Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-02

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:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Please request again if there is a new element. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Roland Tisljár psyhologist from Hungary.jpg

According to the Hungarian description the photo is taken from a 2009 book. And there's OTRS ticket ticket:2012013110010674 freely licensing this book for Wikisource. Are there any doubts here? @Regasterios: was yuor nomination related some way to this ticket? More photos from this book can be found, eg. File:Imre Sándor (1877-1945) pedagógus, államtitkár.jpg. I assume this one photo was just missing the OTRS ticket link. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: It's thinkable that this photo is from the book titled A lélektan 80 éves története a szegedi egyetemen 1929-2009. See similar photos here, some photos with OTRS template, some photos without this. --Regasterios (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO, it is clearly stated by the uploader that the photo is from this book: "Saját könyvből való kép: A lélektan 80 éves története, szerk. Szokolszky Ágnes, Pataki Márta et al. Szeged, 2009. 255. p."

Picture from my own book: The 80 Year History of Psychology, ed. Ágnes Szokolszky, Márta Pataki et al. Szeged, 2009 255 p.
translator: Google translate via Ankry

(however, the information is misplaced: it is in the Author field instead of the Source field; but I do not think it is a problem). I think, the only doubt here is whether the ticket covers the whole book (with all images), or some explicitely specified images only. Ankry (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ágnes Szokolszky explicitly gave us permission for the text and the pictures: “Hozzájárulok, hogy a szöveg [text] és a képek [pictures] a Wikimédia-projektek oldalain a "Creative Commons Nevezd meg! - Így add tovább! 3.0" szabad licenc alatt kerüljön közzétételre”. My problem is that 1) this is a forwarded permission 2) I do not find any evidence about that Ágnes (who truly is the editor [szerk. in Hungarian] of this book) took these photos (or she is the copyright holder). Bencemac (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: restored. Could you, please add the ticket info to the file as you are the authorized OTRS agent? Ankry (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: As I wrote, I am not sure about that we can accept the permission (“we are unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Please ask the copyright holder to e-mail us directly”). Bencemac (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: Feel free to renominate/speedy if you think the permission should be considered invalid. I cannot help you to take the decision. AFAIR, we in some rare cases accepted forwarded permission. Unsure if this is the case. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Stalled, and currently not deleted. --Yann (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Maureen Wroblewitz 2016.jpg

