan could be de minimis.
As for not educational, that's not what I said. I said they were out of scope as not useful for an educational purpose. No one is going to use an image that has a blank on top of a fanned deck, and no one will use an image that shows only a part of the copyrighted cards. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward Now there's a fair response. Thank you. Does De minimis have a help page on this website that defines it more? Would love to learn more. Also concerning the semantics of your last remark: "out of scope" for "educational purpose"s and 'not educational' seems like a pretty blurry line. My question to you is, who are you to say "no one is going to use an image" like this? A little unfair to assume that. You don't know what people's needs are. Response? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Jim, as per my deletion rationale and as per my comment on my talk page. The cards are not De minimis and the image is still a derivative work in addition than to be unusable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer Can you explain to me how they are not De minimis? No single card is depicted more than 15%. That number seems to be De minimis to me. I've argued why the work is not derivative above, could you respond to that? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the draws of your composition is that it shows parts of copyrightable cards, these parts, as small as they are, are copyrightable too. And as they are, each of them, the main subject, these parts can not be considered De minimis. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you re-take such a picture with say solid-color backs of cards? That should be fine. If you think that such a picture would not be nearly as good, then you also think the quality of the picture is materially enhanced by the artwork (even partial artwork) seen on the back of the cards, which then means it's a derivative work and not de minimis. Derivative work status is not really a mathematical measure; it is more of how much your work is materially enhanced by the specific expression you are copying. There was a case where a fashion photographer had one of his models wear a pair of fancy glasses because he thought it looked better, even though the main point of the photos was the clothes the model was wearing -- the glasses turned out to be copyrighted, and the photo was ruled a derivative work. If you took a photo of someone happening to wear those glasses in public, that would probably not be derivative -- the inclusion of the glasses was not the photographer's choice in that case, but they happened to be there, and were presumably not the focus of the photo. But when you have full control over the content and arrangement of a photo, then you are intentionally including someone else's copyrighted expression for a reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: the last version of the deleted image is still available in google cache. I think it's a DW and anyway unusable because of the blanked first card. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that version in the cache, and that was the one I was commenting on. Even with the top card blanked, we are still using expression from the others. If we would fill in all the others with solid colors or something close, that would be OK -- but if you think the result is not as good, then the only difference between the two is someone else's copyrightable expression, meaning that materially enhances your photo and the usage of it without permission would be a copyright violation. It would only be de minimis if that part really didn't matter -- in which case, go ahead and make them solid colors anyways, to be safe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Clindberg I've abandoned saving this photo. James can't see the educational need behind it because he lacks an imagination (I tease affectionately). But I do get frustrated when people routinely don't answer my questions. You make me sound like a broken record, but it makes you guys look life deaf onlookers. I understand you are understaffed, but even an "I don't know" would suffice. But, if you guys think its not De minimis and derivative - so be it. I will probably upload a better picture as fair use without a blank card on top. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Request withdrawn: Leitmotiv: "I've abandoned saving this photo.". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Wellbappn

