Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-03

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:Cultivate our blood in aeon - EP.jpg

This photo has taken by me with my girlfriend as the model. So tell me where is the violation of the photo rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincea (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Yann, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Maureen O'Hara Awarded Oscar for Lifetime Achievement - Nov. 8, 2014.jpg

This photo is the only proper photo for this subheading - in it's proper context. Owned by June Parker Beck who took the photo at the event. It properly shows her holding the Oscar and it is the only photo that respects Ms. O'Hara and her memory. To show any other photo that shows her in a candid position is disrespectful to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulPyle (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

PaulPyle and the other account that uploaded this same file Lelajay101 (talk · contribs) are suspected sock puppets of Dingledancer (talk · contribs) [all three accounts have uploaded files of O'Hara with the same rationale and added them to her English Wikipedia article with similar edit summaries and tagging the edit as minor -- there are few to no edits outside of this narrow interest]. The photo is owned by AMPAS and was taken by one of their frequent photographers, Matt Petit. DrKay (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I closed this request -- there is no CU evidence that the accounts are related. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Фото могилы Н. В. Гоголя в Москве.jpg

please don't delete it's free photo --Yora gets (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 05:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Фотография могилы Н. В. Гоголя в Москве.jpg

don't delete, it's free photo --Yora gets (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:20150908 5ccfe740030422febfa9cb6bd473eb4f-2.jpg

please don't delete it's free photo --Yora gets (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bhadrakali Mishra.jpg

This file was requested for deletion noting that "no own work / please see credit in photo. Pitpisit (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)"

Reason for undeletion: That is a photo from my archives, it says clearly in the watermark on the photo. I own all rights to that photo and put it on wikipedia for free and non commercial use, under the appropriate license.

Thank you and hope you can restore it.

Himalayanbullet (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a physical copy of a photograph does not make you the copyright holder. Copyright is held by the photographer or his heirs, and only they can grant a licence that is compatible with the requirements of Wikimedia Commons. That said, the non-commercial licence printed on the photo itself would also have been a reason for deletion. Files at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial activities. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: NC licenses and licenses requiring that the user notify the copyright holder, both of which are present here, are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg

The uploader only replied to enquiries at AN/U after these files had been deleted for their confusing exif. The uploader does seem to be the copyright holder after all of File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg and File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User_MarkVII88 - Takeaway (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the comment, copied from ANU:

"Hello, this is MarkVII88. I am not sure if I am putting this information in the correct spot as the only thing I know how to do on Wikimedia Commons is upload my images and post to monthly photo contests. I am sorry for the confusion about the copyright info for my uploaded images. My name is actually Lee Stirling and my commonly used username is MarkVII88. This username dates back to my very first car which was a 1988 Lincoln MarkVII. About the copyright info, the camera that I am using is a used Nikon D700 that used to belong to my father-in-law whose name is A. Mark Gadue. I did not realize that he had that information stamped into the EXIF data for the images that come off this camera. Since receiving your first notice about my images, I delved into the camera menu and updated this copyright information to my own name. For any confusion I apologize. I understand if you still feel the need to delete any and all submissions I have made with the old image copyright." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkVII88 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just because it is a wonderful lighthouse picture, but I am inclined to believe MarkVI88.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:יובל מלחי בשידור.jpg

תמונה שצילמתי בסלפי. לא מצליח להעלות. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvalyuval (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The image has not been deleted and there is no indication that it will be. However, you need to add useful categories, the name of the subject, and the name of the place where it was taken. The only file description:

עברית: תמונה באולפן התאגיד
The studio of the corporation
translator: Google

is not useful and without categories it will be lost among our 40+ million images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. However it may be out of scope without more information, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:RichardMLocke.jpg

Hello,

This file is indeed a creative commons license, and therefore should be allowed.

File:RichardMLocke.jpg

Here are the CC 2.0 license and link via Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brownuniversity/39331896745/

Anything I can do to help, please let me know - thank you.

--Jmurphy88 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr account looks very much like it is owned by the University. Unfortunately, however, if you go to www.brown.edu, they show icons for eight social media sites at the bottom of the page. Flickr is not one of them, so I have to agree with Ron -- lets get an OTRS record that shows that the Flickr account actually belongs to Brown -- or, if it doesn't, inform Flickr. I'll get off a message from OTRS today..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Message sent. Ticket #2018022010014348. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Richard M. Locke.jpg

Hello,

Please undelete this image: File:Richard M. Locke.jpg as it is indeed a creative commons license.

This is the official Brown University Flickr account, who owns this image and has made it available for use: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brownuniversity/39331896745/in/photolist-22VCfAM

--Jmurphy88 (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose A single image account, created a fortnight ago, exactly after the file has been first deleted, missing EXIF, very likely to be flickrwashing. At the same time the photo at the Brown University website has complete metadata: Creator: Peter Goldberg / Address: 545 Pawtucket Ave. (#405), Pawtucket, Rhode Island, 02860, USA / Contact: peter@petergoldbergphoto.com, 401-742-7771, petergoldbergphoto.com / Copyright:© 2017 Peter Goldberg. Sealle (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done written permission from Peter Goldberg is required. Ankry (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Jacques Palumbo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017082310020166.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC) AntonierCH (d) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted. @AntonierCH: . Thuresson (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC) So ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Siguev Chaika.jpg

This image doesn't in accordance with policy. I know this person and he gave me the permisson to use this photo. I'm his agent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaparovmm (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject of a photograph rarely has the right to freely license it. Unless the subject has a formal written transfer or license from the photographer, only the photograph can freely license it as required by Commons.

In order for this image to be restored, either (a) the photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license, together with evidence that the subject has the right to freely license it, also using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 March 2018‎ (UTC)

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

Files under Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted

Due to recent amendments in the Albanian copyright law, as updated in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Albania, I am more than happy to request the undeletion of the following files, from Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted:


182 Files
*File:07Durres06.jpg

CC @Margott: , @Liridon: . Thank you. Gikü (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Interesting. Albania has gone from having no FOP to having FOP for all works, including text, permanently located in certain places. The recent change at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania says "permanently located in public ways, street or places". Google translates Article 82 to read "permanently located in the street, shuttles, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public", which is much narrower -- "places" could mean almost anything. I think we need a trusted person who reads Albanian to interpret Article 82 for us.

However, it is clear that we need to restore most of these. A fast look suggests that some of them are indoors and therefore do not qualify unless "places" is read very broadly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Gikü: for ping. This one, in general is translated correctly. Detailed translation as it is in Article 82: 1. Reproduction of works without the authorization of the author or copyright holder and without remuneration, which are permanently located on the street, landings, parks or other squares which are accessible by the public, as well as distribution, transmission to the public of these reproductions. 2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this article can not be reproduced in three-dimensional form. 3. With regard to the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply only with respect to the external appearance of the architectural structure. 4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the source and authorship shall be indicated these copies, when this is possible.--Liridon (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Liridon, as I said above, "public ways, street or places" is very different and much broader than "the street, landings, parks or other squares". The former could include indoor places and many more outdoor places. If your translation in the paragraph immediately above is correct, then we need to change the one at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a better English word here than "squares", because I'm having no success in making it make sense in the context. Given no knowledge of Albanian and the discussion above, I'd guess "places" was a good translation. Do you mean a w:town square? That doesn't really make sense in context, since streets, and parks aren't squares. I'm not exactly sure what a landing (or shuttle, as it's put above) means in this context. It's clear that it's pretty broad, but the exact meaning is not coming through in the English translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, I don't see any problem with "squares". Our translation of the Spanish law and our clarification of the German law both use it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Spanish law is translated as saying "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places ...". Our interpretation of the German phrasing says "outside on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas)". In those cases, squares means w:town squares, I think, and the overall statements are inclusive enough I don't feel I have to worry about that specific word over much. But in "the street, landings, parks or other squares", it can't mean w:town squares in the sense I understand that term, because streets and parks aren't town squares.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, The wording seems to mean "public places outside of buildings". So it would not cover, for example, railway and metro stations, which are covered in some other countries. Is that right? Regards, Yann (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"squares" (sheshe) means w:town square, and the other word "sheshpushim" that I have translated "landing" is something related to squares, unfamiliar word for me, so I used google translate for that. @Margott: or @Arianit: maybe can give us a better explanation.--Liridon (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we think it is as broad as Yann suggests with "public places outside of buildings". What about works sitting on private property that are visible from public places? I would include them because otherwise most buildings in a town would not be covered. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It's tough using Google Translate for legal stuff when trying to determine the edges like this. When I put the law into Google, I don't see "other squares" but rather just "squares". I get permanently placed on public roads by public roads, shuttles, parks or squares. The word sheshpushime is "shuttles" there, which doesn't make much sense. Putting in that word individually gets "landing" or "level landing", and sheshpushim gives "vestibule", which makes a tiny bit more sense but would include the entrances to buildings as part of the law (though not anywhere else inside). It does sort of sound like it would be works put in public outdoor places, or meant to be seen from those places (I think the law says situation on or by the named places, so something on private property just off of those public places would seem fine -- but probably not something you can just glimpse at long distances. I suspect we don't have a good translation for that sheshpushime word yet. But it does sound closer to the German one, and Yann's interpretation, though the law does not seem to have an open-ended "or other similar" wording, but rather the named locations. Not sure what examples there would be of outdoor public places that are not named though. On the other hand... I just found an English translation here which translates the clause as: There is permitted the reproduction of works, without the authorization of the author or the holder of the copyright and without remuneration, which are permanently located in the street, public squares, parks or other spaces accessible to the public, as well as the distribution to the public of these reproductions. That sounds broader, though still feels like outdoor-only. I'm not sure what the source of that translation is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, this is good news, I wasn't aware. Here is my translation of Article 82:

Albanian Neni 82 Riprodhimi i veprave të vendosura në mënyrë të përhershme në vende publike

1. Lejohet riprodhimi i veprave, pa autorizimin e autorit ose titullarit të së drejtës së autorit dhe pa shpërblim, të cilat janë në mënyrë të përhershme të vendosura në rrugë, sheshpushime, parqe ose sheshe të tjera që janë të aksesueshme nga publiku, si dhe shpërndarja, përcjellja ndaj publikut e këtyre riprodhimeve.

2. Veprat e referuara në pikën 1, të këtij neni, nuk mund të riprodhohen në formë tredimensionale.

3. Për sa i përket riprodhimit të strukturave arkitekturore, pika 1, e këtij neni, zbatohet vetëm në lidhje me pamjen e jashtme të strukturës arkitekturore.

4. Në rastet e parashikuara në pikën 1, të këtij neni, do të tregohen burimi dhe autorësia e këtyre kopjeve, në rastet kur kjo është e mundur.

English Article 82 Reproduction of works deployed permanently in public places

1. Reproduction without the authorization of the author or the copyright holder and without reward is allowed, of works permanently located in the streets, vestibules, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public, as well distribution, delivery to the public of these reproductions.

2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may not be reproduced in three-dimensional form.

3. As regards the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the architectural structure.

4. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, source and authorship of the copies should be indicated where this is possible.

Arianit (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I expected this discussion to be initially in the FoP discussion page, and after 48 hours I took the initiative to change the Albanian section of the article. Anyway, after I put the translation from google translate, I made a little more correct translation, explaining what the law refers to. @Carl Lindberg The best translation of the word "Sheshpushim" it is "Break square" because it is a compounded word by Shesh = Square and Pushim = Break (Bes-ARTTalk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC))
  • Comment: seems pretty clear that a translator got confused between "place" and "plaza". While sometimes in the English-speaking world a plaza has a proper name using "Place" instead of "Plaza", as a common noun, "plaza" would clearly be the choice. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks. That seems in line with the other English translation I found and linked above. Just one question -- what are the words which indicate "or other open areas" ? It does seem like an explicit list of locations otherwise. But it does seem restricted to outdoor locations only, and things like train stations may not qualify. In general though, for buildings and most public works, it seems like a pretty full FoP either way. Mainly a question on the small details. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Carl Lindberg, actually "or other open areas" should be translated differently, the Albanian phrase is: ose sheshe të tjera and it actually means or other squares. I think the first one should be translated like this: Its allowed the reproduction without the authorization of the author or the copyright holder and without reward, of works permanently located in the streets, vestibules, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public, as well the distribution and delivery to the public of these reproductions. @ User:Bes-ART what do you think? Open areas can be interpreted differently. --Margott (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Bes-ART, Margott, could you clarify "vestibules", please? A vestibule is an interior space, but 82-3 clearly limits the FoP to exterior appearance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, Margott, I think the current translation made by me and improved by Kj1595 it is the best translation that we can made, HERE.
1) Reproduction of works permanently found in public spaces: streets, squares, parks, rest areas and other open areas that are accessible to the public is allowed without the authorization and compensation from and towards the author or copyright holder.

There is no reference to "vestibules" in the first paragraph because the only translation we can do of the Albanian word "sheshpushime" it is "rest areas". And when it says "other open areas" refers to all the spaces that are accessible to the public, such as the terraces; external private spaces BUT open to the public; and other things like these. (Bes-ARTTalk 11:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC))

In Albania we call sheshpushim also the hall inside a building, so its not limited to exterior appearance. And actually the only Albanian word which make sense for vestibule is sheshpushim. So in this case is a bit tricky. Probably we should translate in smth like "Exterior Public Space"? --Margott (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Im not sure of that. For the internal spaces to which you refer we use mostly the word "holl" which can be translated as "lobby" or aslo "vestibule". As I said above, the word "Sheshpushim" is a compound word and the right translation would be "Break Square", but it does not make much sense in English and the only solution is "Rest areas". (Bes-ARTTalk 11:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC))

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. I think we have an agreement on the language. Now, getting back to the problem at hand, I think we need to restore most, but not all of these, as some appear to be indoors which are not covered by the new law. Comments? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made a start on restoring these -- feel free to lend a hand. As I noted above, some will not qualify. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I am restoring some. What still need to be done: moved the DRs from Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted to Category:Albanian FOP cases/kept (or Category:Albanian FOP cases/restored?); add a {{FoP-Albania}} template to all images. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done  Comment Yann and I have finished restoring all but the several that are indoors and therefore not covered by the new law. Now, in addition to the several changes suggested by Yann, someone -- it does not need to be an Admin -- must remove the {{Delete}} tag from most of the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
And done on the {{Delete}} removals. --Majora (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Mahtab Keramati, Charity Exhibition of Workshop Artworks of Nadereh Hakim Elahi, Rasht, 5 July 2016 (02).jpg

A work by www.khoobankhabar stated on website footer "All Content by Khooban khabar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License", seems that http://www.8deynews.com is host for the picture. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you showed:

"author=8deynews.com Mohammad Saeed Saeedi"

If Mohammad Saeed Saeedi is the author, then a CC-BY license by Khooban khabar is irrelevant. You also say their that

"source=http://www.8deynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/تصاویر-نمایشگاه-مادر-ترانه-علیدوستی-مهتاب-کرامتی-رشت-vaj-hofhv-vaj-vaj-vs-vaj-kdc-15.jpg"

The named source, http://www.8deynews.com, shows "Copyright© www.8deynews.com 2012-2015 - All rights reserved". I don't see how we can restore this without a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I just was searching about free licensed pics by google, and found them. This files comes from same source File:Mahtab Keramati, Charity Exhibition of Workshop Artworks of Nadereh Hakim Elahi, Rasht, 5 July 2016.jpg, File:Mahtab Keramati, Charity Exhibition of Workshop Artworks of Nadereh Hakim Elahi, Rasht, 5 July 2016 (03).jpg and File:Mahtab Keramati, Charity Exhibition of Workshop Artworks of Nadereh Hakim Elahi, Rasht, 5 July 2016 (04).jpg, should be deleted like that one. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. I deleted the other files. --Yann (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Karolina Smęda-Drzycimska (2).jpg

The picture comes from private resources of Mrs. Karolina Smeda-Drzycimska and I ask for its restoration to her side, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donay (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the photographer (that it was "own work"). Now you say that someone else was the photographer. That makes it difficult to believe that you are correct. In any case, "private resources of Mrs. Karolina Smeda-Drzycimsk" is not an acceptable source for Commons. In order to restore the image, we will need the actual photographer to send a free license using OTRS or, if Smeda-Drzycimska has a formal written license from the photographer allowing her to freely license the image, we will need evidence of that, also using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Donay: either permission from the photographer, or from the person who has legal contract with the photographer about copyright transfer (together with evidence of such a contract) should be send following these instructions in order to restore the photo in Wikimedia Commons. However, as I can see, there are doubts whether the depicted person is notable, so the photo may be out of Wikimedia Commons scope. I suggest to wait for a decision in this discussion before taking further steps. Ankry (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above : if a permission is sent by the copyright holder then the image will be automatically restored. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Tkhan.png

that photo is from command eleven website, tell me the legal way how i can get their permission. Secondly if the resulting website does not have any interaction system regarding permission allowance then how we will get that permission.Till i sort out their permission i request you to delay the delete process for this file.Waiting for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikhan090 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is from https://www.commandeleven.com/team/lt-general-r-tariq-khan/, which is clearly marked "© 2016 commandeleven. All rights reserved." In order for the image to be restored, the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, must send a free license following the instructions at OTRS. A first step in that process would be for you to send a message from https://www.commandeleven.com/contact/.

Commons policy requires deletion on sight of images such as this one that have clear and explicit copyright notices, see Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File. It cannot be kept without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alikhan090: If you did not get approptiate permission from the copyright owner, you must not upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, the actual copyright holder must send a free license following the instructions at OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Officiële logo van Vliegclub Haamstede.jpg

Please UNDELETE the logo! I have requested an undelate a time ago but no reaction. I have created the logo by myself. I am the owner of the intellectual properties of the artwork So there is no need to delete the logo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroenvink (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeroenvink: Presumably, this is about File:Officiële logo van Vliegclub Haamstede.jpg. What do you mean by "no reaction"? Did you follow the instructions given in response to your previous request to provide permission via e-mail? If you did, then please note that, as mentioned at Commons:OTRS, there is a 39-day backlog for processing permissions, and there have only been 10 days since your previous request. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done waiting tor OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Фото могилы Н. В. Гоголя в Москве.jpg File:Фотография могилы Н. В. Гоголя в Москве.jpg

One of my loaded photo is free to use, if source is pointed (look bottom of the site): http://www.planetadorog.ru/r/novodeviche_kladbishhe/

Here's the quote from the author-site: 

© 2007-2018 planetadorog.ru - ... All rights to published audio, video, graphic and text materials belong to their owners. With full or partial use of any site materials, an active hyperlink to http://www.planetadorog.ru/ is required.

That's it. Cause when I have published the photo – I pointed the link to original source-site. So I did all right. So please get back photo, that I pointed by link below: http://www.planetadorog.ru/img/reports/649/novodeviche_kladbishhe_24.jpg

p.s. I don't remember how exactly I gave name the photo:

1) File:Фото могилы Н. В. Гоголя в Москве.jpg

or

2) File:Фотография могилы Н. В. Гоголя в Москве.jpg

Compare it with original photo by link above.--Yora gets (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can an Admin please extract the alleged sources of these two files for further discussion? The information above does not indicate a free license.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The above requirements contradicts with CC-BY/CC-BY-SA license where we are required to provide the author name but we cannot require to provide a source (and adding such requirement makes CC license invalid). Commons-compatible license is required to be sent to OTRS by appropriate copyright owners in both cases. Ankry (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Also freedom "to use" is not enough; we need explicite permission for derivative works creation. Ankry (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-free photographs, see COM:Лицензирование#Разрешённые лицензии. --Sealle (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gogi Georgevich Totibadze.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion invalid: the copyright request was sent on 24/02/2018. Ticket number: 2018022410004119 Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done waiting for OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Tracert9000

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the owner of the company Gelatin Art Market that holds the copyright on these images. This is my material and I am fully authorized to share it. Please let me know if you need further proof. Please unblock the files. Tracert9000 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tracert9000: Please have a look at the instructions at COM:OTRS to assert your copyright per our policy for previously published files. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 09:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rainer Devens.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung, das Ticket#2018012810006031 wurde von mir (OTRS member) übersehen, die Beantwortung folgt noch. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please restore, the ticket #2018012810006031 was overlooked by me (OTRS member), the answer is still coming. Bye -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support with convenience link Ticket:2018012810006031. OP is an OTRS member.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Raboe001: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Danke THX -- Ra Boe watt?? 11:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Cheesy FM Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My company (Cheesy FM Ltd) owns the copyright to the logo, and the trademark. As the logo is for our station page on Wikipedia, I'd like it to be un-deleted. Linden.wade (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Linden.wade: Logos that are not freely-licensed by their copyright owners or in Public Domain for some reason (eg. too simple for copyright) cannot be stored in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Großherzog Friedrich I und Aristide Baltazzi.png

salut je voudrais demander la restauration de ces portraits aristocratiques du 18ème siècle avec les artistes suivants qui ont créé le portrait

--Egualem (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Info Uploads by User:A3cb1. Thuresson (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Request can be resubmitted by a non-sockpuppet. ~riley (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by A3cb1. @Vituzzu, Elcobbola, and Ruthven: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support Reopened, as requested above, by a non-sockpuppet. While the requester may be a sock, these are useful images -- portraits of notable people. Refusing to restore them here means that sooner or later someone else is going to upload them again. That's an (admittedly tiny) waste of computer resources and a larger waste of human resources. As a CU, I have good reason to not like sockpuppets, but as an ordinary Commons user, I don't like seeing our human resources wasted making uploads a second time when we already have the images.

Also note that I don't like to see UnDRs closed in less than 24 hours unless the result is restoration for obvious reasons -- the community had an informal agreement about that some years ago, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

LTA shouldn't be encouraged, also, don't forget you cannot even rely upon titles. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support if a non-LTA user finds them useful and declares to verify their authors/dates/copyright status/etc. @Vituzzu: indeed, we should not encourage LTAs, but discouraging them should not be done via preventing some useful content to be uploaded. Most of the images contains reliable source information. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful in a short term, while we've been paying damages by this LTA on a long-term. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per discussion, old enough. P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Diretor Flavio Langoni.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I, Wagner RMS, I'm a screenwriter, and I work on the same team as director Flávio Langoni. I was screenwriter of the webseries of this director, "Onda Zero" and "Nomade 7", and I have full release of it to build the profile of this director on Wikipedia, using files produced by us and our authorship, which is the case of this image which is improperly being recorded as copyright infringement. If in doubt, please contact Flávio Langoni directly at [e-mail removed] or our producer Lívia Pinaud (who speaks English) at [e-mail removed]. Thank you in advance for your attention. WagnetRMS (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please do not publish other people's e-mail addresses on a public forum. Secondly, this particular photo was published on Facebook on February 8, 2018 (here). Please ask the copyright owner to verify the licensense by using the process outlined at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia has strict rules about conflict of interest and, since you are, as you say, on the same team as Flávio Langoni, you are in violation of them if you edit his WP page. Please see WP:COI. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Micha lakin avni 2017.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have received the photograph from the person in it - Mich Laikin Avni himself, it was taken by Rita Avni, his wife. the same photo does appear on ynet website - but it has no credit for Rita there, or to any other photographer what so ever.

therefor, my upload does not violate any rights, the photo is being used by permission. 207.232.40.45 15:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Written permission from the photographer following COM:OTRS instructions is necessary here. Or a clear declaration on ynet.co page that the photo is freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry, the actual copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS or a legitimate source freely licensed must be provided. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I own the image and grant permission for public use

I am Greg Shepard, owner of the website that the image originates. You can verify this by emailing me at <snipped for privacy>.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregsMojo (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 Oppose You did not say what image you wanted restored, but I assume it is one of your two uploads:

The second image can be restored only if the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim : "The second image can be restored only if the actual copyright holder sends a free license using OTRS". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Alberto Urdiales y Francisco José Caro.JPG

Please, undeletion this photo. I understand why I was deleted it. This photo is about a two Spanish journalists and commentators of TVE, Francisco José Caro Escudero and Alberto Urdiales. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 01:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vivaelcelta:  Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alberto Urdiales y Francisco José Caro.JPG unless and until you can satisfactorily explain why this photo is within our project scope.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I want this photo to illustrate the Alberto Urdiales's article in Wikipedia. I think this is a good reason. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 02:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vivaelcelta: ✓ Done: restored: in scope. Ankry (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Siriu2

I'm a charting music artist with references. Can't find myself in delete log. What did I do wrong? Please.