Three files were deleted on 30 December 2018 by jcb. The discussion was initiated on the grounds that the images (1) "don't seem legitimate" and (2) are "inconsistent with the other files of this user". Obviously, the first is no reason at all and the second surely is a reason which could not ever be ground for deletion of anything, i.e. the matter was raised without any reasonable or proper justification at the outset (by Senator2029). I responded to these non-grounds in a brief message. Someone followed up by asking for EXIF data and, due to my not at that time having a user page, I was unaware of the question or, indeed, any of the ensuing comments there. The rest of what was written discloses what then took over as the substantive basis for the challenge which was the absence of EXIF data on two of the three images. This I have subsequently explained to jcb who has chosen not to deal with the matter but asked that I pursue it here. I note that the policy requires editors to make that approach to the deleting admin before coming here and I have complied with that but the admin was just simply disinterested. I have the original files, of course, with the EXIF data and they are entirely my copyright. Due to my inexperience, I did not know of the significance of the EXIF data, nor did I know that the software I used to crop the original images was stripping the data out of the files. I can provide the originals with EXIFs if required but they are not suitable for publication as they are not cropped appropriately. sirlanz 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Sirlanz: The images were deleted per COM:PCP as missing EXIF and refusal to provide it is considered reasonable doubt about uploader authorship. Also, for any image that has been used elsewhere without a free license evidence prior to upload to Commons a formal COM:OTRS permission is strictly required. And, note, this is a community managed project, so community may decide to delete any image here. Ankry (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The misinformation bandied about here is astonishing. I offered, immediately upon becoming aware of the challenge, to provide images with the EXIFs. I have never "refused". My offer remains. I repeat my plea to be told how or where to provide them if they are required. Indeed, no one has explicitly even said I MUST upload files with EXIFs but merely indicated that the lack of them was cause for suspicion. I repeat that the grounds stated for deletion were that (1) someone thought they were inconsistent with my past activities (the most tenuous of reasons imaginable and certainly not derived from any policy meant to be enforced here) and (2) that they looked too professional (again, there is such a policy?). The second ground (of the only 2) cited now by Ankry is also entirely false. His is the very first suggestion in this debate that the images existed previously somewhere. They did not. Indeed, the challengers to them explicitly stated they could not find them anywhere. I ask Ankry to review his opposition unless he has some valid ground for continuing it. This is really quite an Alice in Wonderland situation now, completely out of control if people can spin flat-out fabrications like these. sirlanz 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: What do you mean by "offerred"? Did you upload the photo version with EXIF? If you wish to offer it in a non-public way, OTRS is the only solution. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: So how do I go about that? If the images have been deleted, would it not be an affront for me to just go uploading them again (same images, just with the EXIFs this time)? Surely I have to get someone to permit that step, do I not? I have made it clear that I do not live in the Commons side of things and have no idea of your procedures here. How about a little positive assistance to make up for all the blatant misinformation that has led to this completely wrongful deletion? sirlanz
@Sirlanz: Community deletion should be resolved in a community-driven process. As lack of EXIF data was the main reason to doubt your authorship, providing images with EXIF is new data that allows image image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion and gives you a chance to convince those who opposed. Nobody here can simply override a community decision as we are unable to verify your authorship on-wiki. This can also be done via OTRS; your choice. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: You have my thanks for taking time to set me on the right course here. But I do not have a clue how to act on "allows image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion" because I thought that was precisely what we are doing here. Can I repeat, these are my original images and I have them with EXIFs and want to upload them to end this problem. If they have been banned, how do I upload them again with the same names or are you saying I should do new uploads with different file names ... or what? Or am I obliged to carry this discussion forward somewhere else? sirlanz 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: If the lack of EXIF was the only reason to delete the image, the next, reopened DR is likely to be closed as  Keep. If there are/were other COM:PCP issues there, COM:OTRS permission may be needed (that is a long way: 190 days now). Ankry (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Look, I can see that this is going to just look silly to you (and others) but do you know how non-plussed "the next, reopened DR" and "other COM:PCP issues there" leave me? I am a WP believer; it has such a central role in information dissemination for humans, that's why I'm here. But the arcane processes, ugggh. I guess I will just have to bone up on these two hifalutin expressions and try to work my way through this maze. I'm not criticising; everyone wants to get on with things efficiently and not get snagged on inexpert editors, but there it is. I may or may not be heard on this issue again. Cheers. sirlanz16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support temporary undeletion. Restore the file, and the author will have a chance to upload a new version with Exif. I believe that User:sirlanz has basically offered to provide such a version. It should be noted that it is not a requirement, only a suggestion to keep Exif data, somebody else may wish to go OTRS route and it should not be held against them. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. I shall upload the same images with EXIFs if this temporary undelete is put into effect. sirlanz00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: OK. Let it be that way. However, I do not understand the need to restore the image before upload of the version with EXIF. Ankry (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Keizo Obuchi 1998.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I found this image on http://www.kantei.go.jp, which is the website of Japanese government. Please check "Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 2.0)" http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/it2/densi/kettei/gl2_betten_1_en.pdf. It says "The Terms of Use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (hereinafter referred to as the CC License). This means that Content based on the Terms of Use may be usedunder the CC License in lieu of the Terms of Use." Roku61 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @Roku61 and De728631: Please check the license. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

Files by Sigrid Hjertén (1885-1948)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hjerten-ateljéinterior.jpg

"Painter Sigrid Hjertén died in 1948", Now public domain in Sweden. @Infrogmation: , @Thuresson: Abzeronow (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the description and license. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Francis Gruber autoportrait 1942.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francis Gruber autoportrait 1942.JPG

"Painting by Francis Gruber who died in 1948" Now public domain in France. Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ajinomoto history 1950s.jpg

以下の5ファイルは、いくつかのファイルを結合させて作成したものですが、元となる一つ一つのファイルには、CC BY-SA 4.0　のライセンスが付与されております。ライセンス上問題ないようですので、削除の撤回をお願い申し上げます。

Lanlan0122 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose These looks like scans of printed publications, not original personal works of the uploader (as declared). Also COM:PACKAGING and COM:SCOPE Ankry (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Seiko Kirishima 190111-01.jpg

当方が撮影し、Instagramに掲載した写真を不正にコピーした写真を提示し、「Patrick Rogel」によって不当な著作権侵害申告をされたため 削除の撤回を求めます。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 07:18, 29 January 2019 (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 OTRS. Ankry (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Shrilaraune

I have permission from the owner of the photo (the actual person the article is on) to post this photo. Why was it deleted without notice? --Shrilaraune (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

File:SCSU John Nwangu-334fm.jpg

I have permission from John Nwangwu to post this photo here. Why was this deleted without notice? --Shrilaraune (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 Oppose Owning a physical copy does not make the person depicted in a photo the copyright holder. Copyright is usually held by the photographer unless it has been transferred by contact. We need permissions by email for both photos coming directly from the relevant copyright holders. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Shrilaraune: It was not deleted without notice: you were notified about deletion on your talkpage. Ankry (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lewis Carroll AIW Growing Alice by Zalshupin (1923).jpg