File:Hans Well (2015).jpg

This file is a picture of which there are no copyright restrictions. we are the owners of this picture. Please see our web site www.hans-well.de or www.wellbappn.de --Wellbappn (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose Die Datei hatte einen Vermerk zum Urheberrecht in den Metadaten (EXIF). Darum wurde sie vorsichtshalber gelöscht. Abgesehen davon wird das Bild bereits auf einem CD-Cover und auf der Webseite von Hans Well verwendet, ohne dass dort eine freie Lizenz angegeben ist. Für alle Werke, die bereits ohne freie Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden, bevor sie auf Commons hochgeladen wurden, brauchen wir grundsätzlich eine Bestätigung per Email durch den Fotografen. Zum "property"/Eigentum muss man auch betonen, dass der blosse Besitz eines Bildes und das vom Fotografen vielleicht eingeräumte Nutzungsrecht nicht dazu berechtigt, ein Bild frei zu lizensieren. Eine Creative Commons-Lizenz kann nach deutschem Recht nur der Fotograf eines Bildes verleihen. Egal, ob also jemand von euch, den Wellbappn, oder ein externer Fotograf das Bild erstellt hat, brauchen wir auf jeden Fall eine Email mit Bestätigung der freien Lizenz direkt durch den eigentlichen Fotografen. Die Anleitung dazu steht auf Commons:OTRS/de. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Siehe auch die Homepage des Fotografen Martin Bolle. Herr Bolle hat immer noch das Urheberrecht für diese Bilder, denn dieses kann nach deutschem Recht weder weitergegeben noch vom Inhaber verworfen werden. Um die Dateien wieder herzustellen, müsste Herr Bolle die Bilder per Email zum allgemeinen Gebrauch mit einer entsprechenden Lizenz freigeben. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Für alle drei: Nicht ohne OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The images have clear copyright notices in the EXIF. The web sites mentioned above are copyrighted (as is all creative work until the copyright expires), and have no free licenses. Policy requires that the photographer, Martin Bolle, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Naturism in Europe.jpg

Hi, here the license for the file ː https://www.deviantart.com/art/Naturism-in-Europe-711449005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngman24 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose ”Submitted on 2 hours and 38 minutes ago”. Wait for the OTRS to be processed. Thuresson (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Thuresson: There is a similar image by the same DA account, dated May 27, 2016. The account is 7 years old; I think it's legitimate. No copyright issues here. Guanaco (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose as outside the project scope. Highly overprocessed - please upload the other, undoctored photo. Guanaco (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Undoctored photo is here. Guanaco (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. I would oppose the undoctored photo as well. Both would be out of scope per COM:PENIS.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Princesse de Sagan (1).PNG

Bonjour,
le 14 octobre 2017, une procédure de suppression m'a été annoncée, ceci n'est pas une procédure immédiate, mais dès le lendemain 15 octobre 2017 le fichier a disparu et n'est plus accessible (a fortiori par le téléverseur que je serais)... Aucune raison n'est precisée. Pourriez-vous faire nécessaire pour qu'il réapparaisse et puisse être ainsi débattu par la communauté.
Merci et Cordialement. 6PO (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose These were deleted by Yann. with the comment "Paul Boyer died in 1952. Undelete in 2023." Commons Category:Paul Boyer says that he worked from 1888 until 1908 and died in 1952. The WP:FR article Paul Boyer (photographe) agrees. It cites his biographical page at The Bibliothèque nationale de France http://data.bnf.fr/14082259/paul_boyer/.

However, the WP:EN article Paul Boyer (photographer) says he died in 1908. The Metropolitan Museum of Art agrees with 1908, see https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/685316.

At first, I thought that this might be two different men, perhaps father and son, but all of the references give the same 1861 birth date. I am inclined to believe that the 1908 date is a mistake, taken from the fact that for some reason he stopped working then.

Unless it can be shown that the photographer of these images (and the others in the DR) did, in fact, die before 1947, we cannot restore them without a free license from his heirs via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The article on the English Wikipedia was created by me, and the 1908 date is an error. The BNF is a much more reliable source than this book on Google. The MMoA may have taken the date either from the same book I did, or from Wikipedia. I changed the article. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017 Honda CR-V.jpg

Hello, Please, undelete the file. The copyright holder has already sent a email with permission to use the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosachenkoa (talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait for OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket#2017092410011163 Selenium (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done:

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sputniko.jpg

日本語版:
再度投稿された際に実際のところどうなのかと疑問を感じ、この写真に映っているスプツニ子!氏に確認をメールで行ったところ、スプツニ子!氏はこの写真の著作権が自分にあることを認めた上で、併せてアカウント:LDukoff氏と同一人物であると証言を頂きました。必要があればメールの全文を公開する用意が御座います。削除依頼を提出しておいてお手数をお掛けしますが、撤回をお願いできませんでしょうか。よろしくお願い致します。--遡雨祈胡 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
English:
I asked Ms. Sptuniko! in e-mail about this picture when it was posted again, and in e-mail she answered she has copyrights of this picture and she has Wikimedia account LDukoff. If it is needed, I am ready to show the full e-mail texts. I'm so sorry that I did not ask it first time, but I hope this opinion will be recepted. Thank you so much.--遡雨祈胡 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for your advice. I sent e-mail to OTRS.--遡雨祈胡 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Waiting for OTRS to act. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Чорнобаївка. Вчора, сьогодні, завтра.pdf