Hi this is for file: "Siriu2" (music artist, DJ, motivational speaker). I couldn't find my delete lot explanation, but I cited references proving that I'm a charting artist and thought I did a good job following the guidelines. Please help!--Siriu2 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Siriu2,
You have no deleted file on Commons. I suppose you are talking about Wikipedia, which is a separate project. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Siriu2: According to our logs, your only other contribution to WMF projects is en:Draft:Siriu2.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No file to undelete. Ankry (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shahr Theatre

City Theater of Tehran is WFH and based on Intellectual property in Iran after 30 years it's free. There are many photos from this building here. MasoodHA (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support 70 pma definitely does not apply to Iran. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt we can go on here without explanation how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran, especially concerning architecture. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ankry: See my recent comment on "how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran." --Mhhossein talk 12:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose First, while it is true that 70pma does not apply, it is still 50 pma in Iran (30 pma for deaths before 22 August 1980). Second, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis -- they almost always retain copyright in their work. There is no evidence that this building was work for hire. The architect, Ali Sardar Afkhami, was alive in 2004, so the building will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2055. Third, the building has been added to after its 1972 construction. That work may or may not be in the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@MasoodHA: Could you provide an evidence that this particular work is considered to be a work for hire in Iranian legal system? The Wikipedia article you pointed out is about US law, which is irrelevant here (PD in US because Iran is not a member of Berne convention). Ankry (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: In this case Iran's copyright law is not clear. But this is a public building that was built under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. MasoodHA (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand that. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran is clear that architectural works have a copyright that lasts 50 years pma. The thirty year limit in Article 16 extends only to financial rights, and does not include all of the other author's rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be based on Article 16. Iranian "work for hire" for architects may not be the same as U.S. norms, especially when it comes to past regimes or items built for the state. Article 16 also isn't particularly clear on ownership of the copyright or ownership of a single physical work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Avicenna Mausoleum and Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower. I don't see any difference with this request. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of those were based on a misreading of Article 16 -- it does not say that work is PD after 30 years, but only that the author's financial rights terminate. Other rights remain in place for 50 pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I would equate "financial" rights with the economic right, and any other rights as moral rights. Iranian law says that only the financial rights are transferable, so those are the only rights you can sell. Also, the "intellectual rights" have no time limit in their law. It is only financial rights which are normally 50pma, in Article 12, but that term seems to be explicitly limited by Article 16 in those situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, and Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support A theatre cannot be something different than a work for hire (it's not the architect's personal house). As Yann said: the 30 years after creation rule holds. --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • What logic is that? If you hire someone to create a creative work for you, it frequently can be cheaper to not mess with work for hire, if you don't need the copyright (and a building is a big case where you might not care.) In the US, a building can not be work for hire; there's a list of things that can be, and architecture is not one of them. Iran is hard, because we don't have many good Persian speakers and I don't think they cribbed their copyright law from someone else like many other nations did. But let's not jump to conclusions without knowledge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This hinges on the question of whether the building was a work-for-hire or not. As I have said elsewhere, architects rarely workon a work-for-hire basis because that would mean that they could not use details from building A when designing building B later unless they got a license from the the owner of building A. While there is a possibility that Iran is different from the rest of the world in this regard, it seems to me that that must be proven here. Unless someone experienced in architecture contracts in Iran can speak to the subject, I think we must assume that Iran follows the rest of the world in this and that, therefore, the buidlings are pma 50. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm a bilingual and can read the original text of the law. According to the article.13 of the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artist Rights, the copyright of the works created as a result of an order (WOH), belongs to the author client until 30 years after the creation date, unless there's an agreement over shortening the period. However, I've got no clue as to whether the work is really WOH. --Mhhossein talk 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Does Article 16 come into play here? Does that article refer to ownership of the copyright, or ownership of the physical work? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Carl Lindberg: I already modified a mistake in my text. As for your question, Iranian law defines two different rights, one of them being "moral rights" and the other "material rights". In article 4, it's said that the "moral rights" is not restricted to place and time and can't be transferred. In article 13, the law is talking about the "material rights", which I think is the right to the material benefits (such as monetary ones) from the work. Did I answer your question? --Mhhossein talk 12:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, many copyright laws don't use the term "copyright" but instead have "moral rights" (which can be indefinite and are usually not transferrable), and "economic rights", which is the equivalent of "copyright" and is the part we are concerned about when licensing. The Iranian law looks to have the exact same breakdowns. My question was on Article 16; I'll rephrase below. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Jameslwoodward and Yann: As per the Iranian copyright law, which I wrote above, the "material rights" of the works created as a result of an order, belongs to the client until 30 years after the creation date. It's logical to assume that the the work was created by the order of the governing regime at the time. So, the rights belonged to a 'legal person' (the government) and according to the article 16, "in cases where the work belongs to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person, works fall into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation." The work was presented publicly in 1972 and it should be in PD now. --Mhhossein talk 13:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
One may find the En version of the law here. See the Articles 13 and 16. --Mhhossein talk 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: OK, so it would seem that works commissioned by a legal person then get capped at 30 years from creation, as simply commissioning a work would cause the commissioning party to own copyright (which is not nearly as strict as a U.S. work for hire). My question on Article 16 is about "work belongs to a legal person"; does that mean physical ownership of the work, or just the ownership of the economic/material rights. That article does seem to at least say that when a legal person owns the rights (either by initial ownership, or by transfer) that the term gets capped at 30 years from creation. But you could also read it as when the physical work is initially owned by a legal person, that the term may also be limited even though the original author may retain the rights. It may make more sense to interpret that as only when the rights are owned by a legal person, but I wasn't sure with the English translation. The English translation is also here, btw. In 2010, Iran non-retroactively increased the Article 12 term to fifty years after the author's death, to bring it closer to Berne Convention conformance, but it appears they left Article 16 alone, so such works are still capped to 30 years from creation. They also earlier added computer programs as protected works. There is some discussion that they may reform the law again soon, probably to bring the law up to to more modern standards, as they may want to conform to the WTO/Berne Convention, but I don't think anything has officially passed yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me the logical interpretation that when a work is commissioned, the rights over the result belongs to the contractee. I know that copyright doesn't always work that way. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's assume that Iran is different from almost all of the rest of the world in this respect. That still leaves us with the fact that 30 years after 1972 was 2002, six years after the URAA date. So, even making the assumption which I have argued against, we still can't keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: There is no URAA date for Iran (at least yet). It will be in the future when and if that happens. Iranian copyrights exist only in Iran right now; Commons will respect their law per policy but that is the only one we need to. Secondly, photos of buildings are not derivative works in the U.S. so that would not matter even if a building is/was under copyright on the URAA date. The U.S. just needs a license for the photograph. As for the transfer aspect, there used to be lots of copyright laws where a commissioning party owned the copyright (the UK used to have that provision), so it's not that unusual. The Iranian law may simply still have that in there (if they modernize it, that is likely something that will change). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Hi, as far as I understand, Article 16 is referring to "economic/material rights". --Mhhossein talk 14:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl Lindberg, and Mhhossein above. --Yann (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khayam mausoleum 01.JPG

WFH for 55 years ago (See also:Category:Omar Khayyam Mausoleum). MasoodHA (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Again. If an architect were to work for hire, he would be constrained from using details or features that he had included in any building in subsequent buildings. Therefore, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis in any country that I am aware of. No one has provided any evidence to show that Iran is different from the rest of the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, and Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Can theese cases be closed? Or maybe the above discussion should be moved to COM:VPC? It does not seem that any Iranian user is willing to help us to resolve these cases. So IMO, keeping them open here is pointless. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I have opened a thread on COM:VPC. Very few people speaking Farsi and having a knowledge of Iranian copyright law are active, but Mhhossein said he will look into it. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, this hinges on the question of whether the building was a work-for-hire or not. As I have said elsewhere, architects rarely workon a work-for-hire basis because that would mean that they could not use details from building A when designing building B later unless they got a license from the the owner of building A. While there is a possibility that Iran is different from the rest of the world in this regard, it seems to me that that must be proven here. Unless someone experienced in architecture contracts in Iran can speak to the subject, I think we must assume that Iran follows the rest of the world in this and that, therefore, the buidlings are pma 50. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it's a U.S. style work for hire. Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention, so they may not follow norms the rest of the world does. Secondly, I'm not sure about Article 16, which could also shorten the copyright term, while leaving the copyright with the architect depending on the meaning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per [1]. --Yann (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gogi Georgevich Totibadze.jpg

Please restore File:Gogi Georgevich Totibadze.jpg. We have received OTRS permission from author (Ticket:2018030210007763). --sasha (krassotkin) 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: ✓ Done and renamed to File:Georgy G. Totibadze.jpg per uploader request. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:King Victor Emmanuel III and Prince Amhà Selassié.png

hi, I would like to ask for the check (before asking the following restoration) of the following Italian photographs taken during the period that preceded the Second World War, we say that the age of the photos are up to 1939, according to Italian law the following photographs are of PD-ITALIA license

--82.50.35.208 12:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff and Ankry. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rev. Dr. Nomikos Michael Vaporis.jpg

A letter giving permission to use the deleted photo was sent via email on Feb. 20 by the copyright holder of the photo in question to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in order to restore the photo to the wikipage Nomikos Michael Vaporis.

Thank you,

Constantine Vaporis


Email was sent by Kathleen M. Urquhart Executive Assistant to President Rev. Fr. Christopher T. Metropulos, D.Min.

with signed permission form by copyright holder.

Hellenic College Holy Cross 50 Goddard Avenue Brookline, MA 02445 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvaporis (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 March 2018‎ (UTC)

  • @Cvaporis:
  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done There is a considerable backlog in the processing of the OTRS emails, so please wait for this permission to be checked. If and when the permission is sufficient, the file will be restored. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:DopeNation.jpg

The source of this image is from their official twitter page. https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/952286812785037313/UmnJ0UWw_400x400.jpg and thus its free to be used. Kwamevaughan (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamevaughan: Can you point out, please, where at the source page we can see a clear author declaration that it is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, as you declared? With no such declaration pointed out, I have to  Oppose undeletion. Fair use is not acceptable for Commons. Ankry (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose It's from https://twitter.com/ghdopenation. I can't find a free license there -- perhaps someone else can. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 2 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 19:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Avarkkoppam_Film_Poster.jpg

Please don't delete this Image. This is the poster of a Movie I created and I haven't violated any copyright . This is a public service movie and it talks about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and explains how we can treat this patients . Please restore it . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avarkkoppam (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose There seem to be a Facebook page about this movie but no mention of any particular image license. Thuresson (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Howard 2016-08-01 2100Z.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Obviously a NASA image, in the public domain 219.79.126.232 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: no response and no evidence that the image is from NASA provided. Ankry (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This file is most probably in the public domain. Please wait before closing the request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, I did not notice that it is still less that 24h. Ankry (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: NASA image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg Ancestor information deliberately and intentionally deleted. Copyright infringement and misinformation enforcement violation laws 2013-2018

Please consider and contact my legal personal and financial grantee Lamaar Odom as soon as possible without further issue of content changes I have specifics to note at a later time. Danielle McCartney Mai Odom NYC, Massachusetts — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FB90:48B5:8915:0:16:BA67:5001 (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Closing before 24 hours because there is nothing here -- IP address means we cannot look for a problem or a file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kemény - Zeyk udvarház.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File is in public domain; at the time of deletion the file page correctly stated why (although at the time the deletion request was opened it did not). Tgr (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgr: What is "the correct copyright tag" and why?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: {{PD-HU-unknown}} as the image has been published well before 1943 and the author is unknown (it's an old postcard). --Tgr (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support This seem OK to me. (+ I would suggest to add {{PD-1923}}). I think the deletion was a mistake. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 12:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by P5ortugal

Permission arrived for the following files of these ones:

Photosubmission ticket # 2018022710011712 --Regasterios (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per request. @Regasterios: please add the OTRS template. Ruthven (msg) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sunrise.11.jpg

It seems to me that in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sunrises of Assam the closing sysop, Well-Informed Optimist, erred trying to understand the nomination. Even if there was a substantiated doubt about the image, I’d ask to restart the deletion process of this single file because it formally was never nominated and also because the case is related to CAPTAIN RAJU’s case (namely, whether can the community entrust him renaming of files further). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This seems to have been restored. I would not have done so. We have thousands of images of sunrises. I see no reason to keep one that is not sharp and has artifacts (or maybe a window frame) making black spaces on both sides. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: you may nominate the file for deletion because it was not delreq’ed yet. I ensured that there is no likely copyvio – it’s that I needed the file for. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that is not correct. The file was deleted on 28 July 2017 and restored, out of process, today, hence my comment above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: the file was deleted on 28 July 2017 out of process—never bore {{Delete}}, was not referenced as subject to deletion—and now restored, with some procedural irregularities but not exactly “out of process”. Please, close the thread and (if you wish) start a genuine deletion request. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: the file was never nominated for deletion; it was mentioned in this DR as a replacement example for nominated files. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do. File deleted by mistake, and restored by the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:JL180303.pdf

Specify whos and which copyright has been violated. It is the front page of a free copy (as stated on it clearly) of publicly available newspaper. I have personally copied it as a document. I am a journalist of that daily. I put my name on it. --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose "Free" as in "does not cost anything" is not the same as "freely licensed". We only can accept the latter here on Commons. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You didn't answer whose copyright I should have violated. But this has no importance anymore. Meanwhile I received a threatening letter by User:Sealle. Its tone and style discourages me for any further attempt to contribute. Have a nice day, --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment LoL… it’s hard to find less a Sealle’s fan than me, but actually he only projected a canned message to user talk:Inoslav Bešker. A legitimate purview of an admin and definitely not an unfair treatment of a user with the upload history mostly in red color. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do throw around the term "copyvio" here when something simply does not match our policy, Commons:Licensing, rather than actually being a copyright violation by uploading it. However, it would be deleted if the policy terms are not met -- the principle of the site is that we want media here to be reusable by even commercial entities in many ways. So, per policy we do not allow works which would be copyright violations if others use them in usual ways, even if Wikimedia projects themselves could use them legally. So it's not that you necessarily did something illegal, but more than the threshold that our policy requires was not met (presumably; I can't see the file). In general, only the copyright owners can license material enough for our policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Jutarnji list is copyrighted and non-free. Specifically, this front page would be copyrighted to the various photographers, the editors of the text and/or the publisher Hanza Media. As Carl explained, Commons does not accept such files. Individual Wikipedias may use a scan under a fair use rationale, but Commons does not allow fair use. De728631 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:About

When editing the category Nails I felt that the {{About}} template would be appropriate to create a hatnote saying "This category is about the body part; see metal nails for the fastening product", or something of that form. It turns out that it's been deleted multiple times for containing various nonsense, but I was told at COM:AN that the 20 July 2013 version was a real template, and that it was deleted without consensus. I would like to request undeletion of that version, as I believe it is applicable to ambiguous category pages. GKFXtalk 22:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Feel free to improve the template!. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Georges Dybman.jpg

Bonjour

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous avez retiré la photo de Georges Dybman sur sa fiche Wikipedia. Cette photo est une photo que j'ai prise moi, sa femme, avec mon appareil photo. Il n'y a donc pas de droits, seul copyright si nécessaire Evelyne Dybman. Merci donc de bien vouloir faire le nécessaire pour remettre cette photo.

Evelyne Dybman Poussypollock (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Le 1er mars 2018

 Oppose This image has been deleted four times. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georges Dybman.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Georges.jpg. Since you have a poor record here, having uploaded several copyrighted images, our colleagues do not believe that it is your own work as claimed. The image is dated after the subject's death, it is small, and there is no EXIF.
I also note that you have made many edits to his article on WP:FR. Although I am not certain of the rules there, I assume that WP:FR follows the general WMF rule on conflict of interest. If so, your edits are a serious violation of Wikipedia rules and may be removed. You may be blocked from editing on Commons and WP:FR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Info OTRS permission is needed, and regardless of the permission the photo may be deleted as out of scope if the article in French Wikipedia is deleted. While the article exists, the photo is in scope. COI is unrelated to Wikimedia Commons, or am I missing something (@Jameslwoodward:  ?). Various Wikipedias treat COI edits on different ways; unsure about frwiki here (BTW: this rule is an English Wikipedia rule, not a WMF rule). Ankry (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ankry, while the rule you cite is a WP:EN rule, the WMF rule is similar, see https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities -- it applies to all WMF projects, including both WP:FR and Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I would reply on your talk page, as this goes OT. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: COI is mandatory at wikifr. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: It seems to me that we are talking about family relationships, not about employment relationships. Ankry (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Clara Asunción García. Escritora.jpg

Imagen de la escritora española Clara Asunción García, autora de novelas y relatos de género negro, intriga romántica o drama intimista.

Hola: Estoy intentando subir esta imagen a una entrada en la Wikipedia. Lo hice anteriormente, pero ignoraba que había que hacerlo a través de Commons y por eso fue eliminada. Para esta ocasión seguí todos los pasos (creo haberlo hecho correctamente),pero sigue siendo eliminada.

No sé qué más habría que hacer para se permita su inclusión. ¿Podrían informarme?

Gracias.--Molandrin (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (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. Imagen fue de http://claraasunciongarcia.blogspot.ca/p/biografia.html.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Published here and here before. Thuresson (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rádio Beach Park logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: How does my file violate PD if there is already another equal loaded a long time ago? I don't understand. I imagine files like this violate PD. Jardel talk 02:59, 5 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 03:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support {{PD-textlogo}}, IMO applies here. Caligraphy is generally not copyrightable. Ankry (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Kiran215

Please restore the following pages:

115 files

Reason: These contents were created by me for public use and hence are not copyrighted Kiran215 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to copy over the message from my talk page, but you already got here. This is an example of such a map: https://imgur.com/a/KH02p. Rights are with Openstreetmap (compatible license but uncredited in the description/license information), Maze solution (I see no free license here: https://www.facebook.com/mazesolution), Mofald report (Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (Nepal)), Esri (private company), USGS (PD-Gov I think), Lasata Shakya, Manjila Tandukar and Kiran Joshi. (the mapping team) A copyright maze, that's what this is. The license was: "Own work, CC-BY-SA 4.0". Fair use is not allowed on Commons.
Sorry nobody spotted this earlier. - Alexis Jazz 05:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose While the base maps may be freely licensed, it is not clear that Maze Solutions adhered to the terms of the license (OSM requires credit "© OpenStreetMap contributors" which is not present). There is also no free license for Maze Solutions's work on the base maps. Facebook is copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Well spotted. I thought Kiran215 had made screenshots of a mapping program or Google maps/OSM like website from Maze. Actually these images are right there in their FB photo albums. We also don't know the license for the work by the Nepalese government or private company Esri.
@Kiran215: Do you own Maze solutions? If you do you could fix the attribution for OSM, clear the rights from Esri and Nepalese government, COM:Contact OTRS and the maps could be restored. - Alexis Jazz 19:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I would like to clear you that I am the owner of Maze solution, You can message me on the page if you want. The admin boundary of nepal is available from Nepal government for Public use, I hope to add "© OpenStreetMap contributors" for base map and road data. All the other data were referenced for accuracy not used. It will take some time so I hope you guys help me restore the maps.
Kiran215 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
They were published on Facebook without clear evidence of free license. COM:OTRS permissions from all copyright holders are required. I see no other way to restore them. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: our maps (as I found out now) do not appear to come from Facebook. The image quality here was higher. - Alexis Jazz 02:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I see this map here. And this means that Fb account owner (Maze Solution) declared copyright to the map, So {{Own}} does not apply and OTRS is necessary. Ankry (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kiran215: Okay. Do you have a link to the statement from the Nepalese government? You will still need to COM:Contact OTRS to confirm you are the owner of Maze solutions. I believe you, but I'm not on the OTRS team. Restoring the maps may not be needed, it would be even better to render them in PNG format. Then you can simply re-upload them. But the statement from the Nepalese government and OTRS need to be sorted out first. - Alexis Jazz 02:45, 3 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I've taken a closer look. The files that were uploaded here had a slightly higher resolution and (a lot) less artefacts compared to what I find on Facebook. - Alexis Jazz 02:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That may be, but while the Facebook pages may or may not be a problem, the more serious problem is that they do not conform to the requirements of the OSM license, so we cannot keep them unless they are modified to include the correct OSM attribution, which is "© OpenStreetMap contributors" together with a reference to the Open Database License. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can any one guide all the things I need to do step by step. I am finding it very complicated Kiran215 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kiran215: Please read and use Template:OpenStreetMap and comment on each applicable Facebook image "Contains map data © OpenStreetMap contributors per https://www.openstreetmap.org/ , made available under the terms of the Open Database License (ODbL) at https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ . Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en ." or "License: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OpenStreetMap".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

ː@Jeff G.: I have added the license to caption of each image in the facebook page. We pledge to render and replace each image with "'© OpenStreetMap contributors" in wikimedia in not more than 3 months time. Regards everyone Kiran215 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kiran215: Who is "we"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That would be me and my team. Regards again Kiran215 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The problem here is that the images themselves are copyright violations because they do not meet the OSM licensing requirements. Adding a the attribution to the Commons file description can't fix that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sound of Armenian Duduk.ogg

Please undelete this file. It's my own recording and I mentioned it when it was uploaded. איליה מעזיה (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright for musical works is complicated. There are typically separate copyrights for the composer, lyricist (not here), arranger (in some cases), the recording itself, and, in many countries, the performers. In order for the work to be restored to Commons, you must clarify the ownership of all those that are applicable here -- probably composer, possibly arranger, certainly the recording, and possibly the performer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It's my improvisation on traditional(=folk) Armenian theme played in a traditional way (two duduks - solo and drone, both played by me, there' no any other arrangement here). I am the performer and I recorded myself at my home! איליה מעזיה (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support OK, I am inclined to Assume Good Faith here. What do others think? By the way, the music is strangely moving -- I might like to hear more - I guess I'm a sucker for double reeds. Thank you for uploading it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support I agree. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

>Thank you for uploading it You welcome, thank you. So what should be done now to restore the file? איליה מעזיה (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Unsure however how to prevent subsequent nominations as "no source". @איליה מעזיה: maybe you should add some explanation presented above to the file description page, instead of pure {{Own}}? Ankry (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Orchestra Fuego 04.jpg

Dear sir or Madam; this image is owned by exclusively by me, Marcus Hernandez a/k/a as Orchestra Fuego Productions Inc. I can be reached by email at [snip] or on my cell phone at [snip]. Sincerely, Marcus Hernandez — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.191.36.66 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that for logos, the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. I have deleted your e-mail and telephone for privacy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Erudimus qui custodient terrae fertilitatem.jpg

This was a derivative work (photograph of public wall painting) which originally did not have proper sourcing description (because I did not know) until last week.