This file was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lewis Carroll AIW Growing Alice by Zalshupin (1923).jpg; works from 1923 are now in the PD in the US, if it, as I believe, is just an illustration, I do not see that Nabokov's copyright would come into play. Zalshupin, according to ArtInvestment.ru, died in 1931 in Paris, so this should be PD in Germany (place of publication) and the US, therefore eligible for undeletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support Didn't have this info when I was trying to categorize it into an undeletion category. If just an illustration from Zalshupin, it would be out of copyright now. (Would have been PD-old in 2014 too) Abzeronow (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please check the description and the license. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I see I was mistaken; it's not just an illustration. I've losslessly cropped it to remove Nabokov's text; can the old version be deleted from cache, as it is in copyright for decades in Germany?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done — Racconish 💬 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. Ankry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:CharlizeTheron-Portrait by Stephen Achugwo.jpg

This realistic portrait is among my celebrity series of Paintings. I painted Charlize Theron as a tribute to her contribution to Art, Entertainment and Media Industries. The Oil on Canvas portrait was adored in various places I displayed it, including Bloemfontein and Johannesburg South Africa. It is an inspiration to the young ones who are seeking to become great performers in future, as they look up to her as a National Hero and a global icon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsteve17 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I can't find anything to suggest that Achugwo is an established artist (merits), hence out of scope for the following reason: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:abvgdezhzi.png

I do not get why wikipedia pages in some languages can use this image but in Bulgarian it can't be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukanovich (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikicommons do not accept fair use images, like en:File:York City FC.svg. Also, please do not upload coprighted logos and claim that you own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090110002946 regarding File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes:

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

File:abvgdezhzi.png

I do not get why wikipedia pages in some languages can use this image but in Bulgarian it can't be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukanovich (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikicommons do not accept fair use images, like en:File:York City FC.svg. Also, please do not upload coprighted logos and claim that you own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090110002946 regarding File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes:

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

File:Jan V. Wirth beim Festvortrag bei der Diakonie Österreich, 25.09.2015.png

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090110002802 regarding File:Jan V. Wirth beim Festvortrag bei der Diakonie Österreich, 25.09.2015.png. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Föld órája városa 2012, 2017 Sóstógyógyfürdő.jpg

This file shows a Hungarian road signs. It is a {{FoP-Hungary}}.

Same case as [1].

So please undelete this. Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WWF logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globetrotter19: Any oficial legal document that the panda WWF logo is a part of an ofiacial road sign? Otherwise, it must be considered copyrighted. And Hungary cannot be considered country of origin for the logo as WWF International is not located there nor there is an evidence that the logo was published in Hungary prior to its use in any other country (unlike Gyömrő fitness). Ankry (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I am sorry. I asked on Hungarian legal pump village site [2]. I got answer from Regasterios (Hungarian admin) probably it should be part of freedom of panorama.
After that, Tgr (other Hungarian admin) wrote same on discuss page. Maybe We all are wrong. Welcome, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globetrotter19: Maybe, because of this sign, the logo is free in Hungary. But a doubt here is whether Hungary is the country of origin for this logo. And in Commons we decided the image to be free in the country of origin and the US. Ankry (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I/We think the Hungarian road signs are part of freedom of panorama. Also I/We think WWF International allowed using this logo on road sign. So I/We thought the pics legally can be taken (and upload). Again, maybe We all are wrong. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globetrotter19: You need to provide an official legal document defining such a sign with WWF logo to be a road sign. Not the sign itself. Is the sign mentioned among other Hungarian road signs? And we may still have US copyright problem. However, this may be worth to open a DR discussion. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: FoP seems to apply here. This is certainly permanent. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ralph-de-la-Vega-FormalPortrait2149.jpg

Ralph de la Vega is the founder and chairman of the De La Vega Group. Mr. de la Vega is the former Vice Chairman of AT&T Inc. and CEO of Business Solutions & International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeck (talk • contribs) 11:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose position of the subject is irrelevant for MICHAEL B. LLOYD's copyright. And the copyright owner's permission is needed here. Ask him to send a permission following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Seiko Kirishima 19-01-11.jpg

Exifをよく確認するよう願います。すべてのデータが存在しています。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Just checked: "2019 - Copyright All Rights Reserved" at https://jolygram.com/profile/mtegawa/photo/1954617697924934248_177511381 And for images that were published outside Commons prior to upload here, a written permission following COM:OTRS is needed. Please contact the OTRS team if you wish the file restored and note: reuploading a deleted file is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons rules. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Crazy Clock Game.jpg

This was apparently deleted for copyright infringement, but it is actually a real life picture of the game box I took myself. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There would still be copyright residing in the design of the game and its packaging, even if the photo was your own.
You could probably re-upload it to en:WP directly under en:WP:FAIRUSE, so long as the article was either about this game, or discussed this game in the article on Mousetrap (which this is an obvious derivative of). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Stefan Schlesinger 1930.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"Author died in 1944. Could be reuploaded in 2015." for the first file.