The license CC BY-SA 3.0 is mentioned on the page 4, that's why the whole file was uploaded under this license. When somebody put a "no permission" template, I edited the file description and added the text that the permission is mentioned on the page four: it is written in Ukrainian, but there is a link to CC BY-SA 3.0 license there.

--Eusebius Talpa (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't read Ukrainian, so I don't know exactly what this PDF is, but it appears to be an extended article about a Ukrainian village. I see two problems:

First, we keep very few PDFs -- as a general rule only text documents that are needed for Wikitext or other WMF projects. This is an extended article. If it would be useful for WP:UK, it should be written there in Wiki markup so that it can be edited as needed.

Second, the PDF contains many photographs. Some of them are of copyrighted objects -- buildings, sculptures, drawings, printed materials from other sources. All of those photographs infringe on the copyrights belonging to the creators of the objects shown in them. I doubt very much that whoever created this document actually has a free license from each of those creators. I also wonder whether the author of the document has even bothered to license the photographs themselves. Bluntly, I think that while the author of the document has put a CC-BY license on it, he actually did not have all of the necessary licenses to put a CC-BY license on many of the photographs. We call this License Laundering and it is not permitted on Commons.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This was restored by Ahonc on the grounds that the no-permission deletion was incorrect and the issues I raised above should be discussed in a DR. Therefore, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Чорнобаївка. Вчора, сьогодні, завтра.pdf. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sir Peter Ramsbotham.jpg

The file was deleted on the basis that the photograph was taken by the subject’s father when it was actually taken and offered up by the heir of the heir of the subject, Hon Edward Herwald Ramsbotham. Further he wrote to Wikipedia (I think) confirming this. 2.26.225.222 09:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Please wait for the permission email to be processed. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ngau Tau Kok Fire in Level 4 view 20160623.jpg

This image originally taken by myself and uploaded on 24 June 2016. But I don't know why Walter De Havilland used my photo on his own blog on 9 July 2017. But the User:B dash labeled my photo is copyright violation and it is a mistake actually.This picture should be keep. --Wpcpey (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wpcpey: Restored by De728631.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Obviously a copyright infringement by the blogger and not by Wpcpey. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bakung 11 December 2014 0232Z.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Obviously NASA image, under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, suitable for Commons. B dash (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Restored - Jcb (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Richter 2017.jpg

Hello, my name is Horacio Martinez Bellon (a.k.a Zenitram Richter), I´m the singer of the electro-rock band Richter from Argentina, and I have recently upload an updated picture of the band (Richter 2017.jpg) that was deleted because of a possible copyright violation. That picture is an original picture property of myself and currently included in my band´s official website www.richternet.net , you can reach it at http://www.richternet.net/Foto-Richteria1.jpg . I probably used a popular word for the file name, and I supposed that it was the reason for which it was deleted, but that picture is entirely ours, we, ourselves, are depicted in it. That´s why i´m asking for its undeletion. I´ve just uploaded again the same picture with a more specific file name (Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg), in order not to confuse it with another files called "Richter", and linked my wikipedia pages to it, but i´m afraid that, if I don´t explain this situation to you, it will also be deleted. I uploaded all my images to wikicommons agreeing on a creative commons licence for free use, as you can see in the "permission" tags. Thank you very much.