Last week I have included proper sourcing information:

  • The Belgian Freedom of Panorama template {{FoP-Belgium}}
  • The US template {{Not-free-US-FOP}} (because it is an art work, and USA FoP only supports buildings)
  • A wiki table properly describing the public visible wall painting (including the name of the painter)

An administrator still deleted the image today while proper licensing was in place since last week. Please review the derivative work source information that I have added last week, and undelete the image, because to my opinion it was since then correctly licensed.

Please inform me when something would still be missing? Geertivp (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support It was deleted by JuTa for no source. Technically, the location of the artwork and the name of the artist should be shown, but I think we can restore it and then fix it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Volto di uomo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the son in law of Carola Mazot and all copyrigth are mine. In the website, the real paintings, the digital images. I declare all images free and public domain Carlo.gianneschi (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The source site, http://www.mazot.info/c-6_persone, is marked "Copyright © 2001 2018 All rights reserved". Since we have too many bad actors here that make false claims, policy requires that for these to be restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:КМФ Задругар 2017.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am author of the file. I am not expert about licencing. Can enybody do it, with rules? Адреса (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Адреса: If you are the original author of the logos and did not transfer rights to the sport club(s), you can license them. But if the logo were used already anywhere, we still need a written permission from the copyright owner, together with some proof that the person sending us the permission is the actual copyrigt owner.
If you have already transfered your rights to the club(s) or you make the image basing on original club logos (see COM:DW), then you have NO rights to them. And we need written permission from the actual copyright owner.
Read COM:OTRS and follow instructions therein.
The {{Own}} template generally applies only to photos of non-copyrighted objects made by you using your camera and almost nothing else. Ankry (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Movie-Poster-NGSA.jpg

This has been deleted twice in error. The first time was for missing permissions. However, 180115_Wikipedia Release_Signed.pdf granted the permission, as requested. I went to undo this action and was not allowed as it was already deleted. I then recreated the document because I was told it was too late to undo and that was also deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianZager (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Can you, please, comment out why did you find the OTRS permission aded by Ruthven invalid? Ankry (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, there was no error in the two deletions. The only errors here were yours, in not reading and following Commons policy.

The first deletion was good because, as you say, there was no permission. The second was also valid, because our policy requires that for movie posters and similar ephemera the actual copyright holder must send a free license directly using OTRS. In the case of a movie poster that would usually be the producer. We require that the copyright holder send the license directly because there are too many bad actors on Commons who would find it trivial to forge an authentic looking license and send it on to OTRS.

In this case we have OTRS ticket:2018011610001666, which is an e-mail from a g-mail address that has attached a poor copy of a letter that purports to come from the production company. That does not meet our requirement that the license come directly from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for lack of comms, I had just deleted that, and had to dash out, and forgot to update when I got back some time later (real world gets in the way of wiki world sometimes). I didn't like the ticket either - I'm always very suspicious of gmails - anyone can create any name they like. Also the image should have been properly undeleted by OTRS, not re-uploaded by the original uploader (which is not allowed). Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Christine Antorini.jpg

This is my private official photo, and I own the rights to it. Kind regards, Christine Antorini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine Antorini (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose First, do not upload images a second time after they have been deleted. That is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

Second, the EXIF says that the copyright holder is "les@kaner.dk" (Les Kaner). In order to have the image restored here either (a)Les Kaner must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license using OTRS together with evidence that you have a formal written transfer or license of the copyright from Les Kaner. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Johannes Steiniger, MdB.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright is given as CC 4.0 as exactly indicated by the uploader. Explicitly permission for the license is given by the creator.

Please restore as soon as possible. SteinigerMdB (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says:

"|source=Johannes Steiniger, MdB
|author=Foto: Tobias Koch (http://tobiaskoch.net)"

http://tobiaskoch.net says "© TOKOGRAPHY - PHOTOGRAPHY BY TOBIAS KOCH"

There is no indication of any reason why the image is CC-BY-4.0 as claimed. In order for the image to be restored, either (a) Tobias Koch must send a free license as described at OTRS or (b) someone else may send a free license together with evidence that he or she has a formal written copyright transfer or license from Tobias Koch. In either case, it will be more than a month before the image reaches the head of the queue at OTRS and is acted upon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Акт проверки РЦСМЭ.pdf

groundless deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by EVBugrova (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I might say "groundless request" since no reason is given why the pdf should be restored. As for reasons why it should not:

1) EVBugrova is a sockpuppet of the original uploader, User:Edwin KVV.
2) EVBugrova has uploaded the file a second time in violation of Commons rules.
3) Edwin KVV twice removed the {{Delete}} tag from the file, also in violation of Commons rules.
4) The file has no categories, so it is useless
5) The file description says:
"Акт внеплановой документальной проверки отдельных вопросов финансово-хозяйственной деятельности "Российского центра судебно-медицинской экспертизы
Act of an unscheduled documentary audit of certain issues of financial and economic activity "of the Russian Center of Forensic Medical Examination
translator: Google
That does not appear to fit into the limited reasons we keep PDFs.
6) The document is signed by ten people, who are presumably its authors. There is no indication that the uploader is one of the authors or otherwise has any right to put a CC-BY-SA license on it.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Dylan Kardashian Black and White Jan2017.jpg

This image was first posted on flickr under 'Attribution' rights. The image was then later used on Dylan Kardashian's YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/dylanmusanhu).

This image should not have been deleted because it appeared on an auto-generated site that generates almost all content from YouTube and the website is full of spam and has no rights or affiliation to the image. Please look again at the link (http://www.downyoutubeinmp4.net/search.html?q=dylan+kardashian) where it appears as this is a false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KardashianSource (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr license is apparently Flickrwashing. The image appears at https://www.dylankardashian.com/ with "DYLAN KARDASHIAN © COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." If, in fact, the Flickr site is authorized, then an authorized representative of dylankardashian.com must send a confirmation of that using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:1stPonte.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the creator of this image and hold the whole copyrights. I give Wikimedia and Wikipedia full rights to use the image unconditionally 31.185.167.10 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:The Spot logo.jpg

I am the copyright holder for this work. I can provide additional documentation if necessary, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciroamiranda (talk • contribs) 03:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ciroamiranda: Please provide that documentation via OTRS. Also, reuploading a deleted file is a serious offense here and wastes your time and ours, don't do it again.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ciroamiranda. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Sphinx partially excavated.jpg, image is now PD, see retouched version: File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg

image is now PD, see retouched version: File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg --Zaccarias (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Durova: What do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The retouched version has a more detailed description: There are 3 possible photographers all dead for at least 80 years now. --Zaccarias (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support Can't see a reason why it would still be under copyright. Seems like it was within a year of being PD when it was deleted even if the most pessimistic assumption of author was chosen, and is long past now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support User:Durova has not made an edit here in five years, so we are unlikely to get a response. His deletion comment was "Moved in error by bot; PD-1923 but not proven to be compliant with Commons policies." which I don't really understand. As Carl says, this is long PD and it is certainly in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Jayathma Wickramanayake.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2018030810011596: A permission for this file has been successfully received and processed through OTRS, so its restoration is requested, please ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 02:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Sreejithk2000

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Le fotografie risultano,essere di dominio pubblico e sono state prese dal sito ufficiale del Senato della Reupplica Italiana.Vi sono altre foto della stessa foto che sono onsiderate di dominio pubblico come per esempio: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senatore_Vincenzo_Sylos_Labini.gif

This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92) Mark 75 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Info To have them restored at least proper license template should be suggested. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: We do not have a template for that. Generally I use {{PD-because|The copyright for works executed for the Italian State lasts 20 years after the date of first publication. Cf. [http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm#29 Art. 29] of Italian Copyright Law.}}. If it's ok for you, we can restore these files using this custom template. --Ruthven (msg) 10:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: For me looks OK. However, I am not an expert in Italian copyright law. Maybe, if there are more such images, it is worth discussig in COM:VPC and creating a new template? My comment above was basically technical: if we do not add a license template, the images will be deleted again, and again... Ankry (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: The user above (@Mark 75: ) was proposing using {{PD-Italy}} which is less precise (but not completely incorrect). About having a new template, I dunno because such cases are few. But I can rise the question. --Ruthven (msg) 11:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support {{PD-Italy}} should be OK, IMO. Ankry (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that this is related to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Italian_State_PD_works; the template that is about to be undeleted can be used for these photos. --Ruthven (msg) 13:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per {{PD-ItalyGov}}. Ruthven (msg) 09:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media needing categories as of 29 March 2017

For these files:

reasons for keeping them were aduced in a DR by multiple users, and the only delete !vote, besides the nomination, for a single file, invoked an unsuitable rationale («I don't think these are famous people.»). The closing admin ignored the discussion altogether. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose These are personal images of random people and I fail to see any educational use. The !keep arguments made in the discussion don't convince me. File:Corey is now stuck with us. (29329173621).jpg is also a derivative work of a large non-free photograph in the background. File:Ebubekr.jpg might look impressive but we don't know if that's a real trick of if the guy just "glued" the spoon to his nose with something sticky. If it helps to evaluate the images again I would support a temporal undeletion though. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment For the record: Deletion requests are not votes, but a discussion. The admin will take the discussion into account, but in the end their own appraisal of the situation is what counts. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The first and last three are typical personal images that belong on Facebook, not here. The second and third are photos of children. Since we don't know if the parents consented and don't know the law in Cambodia, we can't keep them. The fourth, as noted above, is derivative of the background photo and also falls in the same class as the first. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion: all of them are unused personal photos. Ruthven (msg) 09:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Pol Pot .png

The deletion process was not okay, I think, since when do we delete files because of only one editor's opinion? Second of all, the original uploader obviously took the photo him/herself and it's obvious that it should not have been categorised as "PD" but "own work". The image was uploaded years ago and nobody wanted to delete it. I just can't understand why they did not change the licence from PD to own work instead of deleting the file. Oppashi talk 13:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose First, there were not one, but two, editors who thought that image should be deleted. User:Storkk and User:Jcb are very experienced Administrators. Second, I see nothing that suggests that "the original uploader obviously took the photo him/herself". In fact, it seems highly unlikely that he took the photo. It is small, it has no EXIF, it's of a person who would be difficult to access for a photo, and the uploader has a poor record of uploading other people's work -- all of his 45 uploads were copyright violations.

I also note that perhaps you misunderstand "PD". The uploader claimed "own work" and tagged it "cc-by-sa-4.0". The comment at the DR was to point out that there was no reason to believe it was in the Public Domain and that it was unlikely to be "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jim, “User:Storkk and User:Jcb are very experienced Administrators” - that's exactly how you shouldn't reason during a discussion, your personal reflection does not affect the validity of their decisions. Also, Jcb, “highly unlikely” does not sound like “I have proof for”. Oppashi talk 09:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oppashi: you are operating under a couple misconceptions. First, we routinely delete files because of only one editor's nomination if the closing admin concurs—as a guesstimate, that's the situation for upwards of 90% of the deletions that occur here. Second, "own work" is not a license - it's a source. Third, the standard is not "proof"; see Commons:Project_scope/Evidence. In the exceptionally unlikely case that the uploader is the actual photographer, they can follow the instructions on OTRS to clear up the situation. This is also routine, and is required for any image whose authorship and license is reasonably in doubt. Storkk (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
You also misunderstand where the burden of proof lies. Jcb does not need to prove anything. In order to keep a file on Commons, the uploader or other interested party -- you in this case -- must prove beyond a significant doubt that the image meets our requirements. Thus it is up to you to prove that either (a) the uploader was the photographer, as claimed, (b) that the image is public domain for some reason, or (c) that the actual photographer has given a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:AI-POS-2016-Logo-simplified.png

Hi, I recently updated the Pint of Science wiki page with our new logo (AI-POS-2016-Logo-simplified.png), which was very similar to our previous logo that I added in 2016. However I have received a notification that it has been removed due to a copyright violation. I am the comms manager at Pint of Science, updating the logo as per request from the founders of Pint of Science, having been told that the correct option was CC license attribution 4. Could you please let me know the reason for removing the new logo was so that I can make amends and upload again? Thank you, Sarah 7th March 2018 S.Hoey (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@S.Hoey: Please send permission via OTRS or license your website freely.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Chien tranh can dai Viet Nam.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have provided with the documents of permission and authorization that are expected. 123.2.102.183 07:39, 8 March 2018 (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) 10:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Anticapitalistas.png

Soy militante de la asociación Anticapitalistas y soy quien administro la página web www.anticapitalistas.org. Solicito que se pueda usar la imagen que subí en su día en la descripción de la asociación Anticapitalistas. En caso de que no fuera posible actualmente, ¿qué gestión habría que hacer con la imagen subida para que sí se pueda utilizar?

Gracias.

PabloRochela (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)PabloRochelaPabloRochela (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

--

I am a member of the Anticapitalist Association and I am the adminisitrator of the website www.anticapitalistas.org. I request to use the image that I uploaded to the description of the association Anticapitalistas. If it is not currently possible, what management should be done with the uploaded image so that it can be used?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloRochela (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

PabloRochela (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)PabloRochelaPabloRochela (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @PabloRochela: for logos, as they generally were used elsewhere before upload to Commons, we require a written free license permission from the logo copyright owner to be send to OTRS, following instructions in COM:OTRS. We do not accept Fair Use images in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@PabloRochela: Much more quickly than using OTRS, you could license your logo or entire website with a Creative Commons license, please see the instructions here o en Español.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
As Jeff suggests, the fastest way to have the logo back on Commons would be to add a CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA license to the web site. That could be general or limited only to the logo. If you cannot or will not do that, then an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. It would be a month or more before that will reach the head of the queue at OTRS and be acted upon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Francesca (model)

Requesting undeletion for 4 files deleted in the following DR, because the admin who deleted the files did it without closing the DR, so there is the doubt he didn't noticed that there were opinions for keeping the files.

Besides, each single file of the category "Francesca(model)" was nominated for deletion by user:BeckenhamBear, as a way to avoid the consensus reached in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Francesca (model), and force the deletion of the category. --Ruthven (msg) 22:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The issue here is that such photos might fall in SCOPE, but can surely have some usage as stock photos. Here I duscuss more the method than the photos themselves, and it's more relaxing to write here than at UP. @Tuvalkin: You are relatively an experienced user, so you can notice that the DR is closed now. --Ruthven (msg) 07:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Tuválkin, that is correct, but not the whole story. I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francesca (11711187314).jpg with "per nomination" and deleted the four files above with "[per] Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francesca (11711187314).jpg". Note that the DR that I closed was opened by E4024, not User:BeckenhamBear, although he or she commented there. Christian also asked for deletion there.
I think all five fall in the same gray area of whether their quality is good enough to keep. I also note that they are no longer on Flickr, so we must ask whether the Flickr license was license laundering. None of them have particularly useful categories.
So, we have five files that three different editors, two of them very experienced, have commented against, one editor (Christian) who is for four and against one, and one editor (The Photographer) who had uploaded one of the five and asked for that one to be kept. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of keeping the files. I agree, however, that it is a gray area and aside from the copyvio question, I don't feel strongly about them..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment All have begin when I closed this nomination as "kept", mainly because it is IMO a nice glamour photo. The nominator have complained about the result, and though I still think this image is a nice photo, as well as the others listed above, the reasoning of the nominator is quite respectable and logical. Therefore it's me who advised the nominator to renominate the image for deletion because it seemed to me that this story seemed to matter to him. And then I simply voted and commented in the DRs listed above. If one ask my opinion, and as I like the photos, I'm in favour to restore them. But regarding the reasoning "Not realistically useful for an educational purpose", yes I respect that, and Jim's closure is completely legitimate. As they are pretty photos, and as we are several users (included several administrators) to think that, I think we can make some exception to the strict application of our policy. Therefore I  Support the undeletion but I totally respect the motive/rationale for the deletion as well as the way they were deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Thanks, Christian. I will  Support the first two above and  Oppose the last two above and File:Francesca (11711187314).jpg. The three are badly washed out, poor quality -- whether that was a deliberate attempt at an effect, I don't know, but it makes them very unlikely to be used. We have far too many glamour photos to be keeping poor ones. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment I would like to apologize if my ignorance of policy has caused a problem here. I have resolved to rectify that, by studying the reams of policy on the Wiki. There is is many months + of study here. I was wrong to raise it at CAT level, even though it seemed appropriate at the time, as all of the originators work comes out of the same basket; I.E. non educational, amateurish attempts at glamour photography, and all at a substandard level of competence (bungled depth of field, clouding of image etc). I raised deletion requests on 3 of the images, as Ruthven advised "...this shouldn't be a CfD, but a DR on the photos of the category". Auntof6 echoed that. I agree, so I did. In conclusion, the very first thing (as a prime directive if you will) that COM:PS COM Scope tells us as a statement is: "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content ..." and that "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". None of the images here in discussion do that. It's still a delete for me. BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: 2 restored, as per Jim. Please complete the categories. --Yann (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:אורי דיסטניק.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Not a Copyright violation, since http://www.haeton.co.il/sdee-boker does not hold the rights, but I am. It was provided to the site by me with premition to use. If needed, I can provide a signed document to be the owner of the photo. EratosthenesofAlexandria 08:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

© All rights reserved to the site of the newspaper, do not make use of the site, information, services and content
translator: Google

so if somebody claims (especially as anonymous Wikimedia user) that this declaration is fake, we need clear evidence for that, that can be used in case of DMCA take-down or in a court. And such an evidence can be provided via COM:OTRS, not here. Ankry (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Angler.png

Hier war wohl jemand sehr schnell mit dem Löschen. Sicher will ich nicht abstreiten, dass es ähnliche Bilder im Netz gibt, jedoch habe ich das Bild selbst im Gimp erstellt. Ich habe auch das Bild im Netz gefunden, worauf die vermutete Urheberrechtsverletzung beruft. Sieht man sich das Bild aber genau an, sieht man Unterschiede.

Muldeanwohner (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The problem with this image is a common problem. If you created it yourself, then it is out of scope as personal art, which we do not keep. If it is copied from a copyrighted image, then it is a derivative work which we also do not keep without a license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support if there is no copyright-related problem. The file is in scope as it was used on an active German Wikipedia user's page. According to the File in use in another Wikimedia project section small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page is allowed and it is not stated anywhere that they must be photos. Ankry (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment That's correct, but barely so in this case. This user has only 270 edits on all WMF projects. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that 270 edits is quite a sizable number for an occasional editor. Not if you compare it with a regular editor, but I do not think that's a fair comparison. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Brochure MeCoaching Voorkant.jpg

This file is created by myself as a brochure for mecoaching. It is based on the Free for commercial use and No attribution required picture on Pixabay https://pixabay.com/nl/mooie-vrouw-gelukkig-jong-1509956/ or https://pixabay.com/nl/mooie-vrouw-gelukkig-jong-1509956/ which is CC0 Creative Commons and also on Commons under File:Pretty-woman-1509956.jpg. So how can I violate copyright? BeeBringer (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you waited two whole minutes after filing the request before you decided to bypass the process and just recreate the file yourself? Tut-tut.
The only part of the image that is a work of authorship eligible for copyright protection is the photo. CC-zero release or not – falsely claiming that you are the author and copyright holder of someone else's work is still a violation of copyright law and the rules of this site.
All that aside, how is this within project scope? Looks like purely promotional content to me. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear @LX: , if I've made some mistakes in using Commons, I'm very sorry for that. Forgive my ignorance about this project. I try to learn as quick as possible. Sorry I was wrong that I thought than when you derive from a CC0 work File:Pretty-woman-1509956.jpg a new CC0 work arises. The file is used in this wiki for the education of coaches as an example. With kind regards, BeeBringer (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
'education'? Really? The wiki of your company only contains some hollow marketing nonsense. Of course you have the right to do so on your company website, but don't abuse Wikimedia Commons as a free web host for your banners. Why don't you host them on your own website instead? Jcb (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Jcb: , good advice. We will do so! Greetings, BeeBringer (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The issue is not copyright, it is scope. The image blatantly violates COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I understand and support the reasoning by @Jameslwoodward: but not the speedy deletion because of copyvio as mentioned and done on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brochure MeCoaching Voorkant.jpg. Greetings, BeeBringer (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Pretty-woman-1509956 is not a copyright problem; therefore any copyright issues can be solved by the copyright holder of the modified image sending a free license using OTRS, therefore my comment above. However, the image which I deleted has two copyrights -- that for File:Pretty-woman-1509956 and that for the modifications. The latter appears at http://wiki.mecoaching.nl/index.php/Hoofdpagina without a free license, so its upload here is a copyright violation and is subject to {{Speedy}} deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to notice @Jameslwoodward: that you're not telling the truth as one can easily see at the history of the page of that wiki. The image at this page was first an include from Commons before it was changed to a local URL as suggested by @Jcb: AFTER you deleted the commons file. Please be honest, it was not meant to attack you when I disagreed with the speedy deletion, so no need to attack back by false arguments. Greetings, BeeBringer (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: the httpd information about http://wiki.mecoaching.nl/doc/Brochure_MeCoaching_Voorkant.jpeg was
Last-Modified: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 19:58:59 GMT
Note that the file is now deleted from the server and you have to trust my cache server. How can this resource be copyrighted if it was identical to the image published on Commons earlier under a free license? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hope this helps: @Incnis Mrsi: The file is not deleted but located at the www prefix so [2]. I suggest to let it be as it is (deleted). I've learned my lesson about what kinds of media is suitable for commons, I hope @Jameslwoodward: also did learn his lesson. Let us put our energy to more constructive actions. Thanks for all the effort though, BeeBringer (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, was confused with URLs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done due to request cancellation (withdrawal) by the OP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Steven Beattie.png undelete

I created this photo and artwork.

I run Cork City's website.

See the bottom of the website where I am credited.

http://corkcityfc.ie/home/player/steven-beattie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declancarey (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 23:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:120515-D-LN615-001.jpg

This painting was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force following the Sept. 11 attacks. The painting was paid for and all rights belong to the U.S. Government, National Guard Bureau, Heritage Painting Series. You can access the public file at http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/Historical%20Prints/Heritage%20Series/Heritage%20Series%20Individual%20Paintings/9-11.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyguy0891 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Artwerkski's files

This is the official press image of luiz depalma uploaded by artwerkski (Luiz DePalma's publicist and wiki admin) and complied with wiki commons and has full permission for distribution and publication by Luiz DePalma and Audiomotion Recordings.