2nd file could be public domain in the Netherlands if author is unknown or {{PD-Austria-1932}} if Austria is country of origin. (I could always put the DR for the second one in the Category for Undelete in 2051 if 120 year rule needs to be used) Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The 2nd file had a permission statement "toestemming via rechthebbende, Peter van Dam", i.e. "with consent of the rights holder Peter van Dam". So I think we need an OTRS ticket for that one. And it seems that the first file may have been URAA'ed: it was published between 1924 and 1977 and not PD in its source country in 1996. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps on the 2nd file, OTRS permission may be needed. I don't speak Dutch so I used Google translate on the 2nd DR, and there seemed to be doubt that van Dam was the copyright holder. Wasn't sure about that file so wanted feedback before I categorized that into a particular Undelete category. @Jcb: Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The claim by Van Dam seems pretty bogus to me. I don't think they are the copyright holder. I would say  Support undeletion for the first file, which is {{PD-old}} since 1 January 2015, but  Oppose for the second file, of which vital information is missing. The second file can be restored in 2051 with PD-old-assumed. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

{done}}: One file restored, as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thrifty ice cream - Circus Animal Cookies on cake cone.jpg

The file that was deleted is a picture of an uniquely shaped scoop of ice cream on a cone that is created by a cylindrical ice cream scoop. The picture was used to illustrate this fact on Thrifty Ice Cream Wikipedia page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thrifty_PayLess&type=revision&diff=874727519&oldid=874726423 for the article prior to the image deletion to read the deleted caption). It is my opinion that that the shape of the scoop of ice cream should not be consider a derivative work of a commercial packaging and that the image should be restore or at least cropped better.

I would have like to have voiced my reasons on why the image should not have been deleted in the first place when it was originally nominated for deletion, but there was no link from either the appropriate Thrifty Ice Cream section on the Thrifty PayLess Wikipedia page or its Thrifty PayLess Talk page to allow a protest to the file deletion nomination. Only after the file was actually deleted did a link to the deletion nomination page happened to be displayed on the Thrifty PayLess history page which would have allowed a person to have protested the deletion nomination. -- 68.50.32.85 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Commercial packaging" concerns the background; and possibly the paper cup with ice-cream. Also the banner on the wall is copyrighted. Feel free to upload an image without these components. While an image is nominated for deletion, the uploader is notified. However, if you disagree with the DR arguments, you can present here why IYO the image should be undeleted. If an admin shares your opinion, the DR will be restarted. And do this in 24 hours. Ankry (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. It appears that this topic is now dead since the uploader appears to be gone or on permanent holiday for at least the past year or so and I'm on the wrong side of the planet to be able to provide a replacement image.
As for providing *additional* arguments to the ones that I have give above, I'm not sure what I could give besides requesting someone to cropout the background. As for the paper cup, not sure if there was any printing on the piece of paper that is not generic and if there were any printing, it appears to be of the type that is used by many other vendors, thus generic.
If store signs in the background are a concern, why are not all of the pictures contain store signs have not been removed from Kmart article? As an example, [File:Super Kmart Center Cleveland.JPG] has a picture of Kmart store with a visible sign. Why hasn't that picture been flagged for deletion? There is an apparent double standard which I don't understand. I apologize in advance for asking newbie-like questions. -- 68.50.32.85 02:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
{{PD-textlogo}} logos are OK. Other images or ornaments are not OK. The paper cup is the cup the ice-cream is put into. If it was just white, it would be OK. It is hard to crop it out. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment The background is blurry, so it should be OK. The paper cup design is quite simple, so I am not sure there is a copyright for that. Should we reopen the DR? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I have no objection reopening the DR. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. DR reopened. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg, etc

Файлы принадлежат мне или загружены с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файлы. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolchanovb (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I bring from the title and fix the files names: File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg, File:Людмила Нарбекова2.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 19.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 21.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 26.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 25.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 24.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 23.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 22.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 7.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova5.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova10.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova9.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 16 Pray about the horses.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova8.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova6.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova7.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 3.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova4.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 2.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova.jpg. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kolchanovb: If these files are yours, please upload the original images with full EXIF data. Otherwise please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Roy Paci 2019.jpg

I would like to use this is picture with is up to date, and is of my property, since I am the creative behind the photographic shooting along with Valentina Glorioso the photographer. I can request eventually her authorization.