(Zenitram richter (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC))

@Zenitram richter: Who is the actual photographer? The second file is named File:Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the picture is actually a selfie, the set was prepared for me and the picture was shot using a timer. The new file is named "Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg", but it is exactly the same picture, the same file with other name, and I´ve included the permission tag that lacked in the file (Richter 2017.jpg). Thank you very much again! --Zenitram richter (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The web site has an explicit copyright notice:

"Copyright © Todos los derechos reservados | RICHTER Electro-Rock - Site Oficial"

Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, you could change the web site copyright notice to include a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. We do this because we have no way of knowing who User:Zenitram richter actually is and we have many fans and vandals who think it is OK to lift an image off the web and post it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello James, I understant it, but I´m the owner of that website www.richternet.net, and I was the one who wrote that sentence there! And as the owner of it, i´ve recently sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org agreeing to publish the picture in Wikicommons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Like 4.0 International. I don´t know what else to do, I attached here the Whois Results with my data as owner of the website www.richternet.net where this picture is already published at the link http://www.richternet.net/Foto-Richteria1.jpg:

Do another WHOIS lookup
Domain Name: richternet.net
Registry Domain ID: 53278521_DOM AIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.register.com
Registrar URL: http://www.register.com
Updated Date: 2001-01-23T05:00:00Z
Creation Date: 2001-01-23T13:47:21Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-01-23T13:47:21Z
Registrar: Register.com, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 9
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8773812449
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Horacio M artinez Bellon
Registrant Organization: Horacio M artinez Bellon
Registrant Street: Don Bosco 3711
Registrant City: Buenos Aires
Registrant State/Province: Buenos Aires
Registrant Postal Code: C1206ABG
Registrant Country: AR
Registrant Phone: +54.1149826050
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext.:
Registrant Email: zenitram_richter@yahoo.com.ar
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Horacio M artinez Bellon
Admin Organization: Horacio M artinez Bellon
Admin Street: Don Bosco 3825 7 48
Admin City: Buenos Aires
Admin State/Province: CF
Admin Postal Code: 1206
Admin Country: AR
Admin Phone: +54.111541420144

Please, if you want to verify it, I would thank you, I don´t know what else to do, I´m the owner of that picture and I am, myself, pictured in it! I already sent this mail from zenitram_richter@yahoo.com.ar, my usual mailbox, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I, Horacio Martinez Bellon, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richter 2017.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Horacio Martinez Bellon (Zenitram Richter) www.richternet.net 2017-10-07

[generated using relgen]

Thanks again!!!

Horacio Martinez Bellon (Zenitram Richter) www.richternet.net --Zenitram richter (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The OTRS email you sent will probably sort this out (in time) but it would be quicker for you to post the desired license on the site that you control, instead of the contradictory claim that you reserve all rights. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As I said above, the problem with any statement made here is that we do not know who User:Zenitram richter actually is -- he could be a fan, a vandal, or, as claimed, H.M. Bellon. So all of the statements above prove nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 Not done Web site still has the same explicit copyright notice. Thuresson (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Det JoKa008-Model.pdf

This file is ONLY published under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use.

— @Jcb: on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Det_JoKa008-Model.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1

This is nonsense, this file is ALSO published under a license that does allow unrestricted commercial use ({{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}).

More information can be found here: User_talk:Jcb#deleting_a_multilicend_file_under_cc-by-sa-4.0_and_cc-by-nc-sa and de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Mehrfachlizensierung_cc-by-sa_und_cc-by-nc-sa

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions (Author of the file) 11:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Restored - file was tagged for speedy deletion by UDR nominator, but apparently they didn't mean to do that - Jcb (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Azarova red and white.jpg is my work

File:Azarova red and white.jpg is my own work and there is no copyright violation- why is this user targeting 3 files I uploaded without any explanation.

Why is this user getting my copyright free pics I took myself deleted?