Please restore!!

thank Artwerkski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artwerkski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We cannot verify what you say on a public forum like this one. Please follow the instructions on →OTRS←. Storkk (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 15:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Pašarai tradiciniai ir ekologiški.jpg

Paulius Matusevičius is co-author of this book. As his representative I have the right to use it.

--Tomas Odinas (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Tomas Odinas is an anonymous Wikimedia user like everybody here. And I see nowhere a clear public evidence that this Wikimedia user is legally authorised to freely license the book. However, such evidence may be provided via email to OTRS (preferably, together with a written free license permission).
Also note that the right "to use" is not enough to upload anything here. You need to be authorized to allow others (anybody) to use it, even commercially and to create derivative works. And you should ensure that such a permission cannot be just revoked by the author. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 15:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:ortolana.jpg

La imagen es anterior a 1923. The image is published before 1923 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.222.216.220 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This engraving is centuries old per these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
How can it be proven that the image was made more than 120 years ago and it is not a quite modern image stylized to be old? We need at least some information about its source (eg. which exactly manuscript is it from). Information that the source is unknown is not helpful here.  Oppose if no evidence that it was created more than 120 years ago is provided, Ankry (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Brush Creek 1-17 (16471498278).jpg

Interesting and apparently unique example of selfie with visible camera-holding hand shadow, and of contrastative use of sunglasses worn and sunglasses on forehead. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I do not think the photo is in scope: what is its educational value or where it can be useful in other Wikimedia projects? Ankry (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: no significant educational or informative value. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bkcover cover flat v2.jpg

Hello Kind Community,

I would like for the following file to be kindly undeleted. I am an upcoming author. I have been getting familiarized with Wikipedia on another level and have been making a few errors along the way. It would mean much if you could undelete this file as I need it tremendously for this journey I am walking. Thank you tremendously.


Regards,

--J L T (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:E-Gitarren (19809628263).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Files were in use. Guessing multiple other files that Hystrix deleted uploaded by uestenigel were in use as well, which were not deleted for being out of scope or for copyright reason, but rather for user reasons. A fit that a user has been blocked should be automatically mean we should delete all of that users files. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support per Jonatan and Steinsplitter, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-lastronomie.jpg

Logo from our magazine

check on http://sondage.saf-astronomie.fr or http://saf-astronomie.fr/ or http://boutique-saf-astronomie.com/


I'm logo owner for Société AStronomique de France and his magazine "L'astronomie" , intend to use this file in the wiki page for the magazine https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Astronomie

check my email domain please.


Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephane.neveu (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Stephane.neveu: we are not French Wikipedia. You have a choice:
  1. fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur ∨
  2. Special:MyLanguage/Commons:OTRS, Commons:Email templates.
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Artvoice Website.png

Undeletion Request: This is a photo of the website Artvoice.com, that we own, and publicly publish on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakexMedia (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The website is declared to be "Copyright © 2018" without evidence of free license.
Creating a screenshot does not establish a new copyrights, so {{Own}} declaration is clearly incorrect (in fact, the website is the source) and the authorship as well (unless you can point out information on the website that anonymous Wikimedia user User:JakexMedia is the website's copyright owner).
If the website is purely your own work and you have copyright to it, I suggest you either freely license the website (faster way) or send a free license permission following COM:OTRS (slower way) to make the image restored.
We cannot restore the image without clear free license evidence. Ankry (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose This screenshot is also a derivative work of the pictures. We need more information about these. And website screenshots are usually out of scope, unless the website itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Yann. We need to know that the five images shown are all freely licensed or PD. We also need to understand why the web site is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 10 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 12:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my colleagues above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Antonie de Suroj.jpg

My photos belong to me and do not appear on other sites. Copyright can not be infringed if the author is me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metropolia.milan (talk • contribs) 10:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The discussion of your uploads at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitropolit Evloghios 01.jpg gives us no reason to assume good faith in your case. The image is small. It looks to be a copy of a paper photograph. The best way to prove that it is your image is to upload it at full camera resolution with the same file name. Also, without any file description or categories, the file is useless, simply lost among our 45+ million images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 10 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 12:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim & Jeff. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rokna NEWS Agency.png

سلام وقت بخیر این فایل لوگو سایت رکنا است و دسترسی به آن به صورت آزاد می باشد و بنده خالق این اثر نیز می باشم و اجازه دسترسی آن را می دهم.

Hello good time This logo is a site of the Renkana website and its access is free. I am also the creator of this work and I will give it permission.
translator: Google

--Masoud.eb (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose سلام. در این صورت لطفاً COM:OTRS/fa را بخوانید و فرم موجود را پر کرده و آن را با ایمیل رسمی خبرگزاری به آدرس permissions@wikimedia.org ارسال کنید. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 12:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Info The only article in fawiki that this logo was used in seems to be problematic, so it is not even clear whether the logo is in COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per 4nn1l2 & Jeff. Ankry (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Saint-Germain-de-Calberte00.jpg

Hi,

I would like to know why my file of the statue has been deleted while I can see at least some others of the same place in these links:

fr:Saint-Germain-de-Calberte, Category:Saint-Germain-de-Calberte File:Statue de l'homme Cévenol à Saint-Germain-de-Calberte.JPG and here too File:L-homme-cevenol.JPG

My photo was almost the same as the others, and the statue is in a public place. Jean Paul Alandry (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saint-Germain-de-Calberte00.jpg? Thuresson (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I nominated the other 2 files for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No FOP in France. Désolé. Sorry. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:VeelaSingerFace.jpg

I am requesting the un-deletion of the file VeelaSingerFace.jpg.

I am requesting the undeletion because the singer, Veela herself has asked me to upload this photo to Wikipedia for use on her own Wikipedia page. Veela is a music producer and vocalist with over 140,000 subscribers on YouTube alone.

XSklzxDark (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Lao-Tseu.jpg

I am the manager of guodefu.fr website The author of the painting, M. Guo Defu, is keen to contribute to Wikimedia by granting publishing rights for this painting.

Best regards

 Oppose Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:ГАЗ колгоспу ХХІ з´їзду КПРС з с.Великий Полюхів.jpg

Description
Українська: грузовик ГАЗ з експозицією від колгоспу ім.ХХІ з"їзду КПРС з с.Великий Полюхів, на демонстрації в Золочеві, з нагоди 50-ти річчя Жовтневого перевороту.1967р.
Date
Source https://photomuseum.lviv.ua/
Author Павлюк Ілля
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurek.was (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
So what?  Oppose because
  1. “© 2018 Всі права захищені” on the museum page;
  2. a Soviet photo from 1967 may be still copyrighted.
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:BC Energy Step Code Part 3 Simplified Overview Diagram.png

These graphics were deleted based on an incorrect assessment of rights status. In fact, they have been made available under Creative Commons license Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada (CC BY-ND 2.5 CA):

  • File:BC Energy Step Code Part 3 Simplified Overview Diagram.png
  • File:BC Energy Step Code Part 9 Steps.png
  • File:BC Energy Step Code Part 3 (Wood) Steps Diagram.png
  • File:BC Energy Step Code Part 3 (Concrete) Steps Diagram.png

I uploaded these files and disclosed this license, but an editor immediately deleted them. Here is evidence that they have been released under Creative Commons:

Please see Page 6 of this document, "BC Energy Step Code Brand Usage Guidelines: Volume 2."

The above document is hosted on the Resources/All Resources section of energystepcode.ca, a website that "is hosted by the Building and Safety Standards Branch of the BC Provincial Government. © 2018"

In addition, this Medium blog post explains the decision to released these graphics under a Creative Commons license.

Jamesglave (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Jamesglave: Sorry, we do not accept the NoDerivs (ND) restriction, please see COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

OK Well that's a little crazy IMO. These are educational graphics intended to explain an energy efficient building code. The team behind this decision had hoped that this license would have allowed them to be used in places like Wikipedia. The NoDerivs (ND) limitation prevents people from re-distributing the graphics if they have altered them. Seems pretty limiting to deny their publication here. Oh well. Jamesglave (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesglave: So you can't convert them to SVG, you can't combine the information from two diagrams into one, can't change the colors if the visually impaired have trouble reading it or it doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Please show them this image. - Alexis Jazz 18:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from that, Wikimedia Commons requires that all media uploaded here are free for anyone to use for any purpose even outside Wikipedia. This requires the ability to make derivatives off the original work. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Pascal Lorne.jpeg

Extrait du message de Pascal Lorne envoyé de plorne@gmail.com à permissions-fr@wikimedia.org le 11 mars 2018: Zephirl (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zephirl: Merci d'attendre que l'autorisation soit validée. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:עדנה_אפק.jpg

הזכויות המוצגות שבגללן התמונה הוסרה הן זכויות על האתר המקושר ולא על התמונה. התמונה צולמה על ידי בעלה של עודנה אפק והיא נתנה את אישורה להופעתה. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mygodsing (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Mygodsing: Please have her husband send permission via OTRS. בקש מבעלה לשלוח אישור דרך OTRS/he.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:DevTernity Venue (Castle of Light).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo was taken by DevTernity team at DevTernity 2016 and is part of the official Facebook album: https://www.facebook.com/pg/devternity/photos/?tab=album&album_id=698680720305109

Direct link to the photo: https://www.facebook.com/devternity/photos/a.698680720305109.1073741832.494842210688962/698698213636693/?type=3&theater EduardSi (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 19:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Dina Abdul Rahman.jpg

Hi there. This photo was taken by my friend Nour Khalil. an Egyptian photographer who gave up all of her rights of the photo to help me improve a wikipedia article about the TV presenter who appears on it. She doesn't like to deal with all the wikimedia and the code headache. and she can provide a written agreement on all the copyrights around the photo if needed. please un-delete it! --Mostafty (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask her to send the written agreement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Once the permission email has been proceeded by our volunteers, the file will be restored. However, this may take several weeks. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

New Jersey government files now potentially PD-NJGov

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-NJGov}} is now legal. Files by the government of New Jersey were previously not freely usable, and {{PD-NJGov}} was deleted for that reason. But in 2016, New Jersey law was changed to say that works by the New Jersey state executive branch are now "shall be treated as license-free, subject to reuse, and not subject to copyright restrictions" (N.J.S.A 52:18A-234.5). Each file listed here appears to have been deleted because it was a work of the New Jersey state government; if so, then the file should be restored, as the new version of {{PD-NJGov}} applies. (Note that File:Official Portrait.jpg nominated here is the one deleted on 2013-08-23, not the one deleted on 2016-03-11.) Closeapple (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per idscussion and deletion of template. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

11 files

The following files have been deleted despite my adding the required detail of the composer and year of composition.


What am I to do now?

Eds009


Eds009 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Music copyrights are complex. There are separate copyrights for the music, lyrics (not here), arrangement (perhaps here), recording, and performer (in some countries). All you have given us here is the composer. In order to consider restoring these, we will need to know where the recording was made, where it was first published, if there was an arrangement which differs from the original composition, and who the performer was. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: not enough information about authorship. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Anticapitalistas.png

The license of this image has been modified to be in the public domain like these other political organizations: - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wordmark_Podemos.svg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Izquierda_Unida_(logo).svg

PabloRochela (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)PabloRochela

 Not done: Already undeleted. --Yann (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Eduard Kratzfuss's files

Ich bin der Maler und der Fotograf des gesamten Zyklus "DIE 7 TODSÜNDEN und des "Spungs!" Gern darf jeder meine Bilder und Fotos frei unter Angabe meines Namens: Erwin Hilbert alias Eduard Kratzfuss nichtkommerziell nutzen, und teilen ! Eine Löschung ist nicht nötig!--Eduard Kratzfuss (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerned files appear to be:
@Eduard Kratzfuss: On this public forum, we cannot confirm that you are who you say you are. Please follow the instructions on OTRS to handle the matter confidentially. Secondly, please be aware that no licenses that impose "non-commercial" clauses are permitted on Wikimedia Commons: see COM:L. Storkk (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:UCéDe logo.png

This logo is protected by trademark law, but is not enough original to be under copyright law. Examples of similar logos in PD: File:Nikken Logo.jpg, File:Aerolíneas Argentinas Logo 2010.svg, File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg, File:Stencil propaganda.jpg, etc. You cannot even register it in the property office. --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I can't see this logo, but a drawing of a hand will usually be copyrightable. The Nikken logo was OK because it's too close to a common human symbol (no hands). File:Stencil propaganda.jpg is definitely above the threshold; it is however licensed. If the license is bogus (probably is), it should be deleted. There is a small chance it was published without notice before 1989. Germany had a much, MUCH higher threshold for logos than did most countries, which explains that example, though recent rulings may be lowering it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thats my point, our law and jurisprudence (in Argentina) usually give a higher threshold than european countries.--Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you know of any example cases? The Germany ruling was very high because they did not want copyright and trademark to overlap -- so for a trademarked logo, it would have to be extremely artistic for copyright to cover it, whereas a similar non-logo drawing would be copyrightable. Does Argentina have something similar? Some countries try to avoid overlap, but many (like the U.S.) allow both forms of protection to apply to their full extent, overlap or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Just FYI: this is the logo at the top of this page Ankry (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah OK, thanks. I think that would be above the U.S. threshold, most likely, though not a slam dunk. Argentina, no idea at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Examples cases which i can cite here no, but for example this one is clearly in copyright (it was made by a architect). I remember cases of trademark infrigment, but not realated to copyright. Anyways in cases like the one of the football club, they never claim copyright on them really, only when someone infringe the tradermark policiy of use. --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Keep Much more quickly than using OTRS, The website's publisher could license the logo or entire website with a Creative Commons license, please see the instructions here o en Español. This logo Ankry linked to above appears to just be text and some simple shapes representing a hand.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The "Ucéde" was a political party (not longer anymore), the official webpage not longer works. There is a "fork" of this party, but they only use the name. --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Storkk (please follow instructions). Ruthven (msg) 23:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:VexeraLogo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reasons:

Non-commercial use only, software licensed as CC-BY-NC-4.0 here [3]. Thuresson (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Commons does not accept NC licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gründungsmitglieder des „Freunde und Förderer des Gymnasiums Ismaning e.V.“.png

The photo was taken by me and have all rights - I can not understand where the copyright violation should be. --TW1920 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The problem is that the image has already been published at the homepage of this association, and there is no free licence over there. So we need to verify that you are in fact the photographer who has the right to grant a free licence for this image. The easiest way would be to attach a note to the website that this image has been published under a cc-by-sa-4.0 licence and how to attribute the author. Otherwise, please send a permission by email as outlined in Commons:OTRS/de.
The question remains, however, if this image is within our project scope. Wikimedia Commons only keeps media that are educationally useful. Non-notable clubs like this are not in our focus, and also the article about the high school has been nominated for deletion at the German Wikipedia. If the article is kept at DEWIKI and we can get a verification for the Creative Commons licence, the file might be restored. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This requires a free license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS and evidence that the group is notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lisa Joy, writer and director.jpg

Hello! The photographer of this picture granted permission for it's use on Wikipedia. If you need more information from said photographer, we would be happy to provide it. But we can assure you that the photograph is not a copyright violation.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tformanek (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (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. @Tformanek: Please have the photographer send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please note also that images at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose even outside Wikipedia. This includes commercial use and changing the original image. De728631 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Facebook is copyrighted. This requires a free license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Mimetes chrysanthus03.jpg

Permission to use file was inadvertently omitted - it is hereby given - {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}}

Kathryn Cooley (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what happened here. File seems to have had correct permission. @Didym: Could you have a look, since you tagged this file (and the one below) with "no permission". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was copied from Facebook. Please upload the original unmodified image, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Facebook is copyrighted. This requires a free license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't get this - if I post my images on Facebook I certainly don't relinquish my copyright - Facebook consequently has no authority to claim copyright on any image which was not theirs from the outset .....Kathryn Cooley (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:180303 이수지 (01).jpg

Hello, I have been approved by this copyright owner before uploading in March 12, 2018. You can asked the owner(@keepsmile150412) in Twitter.
--Blossom_v(talk) 10:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blossom_v,
The author has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
For example is? Because I am unfamiliar to doing this. --Blossom_v(talk)13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Blossom_v,
Please read COM:OTRS. The copyright owner of these files has to send a permission for a free license by email. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann -- requires a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Close-up of statue of Andromeda.jpg

The photographer told me "I own the statue. It’s a small replica of a larger work that’s in a museum in Massachusetts.

http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/events/4154/andromeda-daniel-chester-french’s-unknown-masterpiece" and the artist died more than 71 years ago --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It is necessary that the author or copyright owner send a permission through OTRS. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 16:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @AlvaroMolina: The deleted image (Which is not in that link) was from a free source.By the way, can we transfer that on the Web site since it is affiliated to a US government museum? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Owning the replica does not make the photographer own the potential coypright in the statue itself. Unless the statue is out of copyright, the photograph actually cannot be published without permission from the sculptor or their heirs. The original was made by Daniel Chester French in 1929 [4] and has never been exhibited outside the sculptor's studio. So we don't know the copyright status of the statue, and as a derivative work we cannot keep the photo. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
        • @De728631: Did you mean that it was the property of the heirs before the museum? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
          • It's not about the physical property, it's about the legal right to make copies and derivatives of a creative work (aka copyright). This right usually remains with the original author even when they sell a work to someone else. So the sculpture may now be in a museum while French's heirs still own the copyright (or the heirs themselves may have founded the museum). As this is a work that was first published in the United States, the copyright term is determined by the date of first publication, and in the 1929 period it would have been necessary to attach a copyright note to the statue to effectively claim copyright. Since we don't know when the sculpture was published, we don't know if it is still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. The problem here is that the sculpture itself is still under copyright unless it was "published" (as that word is defined in copyright law) without copyright notice before 1989. It is up to those who would keep the image on Commons to either (a) show that the sculpture does not have a copyright because it did not have notice or otherwise did not comply with the requirements of the copyright law or (b) show that the artist's heirs have granted a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jameslwoodward: Directly above your comment, I mentioned the date of the article, is not this the date of publication? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • No. Publication means the first time the statue became accessible to the common public. This may have been at French's studio some time in the past, or perhaps when the museum acquired the statue. Again, we're not discussing the publication of the photograph but the publication of the original statue. The photograph appears to be a violation of the sculptor's copyright in the first place, so we can't keep it at Commons. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jahan-nama-1.jpg

The following image is from a free to share site that publish free articles everyday. The article that is the source of this images is free to public and is used with owner's permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fns4565 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 11:15, 12 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 11:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that when you uploaded the file, you claimed that it was "own work" -- that you were the photographer. Now you say, correctly, that you found the image on the Web. Making incorrect claims of "own work" is a serious violation of Commons rules and if you continue to do it you will be blocked from editing here.

This appears in many places on the Web with a clear copyright notice. Although most sites on the Web are free in the sense that there is no payment required to read them, most are not free in a copyright sense. While you may look at and read most sites, you may not copy them for use here. This image will not be restored to view without a free license from the photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Oldenburgia paradoxa00.jpg

Permission to use file was inadvertently omitted - it is hereby given - {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}}

Kathryn Cooley (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This file was copied from Facebook. Please upload the original unmodified image, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Facebook is copyrighted. This requires a free license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Styline Press Picture.jpg

Permission = https://djstyline.com/press-shots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicmusicguru (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 March 2018‎ (UTC)

 Support per above CC-BY-SA 4.0 license declaration. Ankry (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose It's still unclear whether the uploader is in fact the copyright holder. The CC licence at the page above doesn't disclose the author or copyright holder but it would require a proper attribution. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. While there is a CC-BY-SA license at the source site, it is defective in that it does not give the name of the photographer, so it is impossible to comply with the "BY" part of the license. In order to restore this, either djstyline must add the name of the photographer to the site or the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

{{Nd}} per above. Ankry (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Reopened. Stefan2 has pointed out to me on my talk page that if the licensor does not supply the attribution name, then the licensee may use the work without attribution. Therefore, I see no reason why this cannot be restored.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Escudo_ITLA.png

LO borraron siendo un logo institucional de uso libre --190.94.103.226 12:42, 13 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 14:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:JoeatBeachlandBallroom.jpg

Hi, I work with Joe Purdy's management and he would like that photo to be on this Wikipedia page. It is from his social media page on Instagram, it is his photo that a friend, Amy Vachal took of him on his phone at the Beachland Ballroom in Cleveland, Ohio. Can we make sure this image stays on his page.

Thanks!

Barry Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctassistant (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask Amy Vachal to verify the license by the procedure outlined at COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Openlibrary-logo.png

I got an email from openlibrary@archive.org where they say the logo must be creative commons.

I belive we should label this file as copyleft since no copyright is mentioned in: https://openlibrary.org/help neither here: https://openlibrary.org/developers nor here: https://openlibrary.org/about No copyright mentioned here: https://archive.org/about/terms.php

please undelete --EasyKL (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2018 (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. @EasyKL: Reupload of File:Openlibrary-logo.png, which was speedily deleted. Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works are copyrighted from the moment of creation. Except for USA works before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice does not change that, so copyright applies to everything created by openlibrary, including the logo. Therefore, the logo cannot be restored unless the actual copyright owner sends a free license using OTRS. Note that the license must come directly to OTRS from the copyright holder -- please do not bother to forward any e-mail they may have sent you as that will not be accepted..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Michael Graham headshot.jpg Michael Graham head shot

This photo belongs to ME. I use it on my website and on my columns. Therefore I would like to use it on my wiki page assuming that you are going to once again IGNORE MY REQUESTS THAT YOU TAKE THE STUPID PAGE DOWN.

I am nobody. Nobody needs this page. It's full of errors that nobody at wiki berg or whatever the hell you people are will fix. I keep asking, you keep posting crap.

So if you're going to screw with my life--PLEASE USE A DECENT PHOTO.

Michael Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgraham969 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please remember that User:Mgraham969 could be anyone. We get many imposters, fans and vandals here, so we do not know who actually uploaded the image. Because the image appears without a free license at https://michaelgraham.com/about-michael/, policy requires that to restore the image (a) the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS, (b) Michael Graham must add a CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA license to the website image, or (c) Michael Graham must add a note to any page on the website saying "I am Wikipedia User:Mgraham969". Options (b) and (c) can have the image restored immediately. Option (a) will take more than a month for the e-mail to reach the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rumba en mi piel.jpg

--Vaneleal21 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 06:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose No reason is given why this should be restored. If is apparently a poster or album cover and is unlikely to actually be "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:NateKFarm.jpg

This file (a photo of myself) was deleted, according to the bot that explained its absence from a wikipedia page, because of a supposed copyright violation. This was due to the uncredited use of the work in a recent article on the blog Civil Eats (they took it from my facebook page, where it has long served as my profile photo). The photo was taken a few years ago by Katherine Ramos, who uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons herself yesterday and applied a Creative Commons license to it.