It is also already available on:

http://www.baobabmusic.it https://www.facebook.com/RoyPaciOfficial/ https://www.youtube.com/user/RoyPaciOfficial https://twitter.com/roypaci

Thank you, Oriana Guarino — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrianaGuarino (talk • contribs) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@OrianaGuarino: Neither of the above contains the photographer's free license declaration. For images that were published elsewhere prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons we need a written permission from the copyright holder. Please read and follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bob.severi.michael janis-47.jpg

I own the copyrite for the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artschooled (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose For a photo with a copyright notice we always require written free license permission send following COM:OTRS. Please note, that a permission concerning the presented artwork may also be needed. Ankry (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Dr Karl König.jpg

Authorization from the official Karl König Institute and Archive based in Berlin to use and upload this photo, just as it has been done on the official website https://www.karlkoeniginstitute.org and available to the public domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelkosmos (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Travelkosmos: I do not see the declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 license there. We need a free license declaration from the author, their heirs or from another copyright holder who can prove their rights. Or an evidence that copyright already expired. Not just a permission "to use". See COM:L for details. Ankry (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Seiko Kirishima 190111-01.jpg

「 https://jolygram.com/profile/mtegawa/photo/1954617697924934248_177511381」は私が私自身のInstagramアカウントに掲載したものを不正に取得・コピーしたうえで、不当な権利主張をしているものであり、これを根拠に削除を行うこと自体間違った行為です。 「https://jolygram.com/」自体、他人の権利を不当に侵害するサービスであることをご理解ください。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@M.tgwa: If you can provide a proof that the Instagram publication was earlier and under a free license (eg. CC-BY-SA 4.0 as declared here) we may restore the image. Otherwise, note that any earlier publication of the image (legal or not) raises a significant doubt per COM:PCP. And so, it cannot be stored in Wikimedia Commons basing just on uploader's declaration per {{Own}}; some evidence is required in such cases: either a link to earlier free license publication or (if non-public) via email, following COM:OTRS. Also, if somebody else has stolen your photo and claims to be its author, you also need to resolve this prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons. We are not a court. And please respond in 24 hours; otherwise this request will be closed. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:rcirz-bitka-za-srebrenicu-rat-za-civilizaciju.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-namjernom-silom -na-republiku srpsku.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-nasa-ispovijest-zene-zrtve-rata-iz-republike-srpske.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-naslovna-zbornik-stradanje.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-pravosudna-neistina.jpg

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-republika-srpska-u-odbrambeno-otazbinskom-ratu.jpg

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-stradanje-srpcana na-ozrenu.jpg

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@ПолихистООРиограф: You claimed previously to be the copyright holder, now you claim tthe copyright holder is your employer. Plese note that Wikimedia accounts are personal, so a company or an organization cannot operate them "personally" and so cannot grant a license via wiki. COM:OTRS permission from an authorized representative of the copyright owner is needed in any case of corporate copyright. Ankry (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DariaBignardi low res.jpg

I kindly ask who in charge of this, to restore the image "DariaBignardi low res.jpg" which I uploaded yesterday on Commons and then used on Daria Bignardi's Italian Wiki Page and which was deleted from both (Dreammy (talk)). The photo is actually on Public domain and it can be found on many websites, beside the one I quoted (https://www.librimondadori.it/autore/daria-bignardi/), and which I chose to mention just because Mondadori it's her Italian publisher. Here are some examples:

http://www.giornaletrentino.it/cultura-e-spettacoli/daria-bignardi-l-ansia-basta-imparare-a-lasciarla-correre-1.1828951 http://www.ferraraoff.it/daria-bignardi/ http://agenda.comune.bologna.it/cultura/daria-bignardi-storia-della-mia-ansia https://www.gay.it/cultura/news/daria-bignardi-intervista-storia-della-mia-ansia https://libreriamo.it/libri/daria-bignardi-scrittura-per-me-vocazione/ http://www.mismaonda.eu/news/267-daria-bignardi-al-laboratorio-san-filippo-neri https://www.huffingtonpost.it/2018/06/06/daria-bignardi-lansia-di-mia-madre-mi-ha-condizionata-anche-io-ne-soffro-ma-cerco-di-addomesticarla-e-non-trasmetterla-ai-miei-figli_a_23452045/?utm_hp_ref=it-daria-bignardi http://liberos.it/eventi/entula-a-sassari-daria-bignardi/2082