Again an unwarranted deletion of my own work. Mplungjan (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose An explanation was given in the closing comment for each of these. The first appears on Facebook which is copyrighted. The other two appear at https://azarova.com/gallery.php where there is an explicit copyright notice: "© Copyright, 2017 Svitlana Azarova". Policy requires that the actual copyright holder(s), which is usually the photographer, not the subject, send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2010MikeLecuyerCD400.jpg

Hi, Permission was granted by Template:OTRS ticket kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kvardek du: Restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Hedwig. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bannière Fan Club PlayStation Version 2.jpg

bonjour cette image à été réalisé par mes soint. elle est libre de droit. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.136.85.60 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a derivative work consisting of lots of non-free components. De728631 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. While your sister may have a new copyright for her work in assembling this, there are at least a dozen copyrighted images in this and there is no evidence that any of them are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Derivative work, with many non-free components, and the image is outside our project scope. --Guanaco (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Percy Morley Horder

This request relates to the PDF table of the Complete Works of Percy Richard Morley Horder (MY GRANDFATHER !!). I have pictures of him here in my home which I uploaded. I think all of which have been removed. I also have A3 copies of a very large record book of my Grandmother who kept a record of every building my Grandfather built or made alterations, additions to. I am one of 6 children of the daughter of Morley Horder, who was Joanna Horder (see her on Theatricalia website). I painstakingly typed all the Complete works of my Grandfather into a table, saved to PDF and wanted it to be on his Wikipedia but someone who knows nothing about me or my Grandfather's work has decided to remove it.

I am happy to get Professor Clyde Binfield (who was going to write a book on my Grandfather and had all the copies of the record book) and Celia Hughes of the National Trust who is currently involved with an exhibition of Upton House, Nr. Banbury, Oxford, a stately home that my Grandfather remodelled in 1927. These two will vouch for the veracity of my work.

I just think it is ridiculous. Obviously I will own photos and possessions that belonged to my Grandfather if I am the maternal granddaughter, so copyright is mine.

Louise Mclean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise Horder Mc. (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 October 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose [The following is copied from my talk page:]

Louise, PDFs of tabular material are out of scope for Commons. If needed for the article Percy Richard Morley Horder, the material in the table should be set in a Wikitable. That would make it editable and sortable and in this case would allow the addition of photographs of the various works mentioned. Wikitables can be a bit daunting -- I find the easiest thing is to copy a similar one into a sandbox and experiment.
I also note that the document has no citations to outside sources. Before the material could be posted to WP:EN, you would have to find and provide "reliable published sources" for the information presented there. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for a full statement of the policy. Similar policies exist on other WPs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect to the photographs, owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it here. You claim that you are the photographer of them, but that is obviously incorrect. Two of these appear to be formal studio portraits and the third is that or might be a painting. In almost every case, the copyright to photographs remains with the photographer (or his heirs). The exception is if the photographer executed a explicit written transfer of the copyright. Since you don't apparently know the names of the photographers, you probably don't have such a document. Therefore the images cannot remain here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, although the poor quality may preclude these versions actually being used on WP:EN. It would better if the photos were taken out of their frames and scanned, rather than being photographed from a distance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No response for two weeks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Solar_Eclipse_of_November_3,_2013,_Observed_from_Space.gif