--NathanKleinman (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Nathan I. Kleinman, 3/14/18

Note that capitalization is significant in filenames here. The image was indeed uploaded yesterday by User:RamosK18 as "own work" with a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Since RamosK18 is almost certainly Katherine Ramos, as claimed above, I am inclined to assume good faith and  Support this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:AleksandraPopławska20180305.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is second time when I uploaded this ptoho. First time (March 5) was problem with rights - probably I done some mistakes with upload. I thought that the older file was supposed to be removed from WikiMedia (after 7 days). Second time was yesterday. So please, restore my last file: AleksandraPopławska20180305.jpg ald remove an older file. Jacadgac (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

First, uploading images a second time after they have been deleted is a violation of Commons rules. It wastes computer resources and Administrator time. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.
Second, the first time you uploaded this image, you named Aleksandra Poplawska as the source and author. The second time you uploaded it, you claimed it was "own work". It is obvious that neither is correct. Giving incorrect information about authorship is, at best, a serious nuisance and, at worst, a violation of Commons rules that will get you blocked from editing here forever.
You have given no reason above why this image should be restored, but since it came from Facebook, which is copyrighted, it cannot be restored unless the actual photographer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

files from http://travel1004.tistory.com/m/423

despite cc-by-license icon clearly exists the source page (the html source code: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ko" target="_blank" class="link_ccl">저작자표시</a>), Jameslwoodward has errorneously deleted the images from http://travel1004.tistory.com/m/423 --Puramyun31 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I dispute that "cc-by-license icon clearly exists the source page" -- as I said in my closing comment, I couldn't find it, so while it may be there, it is not clear. However that is moot. The issue with these files is that they all show copyrighted toys as a significant component of the images and therefore infringe on the toy makers' rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, The purpose of the photo uploads are clearly not intended to depict the toys as key subjects but to depict members of a girl group, so these can be qualified as de minimis. --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a small CC-BY icon at the bottom of the page, below the categories: [5]. By clicking on the icon, you will find the licence version number. Whether it's an obvious location is a matter of discussion, but the Tistory.com website often places a CC-BY icon there. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support per the site CC-BY license and COM:DM. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In order for a copyrighted work to be de minimis in a photograph, it must be so insignificant that an average viewer would not notice if it were removed from the image or blacked out. That is not the case with any of these -- the girl group members are playing with or cuddling the toys and the toys are central to the images. Note that this is very different from the law in some countries that allows copyrighted works to appear if they are not the principal subject. The arguments above use that reasoning, not the reasoning appropriate for de minimis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. I restored the files where the toy is only de minimis (half hidden, blurred, etc.). I cropped some files. --Yann (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:2008ML-couvCD800.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2018031310008081 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) 18:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Valérie Cabanes .jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2018020410005129 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) 18:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Anne-Marie Revol.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2018020510058928 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) 18:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by 6PO

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018012510011852.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 06:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC) AntonierCH (d) 06:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @AntonierCH: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ferrari Land .jpg

Also:

Reason: We are the actual Costa Daurada Tourist Board, and all photos uploaded were given to us by their authors. Thanks very much. --Patronat de la Costa Daurada (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file descriptions, you claimed that you were the actual photographer of these images. Now you say that they "were given to us by their authors". Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules.

While the photographers may have given you the images, owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it here unless you also have a formal, written, license agreement or copyright transfer. Therefore, in order to restore these either (a) the actual photographers must send a free license directly using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license together with evidence that you actually have the right to freely license the use of the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Philippine Airlines economy class A330-300.png

Also:

First of all, I have mistakenly placed Philippine Airlines as the author and source. It was supposed to be 360manila as the source and Carlo Salgado as the author. I apologize if I didn't change the source and author quickly, for I am still learning about Commons, and I am busy due to school.

Also, I have already asked for permission for the usage of the images and the author allowed the usage of the images, as long as I credit the images to his name. I was supposed to edit the source and author but then I saw that they were deleted. I have also already requested for OTRS, because the images were copyrighted, but as of now (UTC 10:45 AM March 14, 2018) the author still has no response. Itsquietuptown (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license directly to OTRS. They will be restored automatically when and if that e-mail is received, reaches the head of the queue, and is approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:雨音コンプレックス2017年11月公開.jpg

雨音コンプレックスのWIKIを作るためにメンバーに掲載の許可を得ました、実際に本人に会いWIKIの作成の許可を頂きメッセージにて雨音コンプレックスが公開した写真のWIKIへの掲載の許可を頂きました、またこのアーティスト写真以外にkoirusuがアップロードした写真も雨音コンプレックスがホームページにて公開している画像です、こちらも削除依頼が出されています--Koirusu (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We got permission to post to members to make rain sound complex WIKI, actually got permission to write in person, get permission to create WIKI and get permission to post on WIKI the picture released by Rain Sound Complex in the message Also, in addition to this artist photo, the photo uploaded by koirusu is also an image published by the Rain Sound Complex on the homepage, here also the deletion request has been issued--Koirusu (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
translator: Google Translate
 Oppose You've reuploaded the image outside of process for the second time before you've posted an undeletion request here, which is not allowed. There's no absolute proof that you've got proof of permission from the members. The source you've provided here does not say anything that they've released the image under a free license, nor I don't see any OTRS member tagging the photo as permission sent. I've given the final warning to you that if you repost the image outside of process again, you'll be blocked from uploading/editing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose This will require a free license sent directly from the copyright holder to OTRS. If the license has been sent, it must wait its turn in the queue to be read and approved. That will probably take more than a month. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

"File:Mr. Hanes in Alaska 1992.jpg‬".

To Whome it May Concern: 

   This file was removed for suspected copyright infringement.  I have requested and been notified by the executive secretary at namyco.org that the consent has been provided by the site.  Please restore "File:Mr. Hanes in Alaska 1992.jpg"

--Twilder43 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Twilder

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Philippine Airlines economy class A330-300.png

A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018031610000912.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: Please complete the permission. --Yann (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Timeline watch for wikipedia.jpg

Hello. I would like to request that you undelete the photo "Timeline watch for wikipedia.jpg." This photo was given to me by the owner of the website Timeline.watch, along with several other images, and I was given full permission to use these photographs for use on Wikipedia.

If you have other questions about this, please let me know on jezkramer@yahoo.com.

Many thanks,

James Kramer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesKaramer2018 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesKramer2018: hi,
Please ask the copyright owner to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Memorigin JadeTourbillon.png

I am authorised by Memorigin Watch Co. Ltd to publish and include the image on wikipedia with clear copyrights. --X213 editor (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@X213 editor: Hi,
Please ask the copyright owner to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:HealthMedia.jpg

HealthMedia.jpg is/was a photo that I took in 2008 at a public event that honored Ann Arbor businesses and is a photo to which I own the rights. I was standing among a pool of photographers and so my photo is likely being mistaken for any other closely resembling photo that I do not own. This photo is necessary for the context of the Wikipedia entry on Rick Snyder and so I ask with respect that it be included. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

I should say that I am impressed with the diligence that Wikipedians put forth to make sure that content is lawfully displayed.

Cheers!

--Derdody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derdody (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, it was deleted because it was very small and therefore assumed that it was taken off the Web. The easiest way to fix this is for you to upload it again using the same file name at full camera resolution with EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Undeletion requests

File:Mendes Bota vence Maria Veleda.jpg Nuno Vaz Correia (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've put it in SD instead per © Copyright 2018 Sul Informação, todos os direitos reservado. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Question Sorry, I don't understand. I see no reason from either Patrick Rogel or Nuno Vaz Correia why this file should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Diputados humanistas.jpg

El archivo que fue eliminado por creer que estaba infringiendo las normas de derechos de autor, puesto que la página mencionada es un medio difusor del humanismo y la no violencia, movimiento que soy partícipe. Pido que sea revertida la eliminación de la imagen, ya que fue tomada por mi persona. --Oscar 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscaroyarzo (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support It was deleted by Túrelio for appearing at https://www.pressenza.com/es/2018/03/asumen-los-nuevos-diputados-del-frente-amplio/. However, the footnote on that site reads, "Except where otherwise note, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license."

It also appears, without a free license, at http://www.partidohumanista.cl/asumen-los-nuevos-diputados-del-frente-amplio/, but that use credits the first one. The same is true at https://notiziesenzafrontiere.com/chile-neue-abgeordnete-von-frente-amplio-treten-ihr-amt-an/.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:CD_horizontal_black.png

Ich handle im Auftrag des Rechteinhabers:

Clinton Großhandels-GmbH Handwerkerstraße 19 15366 Hoppegarten

--ClintonCDS (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please have the actual copyright holder send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:ตราพระเกี้ยว บ.ด.๔.png

โรงเรียนบดินทรเดชา (สิงห์ สิงหเสนี) ๔ เป็นหนึ่งในโรงเรียนที่ได้รับอนุญาตให้ใช้ตราพระเกี้ยวเป็นตราประจำโรงเรียน ซึ้งไฟล์ภาพดังกล่าวเป็นไฟล์ภาพที่ออกแบบโดยทางโรงเรียนเอง เราจึงมีสิทธ์ที่จะยันยันความเป็นเจ้าของและอัพโหลดขึ้นบนวิกิพีเดียในนามของเรา Bodindecha 4 School is get royal permission to use this symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuphachaiFang (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but that does nothing to prove that you have the right to give away the school's property by freely licensing its logo. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, an authorized official of the school must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, an authorized official of the school must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Shakira Perro Fiel Coverart.jpg‬

Copyrights by Sony Music Colombia. I have stated in the description. It is the official art by the artist and it is important to have it in your page updated.--Juantento (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above, we can not keep it without the permission from Sony. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bowser emblem.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was deleted by a sockpuppet with a reason that's unclear. I'm curious if this file was indeed violated copyright policy (since I couldn't find any deletion requests for this file), and if it wasn't, is it possible to restore it. NotCory (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my colleagues above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nude Portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

  • ==Summary==
Author
Georges Hanna Sabbagh  (1887–1951)  wikidata:Q3103450
 
Alternative names
Georges Sabbagh; Georges-Hanna Sabbagh
Description French-Egyptian painter
Date of birth/death 18 August 1887 Edit this at Wikidata 9 December 1951 Edit this at Wikidata
Location of birth/death Alexandria Paris
Authority file
creator QS:P170,Q3103450
Description
Français : Nu assis.
Date before 1952
date QS:P571,+1952-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1326,+1952-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
Source/Photographer Self-scanned

Licensing

This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain".
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

Reason: I own this work. Edwardchdid (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but it is extremely unlikely that you own the right to freely license them. Copyright for works of art is very rarely transferred when the work is sold. It almost always remains with the creator and his heirs. If, in fact, you have a formal, written, license or transfer of copyright for these paintings, please send evidence of it using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: if any permissions there are, then they must be sent to OTRS. Otherwise these images of paintings can be undeleted in 2022 and 2035. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:辛晚教老師.jpg

We are the photo onwer! 我們是國立台北大學都市計畫研究所的編輯團隊，該圖片是來自於敝所之網頁，本所自有其編輯權力。任何疑問請來電+886-2-8674-1111 #67364，或來信up@mail.ntpu.edu.tw以獲得相關資訊--Harry108996 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)harry108996

  •  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 please ping or talk to me 12:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Joerg-boettcher.jpg

The picture comes directly from Prof. Jörg Böttcher, which is the head of our working group. In the past he has used this picture in various cuttings e.g. on the back cover of his books and in several publications. Especially the article which has been linked in the comment is an article written by Prof. Böttcher himself. Therefore he herwith requests for undeleting. It is not fine to close the discussion here after a very short time period (e.g. during night here in Germany) and not giving him a possibility to contribute.IOT-Autorenteam (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image has, as you say, appeared without a free license in a number of places, so policy requires that either (a) the actual copyright holder, who is usually the photographer or (b) Prof. Böttcher, must send a free license using OTRS. In case (b), Prof. Böttcher must provide evidence that he has a formal written license or copyright transfer from the photographer which allows him to freely license the image.

As for "It is not fine to close the discussion...", policy requires that obvious copyright violations are deleted on sight. The cited source has a clear copyright notice, so the rapid deletion was required by policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Stephen Stead.jpg

This is the head and shoulders shot used by the British Museum to illustrate conference speakers at Cultural Heritage events hosted by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.141.92 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 March 2018‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This Stephen Stead is apparently a faculty member at the University of Southampton. He has few Google hits and no Wikipedia Article, so it is not clear that he is notable in the sense required by Commons.

As for the image, his name does not produce results in a search on http://www.britishmuseum.org. The Museum's Web site has clear copyright notices, so it seems unlikely that the Museum would freely license this image even if they had the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Thompsonportrait.jpg

Greetings! This photo was deleted for unclear copyright status, but the photo was uploaded by someone at MassArt (the institution that owns copyright) with the authority to make it open access. We thought that was made clear in the original upload -- can this photo be reinstated? We're happy to add any additional needed info once we can access the photo description and metadata. Thank you! AmandaRR123 (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Info Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thompsonportrait.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose As clearly noted at the Deletion Request cited above, in order for this image to be restored, an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. If the owner is not the photographer, that e-mail should be accompanied by evidence that the writer holds a formal written copyright license or transfer permitting the sender to freely license the image.
Note that the original upload says that the photographer was "Massachusetts College of Art and Design Morton R Godine Library and Archive", which seems very unlikely. There is also no evidence there that User:Voltaireloving is in any way authorized to give away property of the Library. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:LOGO BURGHRECORDS.png

I created this and own full ownership of this logo Sonnyf (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)M.S.Fascia 16/03/2018

 Oppose Commons policy for logos requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Files from Flickr mass-deleted out of process

I request that the files visible in this deletion log (and subsequent pages) with the reason "Uploaded files of a blocked user. To prevent harm from new tenant. -" be restored on the grounds that they were deleted without a deletion request, a speedy deletion reason, or any other basis in policy.

There was already a discussion on COM:AN on the topic, where the deleting admin said that they deleted the files because the copyright on them was being very strictly enforced (no basis in policy for this), and that they would not contest undeletion.

In that discussion, I was redirected here, so I'm now raising it here. Tokfo (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - these file were uploaded with the purpose of causing harm to reusers. In case of semi-criminal activities, administrators can always act in order to prevent damage to the project or to our reusers. It may be argued that a regular DR would have been better, but the result would have been the same: deletion. Undeleting them now to redelete the files next week in a regular DR seems pointless to me. - Jcb (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no proof they were uploaded for the purpose of causing harm to reusers 72.73.117.105 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Who are you? And yes, there is evidence enough about the intentions of the uploader. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Admins are expected to use their judgement when odd situations arise. I think that if I had become aware of the problems created by this Flickr user, that I might also have deleted the images rapidly. It seems clear from the discussion at COM:AN that the source of these exists only to find suckers to hit with a legal action. I see no reason at all why Commons should assist the Flickr user in his quasi-legal efforts. It is true that a few of these are great images. Others are not so great and some are copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Were all of the pictures taken by Flickr user Marco Verch? If I understand de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2018/01#Hilfe - Rechnung für Commons-Foto erhalten correctly, someone was billed €481.50 for minor errors when using flickrphoto:26163120803: the file is listed as cc-by-2.0 (no share-alike, version 2) on Flickr, but the website with the infringing use listed cc-by-sa-3.0 instead (with share-alike, version 3) and there was no clickable link to the licence text. I think it's problematic if someone sends you a bill when the error obviously is a minor mistake, although it's fine if someone intentionally violates your copyright. Instead of undeleting any files, I think that we should delete the rest of the files in Category:Photographs by Marco Verch and probably instruct the reviewer bots to blacklist files from this Flickr user so that files aren't reposted to Commons. Sure, the files may be free in some legal sense, but they are not free from a practical sense if reusers don't know how to reuse them without being fined. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Stefan2: is it certain that Marco Verch himself sent these Abmahnungen, not someone else posing as the rights holder? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 Question to those opposing this undeletion request. What is the standard you'd like Commons to use when deciding what copyright enforcement is too strict? I don't think that you want Commons to be a de facto PD-only repository because no copyright holder can ever enforce their licenses and keep their files hosted here; but I really don't see a way to otherwise fairly and consistently enforce a rule that says "copyright holders have to be nice/not too strict about enforcement". We might have a moral responsibility to educate reusers on the finer points of the license (in general, reusers need to initially assume that all copyright holders will be as strict as Marco Verch – that's just a fact of how copyright works even with free licenses – but perhaps we could create a template that warns reusers that a file's copyright holder is strictly enforcing the license); but we also have a responsibility to preserve freely licensed educational files for posterity and we should have good reasons when we decide to delete any, and even if we were to decide that a situation like this is a good enough reason, it should be written in policy, not just randomly done in single cases like this. Tokfo (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I expect a reasonable common sense standard. I have (obviously) have no objection to a copyright holder requiring that a licensee properly attribute the image and fix errors, but multiple cases such as the one detailed by Stefan above of the licensor sending large invoices for inconsequential errors tell me that we should exercise our judgement and not help a troll make money by exploiting the legal system. I say "exploiting" advisedly -- it is not clear that what is going on here is illegal, but it is certainly beyond ordinary use. We see on Commons that many people do not fully understand copyright or use the wrong license or license version. Asking people to pay out ~$500 for naming the wrong version and other similar insignificant mistakes is just wrong and is unworthy of the support of this community. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jim. Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Mainly as per Jim. The deletion might have been better handled with a formal DR, but at the end, the result is the same. We can't allow people to game the system. --Yann (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Eurodiputada-Beatriz-Becerra.jpg

Fotografía de Eurodiputada Beatriz Becerra de su página de Flickr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyelitz (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. The file is in Flickr under license "© All rights reserved". That case OTRS-permission from copyright holder (usually from photographer) is needed to restore the photo. And please do not re-upload the photo without consensus to restore. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Taivo. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nahki Wells in Betfred, Kirkgate, Bradford..jpg

I took the photo of him myself in Betfred bookmakers, on Kirkgate in Bradford, so why exactly was it deleted? Everytime I upload a photo to Wikipedia they always seem to be deleted for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The photo was published in Internet under non-free license before upload into Commons. Such files can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission from copyright holder. After Commons receives the permission, the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Taivo. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Gen Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan.jpg

This file is in public domain. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shxahxh (talk • contribs)

How is “Copyrights © 2014-2015 All rights reserved” public domain? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi

Please see this [7] --Shxahxh (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The life of this photo has been in these years(1945-46 DS:1947-48) {{PD-Pakistan}}

--Shxahxh (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The image was not deleted yet. I converted the speedy deletion request into a regular one. Please continue discussion here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Sebari. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Allahabad Clock Tower.jpg

plz do not delete this picture because it is my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam singh chauhann (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Wes-1.jpg

I am Wes Duncan’s campaign manager. I have been doing my best to navigate the processes of Wikipedia to use our pictures, and verify my position within the campaign by using my official email address, john@wesduncan.com.

Please undelete this picture, as it belongs to our campaign and we have every right to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicfarland (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Vicfarland: can you explain how are you, or your employer, entitled to rights for a photo produced by one Cathleen Allison and published in the Washington Times? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I guess he obtained the rights to use this AP Photo in the campaign. However, that does not automatically allow him to relicense that photo.
Please undelete File:Palmcard1.pdf and File:Palmcard2.pdf. Because the source I provided in File:Wesley Duncan countryside crop.jpg is making no sense without that. If @Vicfarland: hasn't already given OTRS permission for those files I'm sure he will very quickly. - Alexis Jazz 08:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose @Alexis Jazz: The files should be undeleted after the permission is received, not in advance. Before the permission is signed by copyright owner, claiming that they are freely licensed is just copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Well we have already verified this account belongs to John Vick and he already uploaded these files with CC license so it's not as terrible as it seems. He has already provided OTRS for File:Wes with dog.jpg and I was thinking that OTRS perhaps covers the palmcards as well. But I agree, I was thinking too much of what John Vick would want, not of what Commons wants. - Alexis Jazz 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
OTRS for the palmcards was sent so these will probably reappear in a while. - Alexis Jazz 20:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait for the license to clear OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:J-P.LHESSE.jpg

Bonsoir, suite à un avertissement me demandant de confirmer mes droits sur cette photo, j'ai recontacter le model de la photo Jean-Pascal Hesse et le photographe Frédéric Goudon pour qu'ils confirment leur autorisation de me laisser les droits sur la photos et donc de pouvoir l'utiliser sur Wikipédia. Ils ont reçus un ticket chacun, je trouve cela déplacer de supprimer alors que je me plie à la procédure, que j'avais une semaine pour justifier et que l'on me supprimer si rapidement cette photo alors que l'on m'informe que pour répondre au ticket cela est beaucoup plus long ! Comment faire restaure l'image? Merci bien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelelbaz (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Samuelelbaz: Bonjour,
Avez-vous le numéro du ticket ? Veuillez noter qu'une "autorisation pour Wikipedia" n'est pas suffisante. Il faut une autorisation pour une licence libre. Ce n'est pas nécessaire de réimporter le fichier. Il sera restauré quand l'autorisation est validée. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
English short version: Do you have the ticket number? A permission "for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. We need a permission for a free license. And it is not needed to reimport the file, it will be undeleted when the permission is validated.

Bonjour, merci de votre réponse :@Yann: , L'un des deux ticket est : Ticket:2018031610009057 le deuxième, je suis en attente mais celui-ci fut envoyé.

Tout deux on reprit l'exemple suivant  : Commons:Email_templates/Consent, l'un affirmant céder ses droits en tant que model, l'autre en tant que photographe.

Je Vous remercie de l'aide apporter et espère voir la situation se régler au plus vite. merci bien. Samuel ELBAZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelelbaz (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This user does not know or has chosen not to share the whole history of this image. The original DR was

and that file was deleted because the image had appeared previously on Facebook. The same uploader then uploaded the same image as

It was deleted as a recreation of previously deleted content. Then, User:Samuelbaz uploaded the same image as

and it, too, was deleted as a recreation.

If, instead of reloading the file under second and third names, the two users had made a request here after the first deletion on February 14, the OTRS e-mail would today be near the head of the queue. I see no reason to reward the violation of our rules by allowing this file to jump the queue at OTRS. We should let it wait until the license reaches the head of the OTRS queue in a month or so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

Jim, I think that these people acted in good faith, but are quite confused about copyright and Commons requirements. Anyway, we don't have a permission from the photographer (yet). It seems that they initially think that the permission is to be given by the subject. The French language OTRS queue used to be quite short, but it has grown big again. We can close this until a permission comes. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No permission from the photographer. Please ask again if/when it comes. --Yann (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Jim, Yann. En effet, il y a eu plusieurs maladresses de mon côté, la première image fut posté à ma demande par le model de la photo Jean-Pascal Hesse, celle-ci fut supprimé car il ne connaissait rien à wiki. La deuxième fois, il y eu une erreur, elle a été tronqué, ainsi la troisième que je l'ai en effet remis au nom de *File:J-P.LHESSE.jpg vu que la deuxième n'avait pas été bien chargé et espérant gagner du temps. Jim, je vous invite à bien regarder l'heure et le jour où la deuxième et la troisième on été posté vu que vous aimez la précision, par ailleurs, j'ai demandé moi même à supprimer la deuxième vu qu'elle était coupé au téléchargement.

Ainsi, après la publication pour la troisième foi de cette photo, j'ai reçu un avertissement me laissant une semaine pour que la personne ayant les droits de la photos envoient un message à : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Chose faite, et dans le doute car je reconnais ne pas être encore un expert maitrisant tous les codes de wikipédia, j'ai demandé à ce que le sujet de la photo Jean-Pascal Hesse, et le photographe Frédéric Goudon envoient un message affirmant accepter les conditions de Wikipédia.