I hope this is enough information for you to procede with the undeletion. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do. Dreammy (talk)

@Dreammy: For any image published anywhere prior to upload here, either clear free license evidence is required at the initial publication site (https://www.librimondadori.it/autore/daria-bignardi/ is not a freely licensed site) or a written permission from the actual copyright owner send directly to our OTRS system, following instructions at this page, is needed. The photo cannot be in public domain until its copyright expire (70 years after the photographer's death) as EU copyright law does not allow authors to relinquish their copyright. Ankry (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Hi, thank you for your explanation: actually, I thought that since the same photo had been used on many different sites, it was copyright-free (it is weird to think, though, that the same photo was bought by different subjects who now own its copyright). Anyway, it surely must be someone's copyright so you are right and it is fair to remove it. Thanks a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Boulogne-Billancourt Mairie.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boulogne-Billancourt Mairie.jpg

"Tony Garnier, architect died in 1948." Now public domain in France Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the description and the license. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg

Этот файл принадлежит мне или загружен с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolchanovb (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Kolchanovb: Вам будет нужно пройти процедуру COM:OTRS, зайдите на эту страницу, выберите русский язык, и там будет объяснение всего, что вам необходимо сделать. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed here. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:B. Akunin.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was licensed under CC SA 4, and all the neccessary contact information provided by mail request to OTRS. This file should be undeleted. Sned Dense (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If the copyright owner has already send the permission, we just have to wait until this is processed and verified. And please note: we cannot accept forwarded permissions for legal reasons. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed here. Ankry (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Romano Cuonz.jpg

Das ist das Bild von Romano Cuonz in seinem Eigentum, bei unsicherheit bitte selber Nachfragen, Hompage mit Kontaktinformationen finden Sie hier in Wikipedia. --Tinu68 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Die Frage ist: Wer ist der Fotograph? Dieser hat die Rechte an dem Bild und muss der Veröffentlichung hier zustimmen. Gleiches gilt für das Foto File:Übergabe des Obwaldner Kulturpreises an Romano Cuonz.jpg, das von der Zeitung stammt und von Christoph Riebli fotografiert wurde. Ohne die Zustimmung von Hr. Riebli (und der Zeitung) darf das hier nicht veröffentlicht werden. Bitte Commons:Lizenzen beachten. --Alpöhi (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Molly Chesworth headshot.jpg

I am the subject of this image and own the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyjanechesworth (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mollyjanechesworth: So in order to restore the image, you need to send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions together with a proof of copyright transfer from the photographer. Ankry (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Arms Sedang.gif

Deleted as "No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation." The image comes from postage stamps that were first published in 1888. See File:Sedang.jpg for the applicable license. Finnusertop (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: The image does not seem to originate from these poststamps: different colouring, more detailed engraving, etc. The image is likely PD, so I  Support reopening the DR. But in order to keep the image, somebody has to prove that the engraving is old and not a modern one. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Assuming we're talking about the same image (I'm not an admin so I'm guessing), it's probably just converted to black-and-white from the original colored stamps. The Commons image is too blurry to see exact details, but looking at these pictures it looks like the exact same engraving. If there's has been some edge detection or sharpening it's surely too minor to add originality; it's a slavish reproduction of the image on the stamp. Finnusertop (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Reopening the DR discussion, @Finnusertop: please argue there and fix the required information. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GC Chandrashekhar.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:201809071000520 regarding File:GC Chandrashekhar.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: This ticket number is not valid. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: :You're right, it's Ticket:2018090710005209. Thanks for warning me. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mensch aergere dich nicht.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mensch aergere dich nicht.jpg

"Life dates of original author Joseph Friedrich Schmidt are 1871-1948....If considered as a work of art, it would be protected until 2018 (1948 +70)" Abzeronow (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the description and the license. --Yann (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Solid rv.jpg

Reason: Hello, Jcb! Sorry, I forgot to protect this file (Reverses of solid) from being deleted by permission under a free license. Please restore it to mark permission. Pls find Obverses of this solid. — Regards, Niklitov (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Niklitov: Ticket No.? Ankry (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
ISBN No. 978-5-7164-0721-3. This is file published in this book under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license — Niklitov (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Niklitov: The image is marked as originating from https://numismat.ru/sprav.shtml not from this book. Converted to DR; you can explain there why it is CC-licensed. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course. The ООО «Монеты и Медали» (auction house, https://numismat.ru/sprav.shtml) company has allowed this high resolution images (without watermarks) of coins for the Amber book (ISBN No. 978-5-7164-0721-3) under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. The site (https://numismat.ru/sprav.shtml) has only low resolution this files with watermarks. Please find page 2 (about CC-BY-SA-4.0 license) and pages 174—175. — Niklitov (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the DR. --Yann (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Tre (Musical Artist).jpg