The claimed source was published on 2017-08-18, more than a year after initial upload here on 2015-11-16. CC @B dash and Jcb: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I still don't think this is own work, unless the uploader owns a spacecraft. Jcb (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose According to the file description, the image is from moments-from-space.com. Its web site says, "All contents of the Moments from Space website are protected by copyright." The earth image is from the European Agency for the Use of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) whose images are not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, this uploader participated in a science photo competition for a Christ sake. Scientists at EUMETSAT have a right to publish their materials here if they wish to do so.
Not to mention that deleting it was a blatant vandalism (and I will not even go to comment on that kind of stupid remarks as "unless the uploader owns a spacecraft", that demonstrate a total lack of understanding of science or copyright or both). Not checking the article date and upload date is an unacceptable mistake. Deletions are not some minor things to play with.
I do demand a fast restoration of this file. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You are not in a position to 'demand' things and that's not how our processes work. And refrain from personal attacks, or you will get blocked at some point. Shame on you! An OTRS agent should be the last one to expect this kind of behaviour from. Jcb (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
From an OTRS agent, I would not expect deletions that are based on not checking the source information. And who is the one making threats at a moment! Kruusamägi (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
What copyright violation? Kruusamägi (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: EUMETSAT holds copyrights to its data, and sells some of it. I cannot find on https://www.eumetsat.int any license free enough for us to publish that data. Can you?   — Jeff G. ツ 22:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The EUMETSAT data policy is linked to Oslo Declaration that among other things state that "EUMETNET members should expand the set of graphical products accessible free of charge to the public [...] whilst continuing to license as appropriate the underlying digital data and products". But things like that are not so relevant anyway. I could also upload my images to Commons, and whatever is stated in other web pages, where my images are present, isn't relevant.
Question is if Maximilian Reuter has right to publish that kind of images under CC BY-SA 4.0 license and if that person really was him. Based on the information, that this file was first uploaded to Commons (i.e. it wasn't possible to access that from any other source prior to the upload) then there is no reason to assume, it could have been someone else. And we should work with the assumption that this scientist has knowledge on what he can and can't do.
If that is felt to be necessary to confirm if he did understand what he was doing with licensing, then it is always possible to send him a letter. Deleting images based on misguided data and false arguments can't be a way forward and should not be tolerated. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"accessible free of charge to the public" is nowhere close to a compatible free license. But the "And we should work with the assumption that this scientist has knowledge on what he can and can't do." is really shocking. An OTRS agent should always carefully evaluate any incoming ticket. Assuming that someone would be right because they are a 'scientist' is ridiculous. I have seen many mistaken claims from scientists. I am afraid that we will have to check all OTRS tickets you have processed. Please don't touch any more ticket as long as you lack basic understanding of our rules and processes. Jcb (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Offcourse "accessible free of charge to the public" doesn't mean the images should be licensed under CC SA-BY 4.0! What that means, is that publishing content under some that kind of license might not be prohibited by the institution. And this is an important statement to bring in the possibility, that this license could have been lawfully used in the first place (i.e. there could be some of the materials, that may be used more freely). We haven't identified anyway it that specific file falls under that, but it is nevertheless important to note to the possibility of exceptions.
"we should work with the assumption" means that we should at least try to assume the person (scientist or not) may have some understanding of what he is doing and not start with the assumption that there is no way he knew what he was doing. This is a common courtesy. How the hell did you read out from that, that this means "Assuming that someone would be right because they are a 'scientist'". No, really. You are an absolute idiot. You just constantly keep on proving it. How exactly do you process your OTRS tickets? Kruusamägi (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: @Max r punkt: In undeletion requests relating to copyright and licensing, the onus is on the requestor/uploader to prove they had the authority to issue the alleged license. I have yet to see such proof in this case. It may be sent via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is unlikely that any permission may ever arrive as long as uploader isn't notified. He participated in a competition many years ago and haven't uploaded any images since then. It is reasonable to assume that he may not even have logged-in since 2015 and never seen what happened to the image. Should I write to him or do you want to do that yourself? Kruusamägi (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No action on this for a week. o valid reason for restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Хайруллин Айрат Ринатович.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've made this photo and loading it by the permission of the person in the pic. What I need to do to convince you? Almet (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://zt116.ru/2017/05/pozdravlenie-glavy-almetevskogo-rajona-s-dnem-vesny-i-truda/ with "Региональная газета "Знамя Труда" © 2017". In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Хайруллин Айрат Ринатович.jpg This is the official photo of the person-politician, the Head of the District, which is used in the congratulations with the holidays. It can be used in regional newspapers, sites such as http://zt116.ru/2017/05/pozdravlenie-glavy-almetevskogo-rajona-s-dnem-vesny-i-truda/ with "Региональная газета "Знамя Труда" © 2017". How I can convince you that this photo was made by me, the representative of the Press-servise of the Head, a person in the pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almet (talk • contribs) 05:18, 18 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Again, because it has appeared elsewhere without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No response for ten days -- needs OTRS per Jeff. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-10&oldid=305151490"