Merci Bien de vos conseils, je ferrai en sorte de faire mieux par la suite.


Samuelelbaz (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Samuelelbaz

That's fine, but the image will still have to wait its turn at OTRS. When it reaches the head of the queue there in about a month, if the license from the photographer is satisfactory it will be restored automatically. Please remember that both at OTRS and here, we are all volunteers, and there aren't enough of us, so users must tolerate backlogs..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Marina Karlysheva.jpg

I wonder why this file was marked as 'possible copyright violation'. I requested that file from the person herself in order to add it to respected page and I know that she has an agreement with photographer to use it under CC license. So, I request undeletion.

Ks1v (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://www.sferakino.ru/act90036-aktrisa-karlysheva-marina.html with "© Copyright 2007-2018 Саид Дашук". Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer and not the subject -- must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Hi, I uploaded this music file some time ago. It was deleted because the composer died in 1952, which was less than 70 years ago.

Nevertheless, having thought about it for a few years, this particular piece of music was never published as far as I know. I am the composer's great-grandson. I, user:MinorProphet created this file directly from the composer's unpublished autograph manuscript. I believe that it has never been in copyright, nor edited by anyone else. I would like to request its undeletion, and if you could suggest a suitable tag (if the request is successful) I would be grateful. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MinorProphet: Are you the composer's sole living heir?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for your reply. No: my father, the holder of the copyright of his published works, is still around. I might have to talk to him. MinorProphet (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@MinorProphet: Please have him send permission via OTRS, and consider uploading .mid files.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll have a go, might not be tomorrow... The file was created with Sibelius 1.4, playback through Jeux soundfont, second bank. I might have to resurrect an old PC to find the midi file, and then I would need some old DDR2 RAM, and maybe a graphics card and o, a powersupply and an old PS/2 keyboard and...... hmmm, you never know MinorProphet (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the fact that it was never published is irrelevant. UK works have had a copyright from the moment of creation since the first copyright law. In the absence of a specific bequest, your father is probably the copyright holder, so he must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct that copyright subsists from creation, and as an unpublished work, the U.S. copyright would also be 70pma now, and would expire in 2023. And actually as an unpublished musical work, the UK copyright will not expire until 2040 -- the UK gave a minimum 50 year protection for works unpublished as of 1989, per their copyright law which went into effect that year and abolished the infinite protection for unpublished works going forward, and that term was not reduced by the EU copyright directive. You can see the UK copyright chart on that score. So, we would need licenses from the copyright holder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the copyright holder, Minor Prophet's father, via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sepp Schellhorn 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I want to add OTRS permission. Thanks. Stepro (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Stepro, it would be helpful if, when you make such requests, you added the ticket number (Ticket:2018021610005161). It would also be helpful if you took ownership of the OTRS ticket rather than simply leaving it at root@localhost. I don't read German, so I take no position on the validity of this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Krd 11:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nalkowska - Kobiety (Women).djvu

The book was deleted here and uploaded to enwikisource. However, the reason for that seems ridiculous to me: the book was simultaneously published in US & UK in 1920, so US should be considered the country of origin IMO, as it is for many other simultaneously published books and {{PD-1923}} applies. I see no reason for not moving the book to Commons, so I suggest to restore it here first to avoid reuploading. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:IMG 3928-watermarked.jpg

As a permission (Ticket#: 2018021710004258) sent by Diba Tensile Architecture for publishing pictures uploaded by User:Dibatensilestructure, please undelete the mentioned picture ()

از آنجا که اجازه نامه ای برای کامنز از طرف گروه معماری دیبا ارسال شده است لطفا فایل مورد اشاره را احیا کنید. Dibatensilestructure (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Dibatensilestructure: you are not the OTRS agent working on this ticket. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2018 (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. @Dibatensilestructure: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear @G. ツ, Thank you for your attention. We sent the permission letter to commons email address two times but there is no automatic reply consist of a ticket number. The email is in English and we used a template for it. but a user told me that the ticket number is [Ticket#: 2018021710004258]. Would you please help me how to solve this problem as soon as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibatensilestructure (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 March 2018‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The automatic reply described above, with the ticket number, was sent to legal@xxxxxx.com (xxxxxx for privacy) on February 17 at 8:46 UTC. The license will be acted upon when it reaches the head of the queue at OTRS. As noted above, the OTRS backlog is currently around 47 days, so that should be around 17 days from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dibatensilestructure: You have Ticket:2018021710004258. It contains three email messages from you about permissions (the third essentially a duplicate). Our English language permissions ticketing system sends one automatic reply per ticket. We have no dedicated Persian language permissions ticketing system due to a lack of volunteers. Please wait your turn. Also, please check your website's SSL certificate. In addition, my user name is not User:Jeff G./talk, so your mention did not work.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:CP-Logo-with-byline--800x357.png

This is the logo of this brand and I am an employee of the brand. I am authorised to upload the brand logo, but being new to Wikipedia I may have uploaded it incorrectly. Please let me know if I have uploaded it with incorrect settings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Heyworth (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from an authorized official of the copyright holder using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Copyleft 2017 Hedi Slimane.jpg

La photo est en accord avec la politique Wikipedia. L'auteur de la photo, Yann Rzepka, a cédé tous ses droits. L'image est en Copyleft et peut être utilisée librement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 08:55, 19 March 2018‎ AmbreCamps (UTC)

 Oppose First, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.

This image is clearly marked "(c) Y.R." and Yann Rzepka is named in the file description as the author. It also appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Although you tell us that he has given up his rights, we have no way of knowing who you actually are or that you have the right to speak for Yann Rzepka. In order for the image to be restored here, Yann Rzepka must send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that being in accordance with Wikipedia policy is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Bácskai Mihály drámatanár és felesége (2000).jpg

Dr. Mihály Bácskai sent the copyright letter today at 13:09 to permissions-hu@wikimedia.org

Regards: --Timar56 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Timar56: So we are waiting for request from the OTRS agent who is processing this permission. Ankry (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Permission has arrived: Photosubmission ticket # 2018031910006751. --Regasterios (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (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) 23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Regasterios: pinging. Ankry (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: , @Regasterios: - Thanks for restoring the picture! Regards: --Timar56 (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Вулиця Радянська.PNG (redirect)

Censorship – “Вулиця Радянська” is a correct Ukrainian and was the name of the object until 2016. Please, undelete with all edit history to expose person(s) taking their political games to this site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I opened uk:Радянська вулиця. There's a lot of former streets with that name. Maybe this creates confusion? Taivo (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody here believe they lay “Радянська” (Soviet) waste because of confusion? They raze anything Soviet out of their land—but they have a sovereign state and may do almost every fool thing there—while may not do so in Wikimedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Another approach. Look at https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Вулиця_Анатолія_Лупиноса_(Черкаси)&oldid=16240462 – what do you see in place of the picture? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support per requester: an old name is not an "obvious error". Especially as it was a used name while the image was created. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ankry. Ruthven (msg) 13:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Six patterns of clinical training contexts.jpg

This file was deleted for 'questionable notability'. It is a model being used in medical education scholarship to understand and appraise clinical training contexts and has been used in a number of contexts. It is also a model that we wish not to be locked in to a publisher's copyright on any one given publication. To that end we see its publication in Wikimedia as both helpful to the scholarly community and as a way of ensuring access to those who cannot access paywalled academic content. We would be grateful if you could undelete this file. --Rellaway (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rellaway: Considering Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rellaway, would you please provide an SVG version that is not rasterized and a further explanation of its usefulness in medical education scholarship with an example?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Diagramas de fases que contienen reacciones de tres fases

Diagramas de fases que contienen reacciones de tres fases

Se modifico la cita para evitar el plagio. --JoséRoque96 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Reacciones de tres fases con mayor importancia en los diagramas de fases binarios.jpg

El archivo eliminado fue recopilado y citado del libro Askeland, D. R., Fulay, P. P., & Wright, W. J. (2017). Ciencia e ingeniería de materiales. Cengage learning. y fue subido a la pagina de commons para que esté almacenado y registrado. solicito que se regenere el archivo en donde tiene una finalidad en el articulo donde se encuentra. --JoséRoque96 (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2018 (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. @JoséRoque96: Además, tenga en cuenta que es una violación grave de las reglas de Commons para cargar una imagen por segunda vez después de la eliminación como lo hizo aquí. Desperdicia tu tiempo y el de otros editores de Commons. Si lo haces de nuevo, es posible que no puedas editar en Commons. Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ben Moore Astrophysicist.jpg

Hi, I own the copyright for these two photos and am happy to release them for open use: Ben Moore Astrophycisist.jpg Ben Moore.jpg They may appear edited on some press websites since I have distributed them for news stories about the astrophysicist Ben Moore. regards, Ltuae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltuae (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image has appeared on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Band member, Danielle Egan, pictured in the window of Leap Castle's Bloody Chapel for the cover-art of Unkindness Of Ravens second album 'The Perfect Dark'.jpg

I took the photograph and it is not copyrighted to any other photographer - I have reverse searched the image and can only trace it sites authorised by me to use the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixxer1127 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Leo Stadium night .jpg

taken by Bangkok glass media team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpcom BG (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 04:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Soldier Sikh LI INF of the Indian Army practices aim during MALABAR 2006.jpg

Incorrectly nominated by a blocked sock. The image is available here [8] and was released by the US Navy. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Don’t see any blocked socks in histories of the file and its deletion request. This indicate something alike in en.Wikipedia, but nomination and deletion took place on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support As noted by Adamgerber80, the image appears at http://www.navy.mil/view_imagex.asp?id=40360&t=1. Since the photographer was Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Joshua Martin of the US Navy, it is clearly {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:CCUTD Logo.jpg

File:CCUTD Logo.jpg

The image above is the official logo off Central Coast United and we own the copyright.

Can you please reinstate the logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccutd (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Published at the team’s web site and its Facebook page without a free license. Thuresson (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Either (a) add CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA to the web site, https://www.ccutd.com/, or (b) have an authorized official of the organization send a free license using OTRS. (a) will result in immediate restoration while (b) will take around a month and a half for the license to reach the head of the queue at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Logo ICES 2016.jpg

Hi,

I'm Cyril Pasquier, webmaster an community manager of ICES.

I have the authorization and all the power to manage the image rights of the logo of our university File:Logo ICES 2016.jpg

What must be done to make it acceptable in the Wikipedia Commons?

Sincerely yours,

March 20, 2018 M. Pasquier--Cyrvalpas (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that for images of logos an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lgn Hat.jpg

hi my name is John Livingston I am the copyright holder of this file

Hi I'm the copyright holder and I Would like to make this file available for research purposes under attributes creative commons. Please advise me if you need further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveGodnow (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 12:00, 20 March 2018 (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. @LoveGodnow: I assume you wrote about your one deleted file File:Lgn Hat.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Salambo1989.jpg

Moin Admins, under the ticket number 2018032110007791 I have an OTRS request and therefore ask for recovery. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:58, 21 March 2018 (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) 15:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Moin (Jameslwoodward)
I am on the OTRS team but you didn't want me as admin, so I have to go this way to process a ticket. I can't restore it myself. -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent's request. @Raboe001: Bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Baustein. De728631 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfekt danke -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sviatchenko_in_1985.jpg

The photo Sergei Sviatchenko 1985 has has been given to me by Sergei Sviatchenko for use on Wikipedia. It is a private photo and he owns the rights to it and have allowed the use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorehojer (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Moorehojer: The photo has already been published elsewhere without evidence of free license. In such cases we require that the photographer or other copyright owner (who can prove that they are copyright holder) send us a free license permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Note: this is unlikely that the subject of the photo is/was the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sergei.jpg

The photo has has been given to me by Sergei Sviatchenko for use on Wikipedia. It is a private photo and he owns the rights to it and have allowed the use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorehojer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Moorehojer: The photo has already been published elsewhere without evidence of free license. In such cases we require that the photographer or other copyright owner (who can prove that they are copyright holder) send us a free license permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Littell © Benjamin Loyseau.jpg

Hello. I am the subject of this photograph. While Benjamin Loyseau is the photographer, and holds the copyright, he has granted me a full and permanent license to use this image freely as my official photograph. I would therefore like it to be available for use on Wikipedia. If you require documentation, I would be glad to provide you with a letter from Benjamin Loyseau. Thank you,

All best,

J. Littell — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.53.251.198 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo has already been published elsewhere without evidence of free license. In such cases we require that the photographer or other copyright owner (who can prove that they are copyright holder) send us a free license permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Also please note that a license to use the photograph as your official photograph would not usually give you the right to freely license it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Sarwar Hussain.jpg

Mr Hussain is a prominent political leader of bangladesh. Not sure why this page was deleted. Please reinstate. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.114.29.28 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shahed hussain: Where is the article?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't see any WP article or relevant first page Google hits. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:TRA Tainan Station front (36894577216).jpg

Jameslwoodward is a bit of a god being an Admin, so I guess I have no say here, but I think these files were deleted without consensus. It makes no sense. Why are Taiwanese families out of scope when we have millions of Caucasian families on Commons? Why is recording the way a family is in the 2010s not in scope when we think of Commons existing for another 100 years? The locations they are standing could also be valuable too. I don't get the campaign to delete such images; they are some of the footprints we are all leaving in the sands of time. Nesnad (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The location itself is in scope. But the people cannot be cropped out to show architecture. But photos of not notable people are out of scope if they are not used eg. in a Wikipedia article. Same applies to European, Asian, African, etc. people. Feel free to nominate such images for deletion, if noticed. Ankry (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose As I said in the closing comment, if these family travel images were uploaded by a member of the family in them, they would be deleted as personal images. We delete hundreds of such images every day. I see no reason why the fact that they were not uploaded by a member of the family makes them any different.
I think that the accusation of my being racist is way out of line. The record will show that I delete similar images from all over the world -- black, brown, red, pink, or green -- European, African, Asian, Native American, Martian -- if you are out of scope, you are out of scope. I also think that "bit of a god" is out of line. An Admin must make tough calls. Finally, Nesnad claims that there was no consensus. In fact, there was only the uploader, Nesnad, who wanted these kept and two independent people -- Kai3952 and me -- who thought they should be deleted. Even if you give the uploader's opinion full weight, that's two to one for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Agree Sorry Jameslwoodward, if it came across as if I thought that you were racist as a person, I didn't mean that, I meant the action was racist. I never get European things deleted on here by you, but you also deleted an Asian male image of mine a long time ago, so it felt like the actions are racist not you as a person. I feel that institutions can have racial biases, and doesn't make the individual racist. Oh, well, you are a god so everyone will disagree with me. And maybe complaining will now get my harassed as sometimes happens on Wiki. Oh well. I just don't see the point in deleting those. But I will not be heard apparently. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You may think I'm a god, but my understanding of gods is that they don't have 224 fellow gods (Administrators) and 25,000 users looking over their shoulder. Commons god-administrators have the power we do because the community as a whole trusts us to make reasonable decisions almost all of the time.
As for "But I will not be heard apparently", you have been heard and three people, Kai3952, Ankry, and I agree that the images were not appropriate. Only you, the uploader, think they are. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Anthony “White chocolate” Martinez.jpg

The reason I request for this image to be reposted is because this image is of Anthony martinez a American professional boxer in which his image is being used for his wiki page stated as Anthony Martinez(Boxer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitechocolateboxing (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 00:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Whitechocolateboxing: you uploaded File:Anthony “White Chocolate” Martinez.jpg without evident permission and it was then deleted as a copyvio. You then reuploaded the same image as File:Anthony Martinez.jpg, and it was again deleted for that reason. What is the license? How did you obtain permission from the photographer or image designer to upload with that license? Please send that info via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Nations Cup London Winner Team Germany.jpg

Das Bild wurde von mir selbst gemacht und ich möchte es für den Artikel zur Verfügung stellen. Juergen Bachmann (Diskussion —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:28, 21 March 2018 (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. @Juergen Bachman and M-B: Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Juergen Bachmann: .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Asset-45@2x-600x598.png

I am part of the Jesus Coin Team, I have copywriter permission to edit a Jesus Coin page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosmoreira69 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 21 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 08:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Les imatges eliminades són de la propietat de l'Ajuntament de Valls, com tota la resta. Se'ns hauria de permetre publicar-les. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalbat (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I assume you mean:

These are apparently images of copyrighted works. In the file description, you claimed that you were the creator of the works. Now you claim that they are owned by l'Ajuntament de Valls. Giving accurate information is important here.

Since this is clearly not "own work" as you claimed, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Also please note that uploading an image a second time after it has been deleted is a violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:CNN Center neon sign.jpg

Good morning. I am requesting undeletion of a file originally uploaded yesterday to the Commons. According to the deletion log, the reason given by Yann, the administrator, was that the photograph was in violation of copyright policy. However, the file is licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic, which appears both on the file's Flickr page and in the license hyperlink in the right of the screen. The policy of uploading others' content on Wikimedia Commons makes an exception for Flickr images protected under Attribution 2.0 Generic, as well as other licenses the author lists under "Commercial use & mods allowed" on Flickr's search database. One can refer to the third screen, "Release rights" within the "Upload Wizard" for verification of this policy. In addition, the file was verified, through Flickr review, not to violate copyright by a user on the file source page that has since been deleted. (If the administrator deleted the file because of the logo in the image, it too is in the public domain and has appeared in many images on the Commons.) Thanks for your consideration. Georgian (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that's very odd. It seems they were uploaded by different users. Thanks. Georgian (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It makes no difference. It is still License laundering. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: License laundering -- the Flickr user does not have the right to freely l icense the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:1931 foto Jhr.Mr. C.Th.J van Rijckevorsel.jpg

Reasons: copywright fotograaf R.Lonthie, 41 Avenue Louise Bruxelles.

Deze fotograaf is overleden/bestaat niet meer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Nuenen (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Louis Nuenen, het auteursrecht verloopt pas zeventig kalenderjaren na de dood van de fotograaf. U zult dus moeten aantonen dat de fotograaf vóór 31 december 1947 overleed óf dat u schriftelijk toestemming hebt van diens nabestaanden om de foto vrij te geven onder de op Wikipedia geldende licentie, die onder meer commercieel hergebruik met naamsvermelding toestaat. Tot die tijd kan de foto niet op Wikimedia Commons worden toegelaten en dus niet op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia worden geplaatst. Met vriendelijke groet, Velocitas (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Belgian copyright applies. René Lonthie was also working from Carnotstraat 113, Antwerpen. All photographs I could find date from 1915 up to 1925. See also website Letterenhuis. Not in RKD, not in Delpher. No useful information in KBB or BNF. Some records in Gallica. Vysotsky (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: A photographer active in 1931 could easily have lived past 1947. This requires a free license from his heirs or evidence that he died before 1948. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Artwork of Mr G. M. Solegaonkar uploaded by User:Solegaonkar

List of 90 Images of Artwork
* File:Landscape 13 by G. M. Solegaonkar.jpg

Thanks for your vigilance in trying to identify copyright violations.

I am Mr G. M. Solegaonkar's grandson. By inheritance, his paintings are in my family's possession. I have clicked these photographs and added to WikiMedia with the intention of attaching them to the Wikipedia page dedicated to him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govind_Solegaonkar

I have the rights to these images as a family member (by inheritance) and also as the photographer.

Here are the proofs that I can share with you 1. Proof that these paintings were created by Mr. G. M. Solegaonkar: http://hermitofajanta.com/ - Check out the paintings tab. 2. Proof that I have clicked these images: http://album.solegaonkar.com/hermit.show 3. Proof that I am grandson of Mr. G. M. Solegaonkar - Adhaar cards of me and my father that show the lineage. I am sure you understand that the Adhaar cards cannot be openly submitted as a link on Wikipedia. Please let me know how I can share them with you without making them public.

All said, I am not an expert on Copyright laws or Wikipedia policies - You are. So I request you to please guide me with the process - because I feel a Wikipedia page dedicated to Mr. G. M. Solegaonkar is incomplete without his paintings.

Regards Vikas (9869790320)

Solegaonkar (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)solegaonkar

  • On upload, you indicated these as {{Own work}} and made no distinction between your grandfather and yourself.
  • Given that you put {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, I assume that is roughly the license you intend, but attribution to yourself rather than to your grandfather is not likely to be your intention. I assume you actually intend "G. M. Solegaonkar" as the attribution, on the painting themeselves and someone else (who?) on the photo of him painting. In any case the license you properly should be using is presumably {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs|author=G. M. Solegaonkar}} (and analogously for the anything differently attributed).
  • Instructions can be found at COM:OTRS for sending supporting materials privately to the (small, trusted) OTRS group. At this point, that's probably who you need to deal with to get these undeleted. They tend to be backlogged, but will eventually get to you.
- Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Are these artworks in scope? Were they used?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an extended article at Govind Solegaonkar where these were in use until they were deleted. He appears to be well above our threshold for notability. Thank you, Solegaonkar, for contributing them.
As Jmabel has said, in order for the works to be restored, the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. It will be around a month and a half for that to reach the head of the queue at OTRS. Once they are restored, they must all be changed to show "author=Govind Solegaonkar". That can be done rapidly by the restoring Admin using VFC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a license from the copyright holder for the art via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Evan-siddall.jpg

Hello. I work as a website administrator for Canada Mortgages and Housing Corporation. I was asked to upload the photo of Evan Siddall to Wikipedia as well as create and publish his Wikipedia profile page in English and French. I uploaded the image Evan-siddall.jpg, the first time without appropriate copyright information. The image got deleted. I read how to upload the image properly with copyright information and I re-uploaded accordingly. I am shocked that you deleted the image again. I am trying to do my work and you deleted my work without giving me a reasonable explanation. If you think it still violates the copyright policy you have, please be more specific and tell me how to do it properly. I added the copyright information based on you suggestion according to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses, yet it was deleted. Please undelete the image or else please tell me how you want me to upload it. Thank you. --Cmhc-user (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 14:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from an authorized official of the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Taivo

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of these images are my own work. They were mistakenly deleted because some of them were also on my own Facebook page, and the deleter evidently mistook my Facebook page for someone else's page. See also [Ticket#2018031610000734]. Greggens (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2018 (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. @Taivo: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait their turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:شباهت نقوش بز کوهی.jpg

This Photo belongs to Dr. Mohammad Naseri Fard and is published under his own agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am!r.abolhasani (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This photo would of out of scope, even if the legal issues were resolved. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 10:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope, see COM:SCOPE. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Jacc Music.jpg

I'm not sure why the photo got deleted. It was a photo was sent to me by the photographer who took the photo himself. I manage JACC's music career so everything I'm posting I know is factual and I have the permission and the copyright to all of it. Please undelete this photo so I can use it in his Wikipedia article or at least tell me what was wrong with it?

Thanks, BDavid3490 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDavid3490 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This photo can be found at the Facebook page of JACC. Instead of crediting the photographer, you credited a web site. Please ask the photographer to verify the license by the steps outlined at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 10:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license directly from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:It's Never Been Like That (BLOE).png

Phoenix has stated that they allow free music of their music. Link of proof:http://wearephoenix.tumblr.com/post/78111467465/we-support-fair-use-of-our-music-we-were-upset-to#disqus_thread, They stated that in their official Tumblr account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo1198 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not music, it is a photo of a record cover. I'm not sure what "allow free music of their music" means, it says they allow "fair use". What does this mean in regards to licensing of their record covers? Thuresson (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 10:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: They allow "fair use" of their music. First, Commons does not allow "fair use" amd second, this is not music, it is a copyrighted record cover. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_ponderano.png

The logo Logo_ponderano.png was created and designed by me in person (Ermanno Rosso and is therefore my property) who are the President of the A.S.D. Ponderano. I want it to be restored on the page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponderano (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I note that you have uploaded this three times. It is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image after it has been deleted. If you take similar action again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.