Brandon Adam Harrison (born June 3, 1991), ref name=google maps/ better known by his stage name Tre, is an South African rapper, record producer, director and actor from South Africa, Pretoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheal September (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose this is about File:Tre (Musical Artist).jpg. Yann (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: File not deleted, but doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Himanshu-Singh.jpg

himanshu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhhimanshu3344 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:The Sweetest Day Editorial 1923.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Front Page Sweetest Day Cartoon 1923.jpg

Published in the US in 1923. Now public domain in country of origin. Abzeronow (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the descriptions. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:楊平之肖像.jpg

Yang Ping, the writer: File:楊平之肖像.jpg it is my own photo. please don't worry about copyright. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangyuguang (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yangyuguang: As the image was alredy published outside Commons, we need either a clear evidence that the initial publication was under a free license or COM:OTRS permission. This is not about worry but about following Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg DO NOT DELETE

Someone said 'it is made up personal spiritual stuff'. My question is that what is not first personal? If he or she doesn't like it, so be it; others will. There is no apology please. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oketa daniel (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The New World and Unity of the Faith.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Picture of Northview Heights Secondary School from the 1960s.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture is in the public domain and the picture is constituted as fair use. "This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person." Link of picture from Toronto Archives: https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource/fo0207/ser1251/f0207_s1251_it0110.jpg You can access the picture from the City of Toronto Archives database at https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/request/DoMenuRequest?SystemName=City+of+Toronto+Archives&UserName=wa+public&Password=&TemplateProcessID=6000_3355&bCachable=1&MenuName=City+of+Toronto+Archives. City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 207, Item 110. TheLordOfMiners8 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain how it came about that this photo of a school in Toronto is public domain? Thuresson (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

On https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource//copyright/copyright.html#GCNC it says "PDP - Public Domain Photographs" "Copyright is in the public domain and permission for use is not required. Please credit the photograph so that others may know where it came from and its identifying number. Example: City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 1244, Item 43." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordOfMiners8 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not. It says "Copyright is not held by the City of Toronto. Use for anything other than research or private study, i.e., publication, exhibit, broadcast, in a film or video, or on a website, may require the authorization of the copyright owner of the work in question. For materials whose copyright is owned by others, it is your responsibility to locate the copyright owner and obtain any necessary authorizations." Do you have such an authorization from Panda Photographaphy, Toronto? Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS permission from Panda Photographaphy, Toronto required. Ankry (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:A Y Ustinov.jpg

Please restore File:A Y Ustinov.jpg. We have received OTRS permission from copyright holder (Ticket:2019020410001096). --sasha (krassotkin) 08:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done And @Krassotkin: please add a link at your user page that allows users to verify that you are the OTRS volunteer. Not every Commons admin knows all OTRS team members. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Petraq Kolevica, fotografuar 1993.jpg

I am requesting undeletion for this file as it has mistakenly been flagged for speedy deletion. In the "REASON" section it says that it has been found on another website www.petraq-kolevica.com. I own that website so I am not violating any copyright law. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Borova (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex Borova: It does not matter who owns the website. If the photo was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons and this publication was not clearly marked to be a free license publication, then a written permission following COM:OTRS from the actual copyright owner is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Petraq Kolevica Interviste TTV.png

Hello, I am requesting undeletion of this file. I am the copyright holder of this file. I you want i can send a picture of the VHS Tape it was grabbed from. I own these recordings and they are of my grandpa. My grandpa is 84 years old. He cant write a permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Borova (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC) I see no reason from deletion and I dont want to create a new account just so I can edit my granpas page again. Thanks The Tv station doesn´t exist anymore. The recording is 19 Years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Borova (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Ok, I understand. This would be impossible to do in ALbania, since laws usually dont work here and I wouldnt be able to find the copyright succeder. I do want to be a user that follows the rules though, so I am only going to upload photos that have only been taken by my grandpa/grandma and that have the buildings that my granpa designed in them. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Thanks Alex Borova (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Alex Borova (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)2 FEB 2019Alex Borova (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose permission from the TV station broadcasting the program shown here is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Borova: And reuploading a deleted image is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons rules. Do not do it! Ankry (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Borova: 19 years is very short time. Copyright length is generally 50-100 years depending on country (you did not provide this information). And copyright do not disappear: everybody has legal successors. However, sometimes they are hard to find. If you claim that you are the copyright owner who is authorized to license the photo, you have to provide a copyright transfer agreement between the TV station (or their legal successor) and you. Our rules allow to publish media with unclear copyright status if they are at least 120 years old. Ankry (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Maintien des fichiers postés.