Policy requires that for logos, an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And they uploaded it again. Per the above I've marked it as {{No permission since}} this time. --Majora (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been deleted five times by five different Admins -- I think we can close this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:PeterSchweizer-fullsizecolor.jpg

This file was deleted, however, I believe this link should clarify the licensing concerns.

http://peterschweizer.com/creative-commons-license-for-images-of-peter-schweizer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensfielding (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support Legit CC license on source website. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Sebari. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Taskeen_Rahman.jpg

Please let this picture be in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehnumarocks (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rehnumarocks: This file was deleted as a copyright violation. There is no way to restore it, except if you could prove that you have the permission of the copyright holder to release the image here under the license given. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 10:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: In order to restore this imagel, the actual copyrightholder -- probably the photographer -- must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ricardo Armentano.jpg

The link cited for possible violation of copyright is ResearchGate ( https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ricardo_Armentano ). It's a research networking platform. The photo is just a profile picture there and ResearchGate has no rights of that photo. So it can be used freely in Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2800:810:479:3F1:D847:DF25:3964:3662 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose ResearchGate has no right of that photo, but neither has the uploader (at least most likely). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 09:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: In order to restore this image, which appears with copyright notices in several places on the Web and which is very small, the actual copyrightholder -- probably the photographer -- must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Aldea Poética.jpg

The image of the book cover for Aldea Poética (uploaded by myself) was deleted under copyright issues. Realising the problem (the image appears in my own webpage but under a copyright) I reuploaded the file, this time sending my permission to Wikipedia Commons ([Ticket#2018032110005489]), stating that the image is my own creation and giving all the corresponding permissions. As I have already followed the procedures stated in the protocols, I do not understand the reasons why my file keeps getting deleted. I need to use it to create my own Wikipedia page, so I would like to have it undeleted.

Thanks in advance, --Operaprimaedicionpersonal (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This must wait its turn in the long OTRS queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:OGLE-2007-BLG-349L system.jpg

This image was incorrectly deleted as copyrighted. Material credited to STScI, including this image, that is listed on hubblesite.org is prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555. Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract. {{PD-Hubble}} looks to be the correct template as it mentions the NASA contract, though it is somewhat confusingly worded. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging nominator and deleting administrator. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
For reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:OGLE-2007-BLG-349L system.jpg Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose It is correct that there is never a copyright for works by NASA employees and that STScI explicitly disclaims copyright in their works. However, the caption reads, "Credit: NASA, ESA, and G. Bacon (STScI)" and ESA works are copyrighted, so I don't think we can keep this. Too bad, it's a striking image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Carl, could you please take a look at this? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hm. SOHO is a different satellite than the Hubble, so the normal ESA license would not be there ({{ESA-Hubble}}). NASA's SOHO copyright page is different than most, in that it encourages informational and educational usage, but seems to imply that full commercial use is not permitted, which is in line with ESA's general permission for their stuff (which would make sense if they co-owned copyright). On the other hand, the credit lines on NASA/ESA stuff often includes all the institutions who provided equipment etc., but that is sometimes different than authorship and therefore copyright ownership. This is an artist's conception, meaning that person is really the sole human author, and it sounds like they work at STScl. If http://hubblesite.org/image/3790/ is the source of this image, it says "The illustration is based on Hubble Space Telescope observations". So, I'm not sure why the deletion request mentioned SOHO in the first place, as that satellite observes the sun. And in this case, the artist's image is not derivative of any other work, so it would be a STScl work for hire and the copyright status would be directly tied to STScl's contracts. The image source directly references the hubblesite copyright page, which in turn implies that the work was done under the NAS5-26555 contract, which would make it public domain (and {{PD-Hubble}} being the most accurate tag). I don't think the ESA would own any part of the copyright.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Tropical Cyclone 23P (Ita) Warning no 9.png

Reason: This is the map of Google Earth which is copyrighted. See this and this. --B dash (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I, too, don't understand why this is here, but it appears that all Google information has been scrubbed away, so we can keep this. What is "deletion review"? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: en:WP:DRV, one of two analogs for COM:UD on enwiki.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. --B dash (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Pascal Pujol.jpg

Bonjour,

La photo Pascal Pujol.jpg a été supprimée deux fois, la première fois par ma méconnaissance des procedures sur wikipédia, je n'ai pas importé cette dernière avec toutes les infomations nécessaires à sa validation (date, lieu, licence...) et la deuxième fois car j'ai voulu l'importer cette fois-ci de façon plus correcte, ce que je n'aurais pas dû faire apparemment mais je n'arrivais pas à voir où et comment je pouvais la restaurer. Du coup, désolée pour cela. En revanche, l'image est bien libre de droit (les photos présentent sur le site de la SFMPP le sont toutes) et j'ai contacté par mail Monsieur Pascal Pujol qui me l'a confirmé. Du coup, je ne connais pas la marche à suivre pour que la photo soit "acceptée" et remise dans l'infobox?

--Medicina34 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I see nothing on http://sfmpp.org/ that suggests that anything there is freely licensed and, at the bottom, there is "Copyright - 2016 | Web agency : Bridge Communication". Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer and not the subject or the web site, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Merci pour votre réponse. Le photographe a été contacté, j'aurai bientôt sa permission écrite.--Medicina34 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Medicina34, please note that the photographer himself must send the free license directly to OTRS -- your having the permission is not necessary. If you forward a license to OTRS it will not be accepted. We must do that because there are too many dishonest people who try to forge a license in order to get an image on Commons without the actual permission of the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Je comprends, il n'y a pas de problème. Je viens de recevoir un mail du photographe qui m'annonce qu'il vient d'envoyer un mail d'autorisation à l'adresse suivante: permissions-fr@wikimedia.org donc normalement tout devrait rentrer dans l'odre. Savez-vous (approximativement) en combien de temps sont traités les mails de ce genre? Je suis novice donc désolée pour mes "erreurs"...--Medicina34 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's good, thank you. Unfortunately we are all volunteers and there aren't enough of us, so the current OTRS backlog is 47 days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Je suis désolée de vous embêter mais le photographe a reçu un mail d'un membre de l'équipe d'information de Wikipédia lui disant: "Nous avons bien reçu et validé l'autorisation pour cette image. Mais je n'ai pas trouvé cette image sous Wikimedia Commons, où sont stockées les images libres de droit qui apparaissent notamment sur Wikipédia. L'avez-vous chargée ? Si oui, sous quel nom (ou quelle URL) ? Si non, nous pouvons le faire, mais nous avons besoin pour cela de savoir qui est pris en photo, ne serait-ce que pour donner un nom au fichier." Du coup, je ne sais pas trop quoi faire? Pouvez-vous m'indiquer la marche à suivre s'il vous plait? Merci et navrée du dérangement.--Medicina34 (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I searched OTRS using "Pascal Pujol" and did not find a ticket, so the photographer evidently did not identify the file he was writing about. You can (a) have the photographer give the OTRS volunteer the name of the file above, (b) refer the OTRS volunteer to this discussion, or (c) post the OTRS ticket number here and I will take a look. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very nice of you. A big thank you and sorry. Here is the ticket Ticket:2018032110010571. --Medicina34 (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done The photographer, WM, sent a copy of the file, but he did not name it. We all know that OTRS is very frustrating because there are not enough volunteers working there, so we all try to be helpful when things do not go quite correctly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission added. --Yann (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Slikanje na staklu.jpg

There are two requests for this image:

  • First request:

Hi,

on this image is shown Zvonko Pižir. All of photos on this page are his ownership: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvonko_Pi%C5%BEir

Please undelete image in subject. As I see, you found this image on some blog and that states that image is not mine?

--Zvonko Pizir (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Second request:

Reason: This is picture I took by myself. Please undelete it. You will find that all other pictures are fine also. https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvonko_Pi%C5%BEir Zvonko Pizir (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 14:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two copyrights here, one for the photograph, and one for the artwork shown in the photograph. Because the photograph has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, we need a free license via OTRS from the photographer. We also require a free license directly from the artist, also via OTRS. It would be best if one or the other sent in the license, waited for acknowledgement from OTRS and then had the other of the two send in the other license referencing the ticket number on the acknowledgement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Alfa_Romeo_Garavini.jpg

Il carrozziere in questione è fallito negli anni '50 e se ne sono perse totalmente le tracce, immagini come queste scattate all'epoca (anni 20 e 30) sono quasi gli ultime testimonianze di questo costruttore. Questa ed altre immagini simili sono facilmente reperibili sul web — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luidefran (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Luidefran: The above is about scope, not about copyright. To restore the photo, somebody (presuming: the uploader) should provide also a proof that it is free.
When the photo was created and what license template should be applied?
If it was made in 2012 as you declared during upload, it cannot be {{PD-Italy}} Ankry (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: From what's written above, the photo should have been taken in the 20s and 30s in Italy (thus PD-Italy and PD-1996 apply). The car manufacturer closed in 1957. Related article: Ilario Bandini. --Ruthven (msg) 15:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Maybe, if the photo was made while the can manufacturer was active and not later. This is not clear for me, so my request for more information. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Ok, so above Luidefran said that the photo was made in the 20s and 30s. --Ruthven (msg) 15:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support then; and suggest fixing date and setting as PD-Italy. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Anniversaire de Melanie Klein (70 ans).jpg

Hello, This picture is used on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Anniversaire_de_Melanie_Klein_(70_ans) as a image maps. We cannot used the image map with the new picture File:A dinner to celebrate Melanie Klein's 70th birthday. Wellcome L0016246.jpg proposed by User:Materialscientist. Please restore. Thank you. Orphée (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Orphée: Why is it not listed in the delinker log?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Cette image était cliquable et on accédait directement au nom et à la page Wikipédia liée de chacun des invités, c'est un grand travail d'Orphée et je soutiens sa demande de restauration. La qualité de la nouvelle image ne remplace pas l'intérêt encyclopédique de l'ancienne image, merci à vous de tenir compte de ces éléments, --Pierrette13 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This image was clickable and you could directly access the name and related Wikipedia page of each guest, it is a great work of Orpheus and I support his request for restoration. The quality of the new image does not replace the encyclopedic interest of the old image, thanks to you for taking into account these elements, --Pierrette13 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
translator: Google

Hello @Jeff G., Ankry, and Orphée: , thanks a lot, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sc-76.jpg

It was just randomly deleted, out of the blue with no even warning as to reason as is usually done on wikipedia. Based on "supposed" Copyrighted status.... BUT i received permission from the original author/website to use it, which I licensed accordingly with an OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MORNINGSIDE (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@MORNINGSIDE: Do you have a ticket number? @Srittau: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Ticket:2018032410005643 was added into file description by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks, can it be restored for application of {{subst:OR}}?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer for an OTRS agent to review this ticket before that. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Fine. OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018032410005643 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: ✓ Done. Please take a decission. Ankry (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Restored, thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Mazar Haqani.jpg

Dear concern,

I would like to tell that the picture which was set on my page in wiki urdu was deleted due to the reason I just saw "it was a copyright violated issue, picture was copied from facebook" before that my another picture was deleted due to the same reason. I want to tell that both pictures were taken from my camera, and we have a page on Facebook as-well and pictures were uploaded there also. So now I want to ask if those pictures are not allowed? since i had the copyrights of them (because taken by me) and before uploading on wikipedia, i uploaded on Facebook so they are now allowed? kindly clear this issue so that I can arrange another photo or you redo the photo.

Thanks & Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by مخدوم عبدالرشید حقانی (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 23:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Melnichenko Andrey 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was duly published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. An email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Friday 16 March 2018, 00:35 UK time by the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photograph. There is no basis to delete this image whatsoever and undo the edit. Please undelete it. Sasha-int (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2018 (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. Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:2018-03-19 12 50 10-Übersicht - MantisBT.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Screenshot was taken of a software under GPL and it replaces an old screenshot of the same software under GPL. Please explain the deletion or undelete it. If you keep it deleted, please update referenced wikipedia articles. Sflori (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this free software? @Ronhjones and Túrelio: Yann (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You tell us! Give us a link to the permissions - All i see at https://mantisbt.org/bugs/my_view_page.php is "Copyright © 2000 - 2018 MantisBT Team"Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 Info I see at the bottom of this page ("About MantisBT" section) info about GPL license. GPL-licensed software is copyrighted. @Ronhjones: I see no contradiction here. Ankry (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Freely licensed software screenshot (per Ankry). The user avatars in the screenshot can be considered de minimis. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

ECC is the authorised person to publish all these pictures as they are pictures of the Secretary General of ECC and ECC account is the authorised account to publish it.

The Presidential race where Dr. ElShazly participated of Egypt is in 2018 and he was one of the candidates in this election who withdrawn including Mr. Khlaed Ali and Mr. Sami Anan. This are Dr. ElShazly in 2018 and they are available on his new publications of this year and not 5 years ago.

I also can send permission from Dr. ElShazly himself as the Secretary General of the ECC , which is the authorised body to publish the pictures and Dr. ElShazly is the Secretary General of the ECC/ the Egyptian Change CouncilThe ECC Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECC70 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I provided all evidence that there is no violation and I am the owner of the picture

The file is not representing any violations of any copyrights as it was published by the authorised person at the Egyptian Change Council, www.ecc-egypt.net

Here is the official announcement on the CPI International Group Blog where Dr. ElShazly is the President and CEO

Please notice that the pictures are the same and with two similar suits blue and changing only the time in some pictures. We also have all the file of the original pictures. The date generated by the system is wrong, the pictures were shot in the Wishmore Hotel on the 20.01.2018 and 21.01.2018 before the announcement. The original Video announcement was also shot in the same location.

The file is the image owned by the Egyptian Change Council for Dr. Hossam ElShazly, the Secretary General of the Egyptian Change Council (ECC) runs for the President race of Egypt 2018. Please see the following links for the official announcement dated 21.01.2018 All files were shot by the authorised person of the ECC during 20.01.2018 and 21.01.2018 The date of 2013 generated by the system is ERROR All pictures of Dr. ElShazly for the campaign were shot in January 2018 - Please notice it is the same suit used in most of the picture

Official announcement in English

Article published in the official page of the campaign in 02.2018

Official Linked In page of Dr. ElShazly with pictures This is another picture from the official page of Dr. ElShazly with the same suit and was shot in the same venue — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECC70 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Files not deleted yet. @ECC70: Please answer in the DRs. As for any content previously published elsewhere, you have to send a formal written permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rangerette com Logo.png

I am still not sure why this file was originally deleted. It is my own work, created from a photograph I took in September 2001. Just because it appears in other locations around the internet does not mean it isn't my work. Waynems (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2018 (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. @Waynems: Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the instructions. Not worried about getting blocked as I am deleting my account shortly. Waynems (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Waynems: Sorry, but that's impossible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Airtite Demo Pa Turnpike EZ pass signs.JPG

I Kris Sabol am the owner of this picture. I am also the Owner of NIBTORQUE.com where this picture is additionally posted, I am the person who took this picture, and i own this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksabol1 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 06:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:EA2150 ON SHOP FLANGE.jpg

I am the owner of this picture, this picture was taken by me personally in my shop. WIKI commons claims it was copyrighted from NIBTORQUE.com I am the business owner of NIBTORQUE.com I put the picture on this website, and that website. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksabol1 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 06:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Electric Torque Wrench With Standard Controlls waterproof model.JPG

This picture is also on NIBTORQUE website, because i personally took this picture, because i own the website nibtorque.com, my name is on the website under the about nibtorque section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksabol1 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 06:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't know who User: Ksabol1actually is and identity theft is fairly common here, so policy requires that when an image has appeared on the Web without a free license, the actual copyright holder -- who is usually the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, you could add a CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA license to the Web site.

I also must ask -- did you actually take the two photographs of the tool and add the callouts at the bottom or did you simply photograph or scan an existing page? In the latter case, you would not have the right to license this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff and Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rue de l'Odéon2.JPG

While I don't disagree with the deletion rationale - "Almost every detail is a copyrighted element" - this deletion goes against our long-standing policy. The relevant issue is not whether every pixel is part of a copyrighted work, it's whether there is any copyrighted work which is not de minimis. We've had images of comic stallss (Japanese manga iirc?) which were kept on this rationale; and indeed people made compelling arguments that a mosaic of album covers would be legitimate to keep. Ping Ymblanter as deleter and TwoWings as nominator. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

To me that one was too close view to apply COM:DW, but I will not object if another administrator comes to a different conclusion and restores the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that there is any long standing policy to that effect. There have been a few cases of such images slipping through, nothing more. The test of de minimis is whether an average observer would notice if a copyrighted work were removed from the image or blurred over. In cases such as this one, obviously everything in the image would have to be removed, leaving a black page, so dm cannot possibly apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Mattbuck's argument works for a cityscape, but not here. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:NSHM Logo.jpg

Hi,

The image I have uploaded is the logo of the organization that I am currently associated with. This is a logo of the education organization - NSHM and I think it should be uploaded to the wikipedia page.

Please reupload the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danishdeb (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization owning the logo must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Smriti Mandhana.png

this file was creative common — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralvo (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.
  •  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.--B dash (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you do not make that claim, but instead say that the file is CC. That makes it hard to believe that either is correct. In order for this image to be restored, the actual copyright holder. which is usually the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Needs an OTRS email permission coming directly from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:INI NJAN URANGATTE.jpg

Permission from publisher was emailed which was numbered as Ticket#: 2018031310012736. Please undo deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkjaya (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please wait until the permission email has been processed by our team of volunteers. The file will then be restored automatically but this may take some time. The current backlog in permissions-commons queue is 7 days. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The image must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Montreal Comiccon 2016 - Lucca (27643958944).jpg

Hello,
my level in English is very low excuse me.
My question is here :

the alone answer for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Comiccon 2016 - Lucca (27643958944).jpg and File:Chrono cosplay 10.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chrono cosplay 10.jpg. (Archimëa and Kigsz) is « COM:COSTUME ».
According to this element the answer is: “no valid reason for deletion”. Sealle 11:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But there is only one question: "is the photographed subject over the age of legal majority?"

So the discussion did not take place.
Could you make it happen?
Thanks--Cordialement. 6PO (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

PS PS I have already spoken to Sealle : [10]

Procedural closure Nothing to undelete here. See also my comment in the section below. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bsg-schild.jpg

Hello. This logo got deleted because of copyright issues. I made the mistake marking this file as 'my own work' so I very well understand why it got deleted.

Appart from this mistake, I can guarantee that this is a copyright free picture. I ensured this by asing Dylan Vermoortele, the president of the organisation whom this logo belongs to. Can I have the chance to reupload it, but this time the right way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pont 1833 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a trivial logo so it is copyrighted and non-free by default. So we require a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Most often, this is not the organisation that holds the logo but the original artist. Please see COM:OTRS for more information. De728631 (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Pont 1833: Copyright existence does not belong on anybody's declaration (especially on a non-public one) but is granted by law. If you think, the image is ineligible for copyright or its copyright already expired, you need to prove that basing on local and US copyright law. Otherwise, we need a free-license written permission from the image copyright owner (presumably the original author) following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyrighted logo. Reqires a free license from the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Euro coin common face

This template was deleted despite the discussion for it showing a near-unanimous agreement in favor of keeping it. I really cannot see how on earth the deleter read the outcome of this discussion as "delete".Tvx1 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Near unanimous agreement" seems like a gross overstatement. Besides it isn't just about the votes but the weight of said votes. Has anything changed in the last 7 years since this DR? Perhaps the original two closing admins would like to opine. @Jameslwoodward and MBisanz: --Majora (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a 19-4 in favor of keep. All the arguments stremming from the few delete !voters were addressed and refuted. One person actually originally said delete and later changed their mind. I don't think anyone can genuinely see any other consensus than keep in that discussion. Not much overstatement at all.Tvx1 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
More than a few of those keeps can be pretty lowly weighted. Not to mention that the entire DR had a sock problem. I'm not saying anything about the merits of the template or the DR. Just saying. This isn't a counting game. --Majora (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand all off the few delete arguments were refuted. Why am I getting the impression that only the delete arguments are given any form of consideration?Tvx1 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Nothing has changed, I'd still advocate deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
That you still don't want to part from your misinterpretation after all those years is your problem. However, the consensus was very, very clearly against you.Tvx1 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: DRs are not votes, they are about opinions, or !votes, relative to facts and Commons policies and guidelines. FTR, I !vote  Oppose here because the EU still imposes too many restrictions on use of the common face of the Euro, including commercial and derivative uses. Try reading COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The objections you raise have already been refuted in the deletion discussion years ago. Your are interpretation of the impact of the restrictions is quite simply wrong.Tvx1 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 Keep You are right. I do not see there any restrictions provaded by issuer that are not typical for any currency that are in use. It is obvious that counterfeiting of such money is prohibeted by the law. And the statement said this, nothing more. You do not alow to make any "derivate works" of any money in use that are very similar to it, because it is not alowed by any law. So, if you follow such a course of reasoning, you would have to delete here all the money that is still in use. Because you can't copy them in the way they are very similar to the orginal. So they are "not free". Electron ツ ➧☎ 21:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support I stand by my last comment at the DR, "Although Commons officially disapproves of this reasoning, I think this one of those where it should be a delete, but, in fact, no one is ever going to sue, so let's make it a  Keep." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: COM:PS indicates that the arguments such as The copyright owner will not bother to sue are against Commons' aims. Therefore, the logical outcome of your reasoning seems to be  Delete. Why should this argument be considered as valid? ›› Fugitron - 17:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors here are supposed to exercise common sense and judgement rather than blindly following rules that are not always applicable in special situations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: The rule is obviously applicable. Maybe not relevant, but that should be demonstrated. I find it easy to just blame the others' lack of critical sense. ›› Fugitron - 17:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim, Tvx1 and Electron above. --Yann (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Undelete request File:Szm falvedo.jpg

Original athor is my grandmother, photo of painting is made by me. Upaloading was made under agreement of all descendants.--Toreny (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the actual copyright holder -- presumably, but not necessarily, one of the descendants, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff and Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Ankush Chaudhari.jpg

owner agrre with pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralvo (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.
  •  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.--B dash (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose That is not a reason to restore these. In order for them to be restored, the actual copyright holder -- which is almost always the photographer and not the subject or an owner of a copy -- must, in each case, send a free license directly via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Hurricane Cindy 1999-08-28-2205UTC AVHRR-VIS NOAA-15.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: NOAA images, in the public domain B dash (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support per {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} Ankry (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Hurricane Kevin(1991).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: NOAA image, thus in the public domain B dash (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support per {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} Ankry (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Graciela Chichilnisky in Directors Chair.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I work directly for Graciela Chichilnisky. The image located on her Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208626730240209&set=pb.1068554479.-2207520000.1520294097.&type=3&theater was uploaded by me. Additionally I sent an email containing Gracielas permission to use this image in her Wikipedia. Currently the only image in her Wikipedia is of Gérard Debreu I have sent several requests to Wikipedia for use of three of her images to be used on various Wikipedia pages, and have received responses to none. RobNYC (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to have the image restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. If that is the photographer, good. If not, the sender will have to prove to the satisfaction of the OTRS agent that he or she actually has a formal written license or copyright transfer allowing him or her to freely license the image.

I also note that in the file description you claimed that you were the photographer of the image. Your comment above says nothing about that, so I assume that you were not, in fact, the photographer. Making incorrect claims of authorship is at best a nuisance and at worst a serious violation of Commons rules. Please do not do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Naqada Label.jpg

This image was published by the author: Heagy, T. 2014, Who Was Menes? Archeo-Nil 24: 76, fig. 15. It has been reproduced here: https://www.narmer.org/menes. Heagy1 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 00:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Silke Lautenschläger .jpg

Guten Tag, da das Bild von Frau Silke Lautenschläger aus dem Jahr 2006 war, wollten wir es erneuern. Die Grundlage des neuen Bildes beruht sich auf den Link: http://www.ergo.com/de/Mediathek?result=Portraits_Vorstand_Geschaeftsfuehrung. Auf dieser Internetseite wird klar deutlich gemacht, dass die in der ERGO-Mediathek angebotenen Bilder und Grafiken mit Quellenangabe (Quelle: ERGO Group) zur Berichterstattung über die Unternehmen und Marken der ERGO Group AG sowie im Zusammenhang mit unseren Ratgebertexten honorar- und lizenzfrei verwendet werden dürfen. Wir bitten Sie daher das Bild wieder einzustellen mit dem entsprechenden Quellenverweis ERGO Group. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Felix Flüs — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMK-04 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons benötigt freie Lizenzen, die weit über bloße Berichterstattung hinausgehen. Bilder, die hier hochgeladen werden, müssen direkt vom Fotografen für alle Arten der Nutzung (auch kommerzielle Weiterverwendung und Abänderung) genehmigt worden sein. Auch wenn die ERGO Group Nutzungsrechte an solchen Bildern erworben hat, beinhaltet dies laut Gesetz nicht das Urheberrecht. Nur der Urheber kann allerdings freie Lizenzen wie Creative Commons erteilen, um ein solches Bild hier hochzuladen. De728631 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

P. S.: Das erneute Hochladen des Bildes nach der ersten Löschung stellt einen schweren Verstoß gegen die Benutzerordnung von Wikimedia Commons dar. Sollte das nochmal vorkommen, wird das Benutzerkonto DMK-04 gesperrt. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Also note that claiming that you are the actual photographer, as you did twice here, when your remarks above make it clear that you were not, is at best a nuisance and at worst a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Johan Dalsgaard.png

excuse me, this is my picture of my boyfriend. I have the right to use it. You also deleted another one which i cant find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulakattt (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Johan Dalsgaard.jpg was deleted because it appears on Facebook. Policy requires that in that case the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.

The subject image has not been deleted or tagged for deletion, so there is no reason for it to be here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. No reason to restore. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Saurabh Sooryavanshi.jpg

Dear Admin sir it's my profile pic.so you do not delete my image and also it's my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikaalbhairav (talk • contribs) 10:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Manish shubham at Kerakat Railway station.jpg

Dear Admin sir it's Describe the kerakat railway station board pic.so you do not delete my image and also it's my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikaalbhairav (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:G.P.Soron Student Shubham Sonker(Jaunpur).jpg

Dear Admin sir it's Describe Government polytechnic Soron entrance main gate pic and final year student enjoy last day of College image.so you do not delete my image and also it's my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikaalbhairav (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You may comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:G.P.Soron Student Shubham Sonker(Jaunpur).jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Michedomi


Thank you. I have asked the artist and owner of the images to email a release, and she has done so. --Michedomi (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Although I did everything that was requested, notably having a release (using the template on this site) sent from the artist authorising use of all images, the images have been deleted. This is very upsetting. You gave me eight days to comply, I did so, the artist sent her release to the address you gave, and then I contacted them (OTRS I believe) and was told it would be a 49-day wait for confirmation. Why give eight days when on your side the action or response takes much longer? --Michedomi (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As the artist has supplied a release, does this not mean the images can be reinstated? --Michedomi (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is understaffed. Therefore your images must wait until they reach the head of the queue at OTRS which is, as you say, around 49 days long at the moment. We all understand that this is frustrating, and we all wish that it were better, but that is the way that it is. Your images will be restored automatically when the license you have sent reaches the head of the queue, is read, and is approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Michedomi: Did you tag them {{subst:OP}}? Do you have a ticket number?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: These must wait their turn ot OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:HUKB Trolist logo.png

Publishing this logo on Wikipedia does not violate copyrights. I made it and it can be used freely on any platform that does not support hate of speech, pornography, racism, religious discrimination, limitation of human rights etc. Kojiro wiki (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Kojiro wiki: If you wish to use the logo under Wikipedia Fair Use policy (if acceptable in a particular Wikipedia version, like English), upload the logo directly there. I do not think that Croatian Wikipedia accepts Fair Use. Fair Use logos cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
You declared that you are the logo original author and copyright owner declaring you wish to freely license it (and only the actual copyright owner can do this). The logo appears on the Internet (eg. here) without evidence of free license. In such cases we need a proof that the copyright owner really wishes to free-license the logo: either as a link to free license declaration at the copyright owner and the logo home site or via email following COM:OTRS instructions. Otherwise we consider such declaration a copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


Is it ok now? http://www.hukb-trolist.hr/wp/logo Kojiro wiki (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Also note that while your restriction "it can be used freely on any platform that does not support hate of speech, pornography, racism, religious discrimination, limitation of human rights etc" is admirable, it is unacceptable on Commons. Images on Commons must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including those in your list. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Fotografskog kutak.jpg

Publishing this logo on Wikipedia does not violate copyrights. I made it and it can be used freely on any platform that does not support hate of speech, pornography, racism, religious freedom, human rights etc. Kojiro wiki (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose as in the previous section. Ankry (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


Is it ok now? http://www.fotografski-kutak.com/logo Kojiro wiki (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Chrono cosplay 10.jpg

Hello,
my level in English is very low excuse me.
My question is here :

the alone answer for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Comiccon 2016 - Lucca (27643958944).jpg and File:Chrono cosplay 10.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chrono cosplay 10.jpg. (Archimëa and Kigsz) is « COM:COSTUME ».
According to this element the answer is: “no valid reason for deletion”. Sealle 11:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But there is only one question: "is the photographed subject over the age of legal majority?"

So the discussion did not take place.
Could you make it happen?
Thanks--Cordialement. 6PO (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

PS I have already spoken to Sealle : [11]

Wrong venue. This board is for undeletion request, i. e. for files that have already been deleted but should be restored. Your files were kept though. If you think the deletion discussions were not closed properly, please feel free to nominate the images for deletion again. Please note though, that the legal age of persons depicted is not a big deal as long as they are not small children. Per Commons:Personality rights, it is not in the responsibility of Commons users or Wikimedia in general to verify a person's consent to have their photos published online. Instead this should be done by external reusers of such images. You may want to add {{Personality rights}} to these file pages though to warn any potential user. @Yann and Ruthven: you may also want to help Cordialement. 6PO in French. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for asking you this on a wrong page
Your answer is very clear.
Thank you very much for this help.
--Cordialement. 6PO (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: procedural closure: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jeff Brock.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The other day I uploaded (JFB-Profile4.jpg) a picture of mathematician Jeffrey Brock, which got deleted because of copyright issues. I agree with that decision. Since then, the author of the picture (Jeffrey Brock) has added a line to the website where that picture is located (https://www.math.brown.edu/~brock/) declaring that he's the author, and included another line (visible when hovering over the picture) declaring that the picture may be used. Janedbdp (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support Looks good to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment The original file should be the one to restore File:JFB-Profile4.jpg, not the re-upload. The only minor issue is that Jeffrey Brock is claimed as the author, and it does not look like a selfie to me - if it's the university taking the photo, then that would make more sense. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! So, how does this work then? Will the file be (eventually) restored? Do I need to do anything? Cheers. --Janedbdp (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Janedbdp, both I and Ron apparently found the subject image and the license on the Web site a week ago. However, today when I went to the site to confirm it before restoring the image, I did not find either the image or the license. Without them, we are back where we started from. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


Jameslwoodward and Ron, thanks for that. The picture, with its licensing, may be found at https://www.math.brown.edu/~brock/index-old.html. Cheers, --Janedbdp (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per last comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:CharlieBuscaglia2017NCAATournament.jpg

Hi there,

The file CharlieBuscaglia2017NCAATournament.jpg was deleted after the creation of the Charlie Buscaglia Wikipedia page. I, the creator of the page and employee of the Robert Morris athletic media relations department, have the rights to the image in question, which caused the deletion from what I understand.

Please let me know what you need from me to restore the image on the page. I didn't address the deletion over these last few months due to the team being in season.

--EthanWoy (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Ethan Woy, Asst. Director of Media Relations at RMU Athletics (March 27, 2018)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the photographer. Is that correct? If so, please say so here. If not, please note that making incorrect claims is at best a nuisance and at worst a serious violation of Commons rules. If you were not the actual photographer, then he or she must send a free license directly via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Images from a book

The images belong to me, I am the creator, artist who designed them, the images uploaded for book covers belong to me, they are my copyright. I exclusively own them.

These images are my creations, designs.

I have produced them.

I have used them to publish the books and covers.

I am the publisher of the books, I own the copyright.

These images on books are registered with the ISBN agency in my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayarakash (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Unless the book itself was published under a free license (eg. CC-BY-SA or similar), we need to receive a written free license permission from the copyright owner following COM:OTRS instructions in order to restore the images. I see no other way here. Ankry (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Javier_Caumont.jpg

This file belongs to JAVIER CAUMONT. It's not a copyright violation. https://www.javiercaumont.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verozeller (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This photo could be found at Facebook without a free license. It is copyrighted and non-free by default and we need a permission from the photographer (not from Javier Caumont) to keep this file at Commons. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 12:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kinev A.jpg

Personal photo --Cikkinev (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, personal photos are not allowed on Commons, except for one or two to illustrate user pages of active contributors. You have contributed one photo, so it does not qualify. Second, the image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://cikrf.ru/about/kinyev/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:33, 28 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 12:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg Есть подозрение, что фотография обладает свободной лицензией. Человек, разместивший её на указанном в качестве первоисточника ресурсе, не является её автором.

Есть подозрение, что фотография обладает свободной лицензией. Человек, разместивший её на указанном в качестве первоисточника ресурсе, не является её автором. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Белан Валерий (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted, or actual subject is not specified.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:CCDI-LOGO.png

I received the following message: File:CCDI-LOGO.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

This file was in use on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Centre_for_Diversity_and_Inclusion

I am a volunteer with the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion and have explicit permission to use their logo for this wikipedia article and request that it be undeleted.

Thank you

--D&ILover (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This requires a free license from an authorized official of the organization using OTRS. Note that "explicit permission to use their logo for this wikipedia article" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Galeria Lirolay-1968.jpg

This file was taken down by a user named Ganímedes, who for some reason believes the creator didn't give proper permissions it. The picture was taken by my father, who passed away in 2008, and I now own the photo, and even have the original negatives to prove it. What can I do to have this picture restored? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlk4343 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close, file is not deleted and should be discussed instead at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galeria Lirolay-1968.jpg. @Mlk4343: Please send permission via OTRS and then tag the file {{subst:OP}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Laevegrashook1.jpg

Dear reader, This file is created by myself, based on a original design and file specially made for Dorpsoverleg Grashoek, a platform for the people of Grashoek. The copyright is transferred to Dorpsoverleg. As the former chairman of that foundation I am entitled to use the image for purposes serving the goal of the foundation. To provide information about the village through internet is part of that goal.

Further more, this image is part of a campaign towards Grashoeks’ centennial celebrations coming up in 2019 and therefore important to be shown.

I request to undelete the file.

Sincerely,

Frank Schilder Dorpsoverleg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.159.97.73 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Frank Schilder: The logo was used in the Internet (eg. here) without evidence of free licence. If we missed a free license evidence on that page, please point it out. Otherwise, we need a written free license permission to be sent to us by the logo actual copyright holder, following COM:OTRS instructions. Please note also, that there are doubts whether the logo is in Wikimedia Commons scope as it was unused: this also must be resolved in order to restore the logo. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 14:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from an authorized official of the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Dafydd-Gibbon.jpg

Please, restore the picture of Prof. Dafydd Gibbon. I am the author of the picture. As you noticed, it was published on Linguist of the Day website <https://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2010/linguists/Dafydd-Gibbon.cfm>, but I am still the author of this picture. To prove this, today I put on my own website a photo taken at the same photo session <http://bachan.speechlabs.pl/files/102_1910.JPG>. I have more such pictures which I could provide if you need them to be convinced that I am the author. --Jolanta Bachan (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 17:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:FF-Logo-small.png File:FF-Logo.jpg

The images in question are logos which were released under the same conditions for the original Fantastic Furniture logo File:Fantastic-Furniture.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannch (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, and I have just deleted File:Fantastic-Furniture.png because it showed its source as https://www.fantasticfurniture.com.au/ which is clearly marked "© Fantastic Furniture 1999 - 2018". We have no reason to believe that any of the logos are freely licensed.

In order for

and

to be restored, an authorized official of the company must send a free license using OTRS.

will not be restored in any case, because there is no reason to keep the same logo in two different sizes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:杉村貴子 画像.jpg削除撤回の要請

File:杉村貴子 画像.jpg

上記の削除されたファイルの復旧をお願いします。 理由:画像の本人が経営する会社スタッフより、アップロード要請があった画像です。 適切な取得元URLを記載していました。 よろしくお願いします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmorningdreamer (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 14:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done "Copyright(C) Japan Business Lab.co.,ltd. All rights reserved." is not CC-BY-2.5 license declaration. OTRS permission is required as pointed out by Jeff. Ankry (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Plan de Rome de Bigot éléments en bronze - Université de Caen CIREVE.jpg et File:Plan de Rome de Paul Bigot sous-sol bâtiment droit - Université de Caen CIREVE.jpg

Bonjour

J'ai reçu un message des propriétaires et l'autorisation OTRS. Je l'envoie aux administrateurs OTRS aussitot.

Merci Cordialement, Pradigue (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS request by AntonierCH (right below). De728631 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Plan de Rome de Paul Bigot sous-sol bâtiment droit - Université de Caen CIREVE.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018033010004749.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 12:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC) AntonierCH (d) 12:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntonierCH: please proceed. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Stadt_Geesthacht_10.6.2005_Stellungnahme-Brand_September-1986_GKSS.jpg

File:Stadt_Geesthacht_10.6.2005_Stellungnahme-Brand_September-1986_GKSS.jpg Vorgangs-Nummer: 1717-910cf734c0923495.

Ich hatte diese Datei nach dem ersten Löschen wiederhergestellt, weil ich beim erneuten Hochladen nicht eindeutig daraufhingewiesen worden bin, dass es einen „Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests“ gibt. Sollte ich damit gegen die mir nicht bekannten Regeln der Wikipedia verstossen haben, bitte ich, dies zu entschuldigen.

Mir war beim ersten Hochladen der Datei die genaue Urheberrechtslage nicht bekannt und ich hatte mir Hilfe von erfahrenen Administratoren erwartet. Erst nach ausgiebiger Beschäftigung mit der Gesetzeslage ist mir klar geworden, dass es sich eindeutig um ein gemeinfreies, amtliches Werkes nach § 5 Abs. 1 Urhebergesetz handelt.

Urheber des Inhalts ist die Stadt Geesthacht, nicht der Adressat GKSS. Es bedarf nach § 5 Abs. 1 Urhebergesetz keiner gesonderten Genehmigung durch ein deutsches Amt - hier die Stadt Geesthacht. Urheber bin auch nicht ich - ich bin der Urheber der Kopie. Da die Kopie nach deutschem Recht keine Schöpfungshöhe hat, ist die Kopie - wie das Original gemeinfrei.

Sollten Sie sich daran stören, dass ich hier als Urheber - der ich eigentlich nicht bin - auftauche, ersetzen Sie bitte die Urheberschaft analog zum Beispiel "File:Hess StAnz 01 1983 S5.png" einer Kopie eines amtlichen Werkes im Wikipedia-Artikel:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtliches_Werk Beispiel auf der Wikipedia-Seite: Beschreibung Deutsch: Staatsanzeiger für das Land Hessen Nr. 1 aus 1983, Seite 5 

               Gemeinfrei nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG

Datum 1983 Quelle Staatsanzeiger für Hessen Urheber Government of Land Hesse Lizenz Public domain Dieses Werk gilt gemäß dem deutschen Urheberrecht als gemeinfrei, weil es Teil der Statute, Verordnung oder ein gesetzlicher Erlass (Amtliches Werk) ist, das durch eine deutsche Reichs-, Bundes-, DDR- oder Landesbehörde bzw. durch ein deutsches Reichs-, Bundes-, DDR- oder Landesgericht veröffentlicht wurde (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).

Bitte übernehmen Sie für die Freigabe der Datei folgende Angaben:

Beschreibung: Amtliche Stellungnahme der Stadt Geesthacht zum angeblichen Brand auf dem Gelände der GKSS am 12.9.1986 und der angeblichen Freisetzung von radioaktiven Substanzen. Offizielle Stellungnahme des Bürgermeisters zum Schutz der Gemeindefeuerwehr vor der verleumderischen Behauptungen Dritter, dass die Feuerwehrleute der Gemeindefeuerwehr Geesthacht an der Verdeckung einer Straftat, der Vertuschung der Freisetzung von radioaktiven Substanzen, beteiligt waren. 

                Gemeinfrei nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG

Datum: 10.06.2005 Quelle: GKSS Geesthacht Urheber: Stadt Geesthacht

Ich bin Medizinphysiker im Klinikum Oldenburg und stehe in keinerlei beruflicher, noch finanzeller Verbindung mit dem GKSS Geesthacht! Dieses historische Zeitdokument ist wichtig im Zusammenhang mit der Diskussion um das Leukämiecluster Elbmarsch und soll im Artikel verlinkt werden. Ich bitte um die Wiederherstellung dieser Kopie.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Josef Pohlgeers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josef Pohlgeers (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support Diese amtliche Stellungnahme fällt unter {{PD-GermanGov}}. Das Template müsste allerdings dringend geändert werden, denn der Gesetzestext (§5 UrhG) macht keine Unterscheidung bei der austellenden Behörde. De728631 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done already restored by Reinhard Kraasch. Ankry (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bruges Group.jpg

I am requesting to undelete the blue Bruges Group logo.

I am requesting to undelete this because I work with the Bruges Group, and I have direct permission from the Director of the group to use this image/logo. It is the logo for the group, so copy rights would lie with the group. Since the group owns the copyrights, and since I work with them, it makes sense that I be able to upload and use this image of the Group's logo on the Group's wikipedia page. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyebe913 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This does not necessarily mean that you have the right to license the image. Thuresson (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done We need COM:OTRS permission from the actual logo copyright holder in order to restore the logo. 16:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:LW_Lukas_der_Maler.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LW_Lukas_der_Maler.jpg Bild zeigt den Kunstmaler Lukas Wirp vor einem seiner Werke. Das Bild wurde von ihm zur Verfügung gestellt und per Mail freigegeben. [Ticket#: 2018032010011456] --MI6770 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Waiting for an OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Pants mesh.png

I have received permission from the author to post this image.

I can forward our email exchange, and have already done so to permissions-commons with the subject File permission for pants mesh -- [Fwd: Re: Permission to use one of your models]

Thanks.

Update: [Ticket#2018032910009014] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psarahdactyl (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

29 march 2018 Psarahdactyl (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Guy King Playing his 1983 ES 335TDN in Saint-Andre-Lez-Lille, France.jpg

we have permission from the author of the photo...it was emailed.


I hereby affirm that I Alain THIREL-DAILLY, am the the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photo as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_King and attached to this email. And I have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]

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.

Alain THIREL-DAILLY 06.74.30.16.28 234 rue Roger Salengro Résidence La Semeuse A10 59260 HELLEMMES-LILLE

http://alain-thirel.photography


March 20, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 March 2018 (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. @Lubbad85: Did you tag the file {{subst:OP}}?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:TTNC poster.jpg

This is our official poster, also posted on facebook and IMDB pages. We would like to have our poster back up, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkNightFilms (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 11:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Klodin Erb - painting installation in glass case

You are right in general. But in this case, Klodin Erb's panorama painting installation at Kunsthaus Pasquart is temporary and will be destroyed after her exhibition. I'm sure she likes this photo on Wikipedia. I can ask her for permission. Myriam Thyes 11:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyriamThyes (talk • contribs)

@MyriamThyes: Yes, please have Klodin Erb send permission for the artwork depicted in File:Kunsthaus-Pasquart-Biel-2OG-klodin-erb-vitrine.jpg via OTRS using the same license you specified.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kunsthaus-Pasquart-Biel-2OG-klodin-erb-wolfslaterne.jpg

You are right, in general. But don't you think an installation of an artwork in a public exhibition - which can be seen in this way only there - should be allowed on Wikimedia Commons / Wikipedia? I'll ask Klodin Erb for permission.Myriam Thyes 11:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyriamThyes (talk • contribs)

@MyriamThyes: Yes, please have Klodin Erb send permission for the artwork via OTRS using the same license you specified.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Heinrich Mann Diana (1903).jpg

And

Covers of 1903 published German books; cover author is nowhere specified. Probably deleted because of lacking permission from the photographer. But covers are 2D-works. They shoud be {{PD-anon-1923}}. KäthesBücher (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:NIght_view_of_Clifton,_Karachi.jpg

Hello,

An image was deleted according to the discussion here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:NIght_view_of_Clifton,_Karachi.jpg An administrator reviewed the file, and found that the image was uploaded on here in 2016, a year before before being found on the website that the image was thought to have been stolen from. A few minutes after that comparison, the photo was deleted by a different administrator who said it was found on Facebook, but without a link provided. I did a quick google search of the image and the only thing I found on Facebook was from January 1st 2018 here: https://m.facebook.com/karachiwala/photos/a.389646284598.167133.223775174598/10155144383394599/?type=3

Was it deleted by mistake? Thanks. Khanrak (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Not a mistake. Image internal data contains information suggesting that the photo originates from Facebook. Moreover, the uploader is a blatant copyright violator. We cannot rely on Own work declaration in such cases, especially if the original EXIF info is not found in the photo. Ankry (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. Ruthven (msg) 13:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Frank Donga.jpg

I believe the picture is not bound by copyright as it is free on the web, and is not being used for commercial purposes. --Pst. Bukkie (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2018 (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 please ping or talk to me 13:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost everything is bound by copyright until it expires, usually more than 70 years after creation. Almost everything on the Web is not freely licensed and is not available for upload to Commons. This file is no exception -- the named source, www.tns.ng, has "© TNS 2017 . All rights reserved". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Moreover, here all files should be free to be used for any purpose. Ruthven (msg) 13:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-03&oldid=567279291"