Jeff Coulais et moi-même demandons à sauvegarder la liste de fichiers suivante:

Il n'y a aucune raison valable à effacer ces fichiers qui sont des archives de faits réels, si ce n'est une malveillance. A bon entendeur. Merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojanzu (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ojanzu: Merci de ne pas accuser de malveillance les volontaires qui font juste leur travail.
Qui est le photographe et/ou le détenteur des droits d'auteur des ces photos ?
Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. No answer. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:V2Ray_logo.png

You can see https://v2ray.com/en/welcome/faq.html#v2raycom , there it says :

Official website, v2ray.com, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  • Including all visible text and pictures on the website.
  • Including Project V logo.
  • Including all source code that is used for generating the website, i.e., v2ray/manual.

So, this file is also licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. I don't think it should be removed.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealRichardChen (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SuperCopaUruguaya2018.png

La foto ha sido injustamente borrada — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPizzaUY (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No evidence provided that Asociación Uruguaya de Football granted a free license for the logo nor that its copyright expired. Also no valid license template provided by the uploader (while this is required). Ankry (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

These apparently are similar to:

and thus are public domain in Poland. Abzeronow (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Keith Ferris painting the mural "Fortresses Under Fire" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018080810009778 regarding File:Keith Ferris painting the mural "Fortresses Under Fire" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Combustion chamber of the new4stroke engine.jpg

This reference to copyright other than mine is inadequate, because the entire pages of these posts are also authored by me .. Unfortunately, even after logging in, you only see the signature "Guest", but I published all these posts on this page, also with this picture. .--Andrew Feliks (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Andrew Feliks

Is this the same photo as http://www.new4stroke.com/blockspark1.jpg ? If so, did you take that photograph? If not, then you are not the author of the photograph and cannot license it -- we would need permission from the actual copyright owner. You would own the copyright of the text of your forum post, but cannot claim copyright of images you link in from elsewhere -- just photos that you actually take yourself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done perl Carl. Ankry (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Reverol shares information of Requesens and Borges as suspects.png

I uploaded this after learning how to identify copyright of videos, so I’m fairly sure that it was free to upload to commons. Since the page as gone, i can’t check at the moment, but if someone has that info you could. I also note it was deleted pretty quickly after I pointed out that it is a different photo to another on a page that had been mistaken for each other, is there an issue with the other or no? Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

B dash nominated that for deletion with rationale "screenshot" despite it is a screenshot of the freely licensed video. And then deleted by Moheen. I do not understand nomination/deletion and fully  Support undeletion. If there are doubts whether the video uploader is authorized to publish the video under the mentioned free license, they do not qualify for speedy, IMO. Ankry (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done As per undeletion request, I just restore it for the entire discussion. ~Moheen (keep talking) 04:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Moheen. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Der Pfadfinder – 12 Jg 1923 Heft 4.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Der Pfadfinder – 12 Jg 1923 Heft 4.png

cover image of a German scouting magazine from 1923. Could be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} if uncredited. Definitely public domain in the US now so could be localized on en.wiki if it has to remain deleted here until 2044(if we have to use 120 year rule). Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support {{PD-anon-expired}} should be OK, IMO. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:El Rodeo (1923) (50528).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Rodeo (1923) (50528).jpg

Published in the US in 1923. Now public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several hundreds deleted files listed there. Does this request concern them? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I was going to try to list some deleted files, but undeletion request tool told me it was never deleted. Pinging @Fæ the uploader. Those could probably also be undeleted if they had existed on Commons Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: The other files never existed on Commons. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob_Jack_2018.jpg Hi we own all rights to this picture we took it!

Hi,

We just got this pic deleted but we own all rights to this picture! You can use it how ever you want. We own all rights! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

LMGI Awards Photo was provided by LMGI President, he confirmed they have full rights to this image to post.

Hello, Thank you for your diligence in this site. Our President of the LMGI has confirmed they own the copyright to the Image I assigned as the Wikipedia landing page for the LMGI Awards. Can you kindly allow this photo to be used on the site? File:LMGI Award WIKIPEDIA.jpg

Thank you for your time and attention! Sincerely, Erika Howard LMGI Administrative Manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHoward2006 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted yet. Provide appropriate information in the Deletion Request. Ankry (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:SamarYAZBEK-muhsinAKGUN.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the permission from the photographer (Muhsin Akgun) to use this photo under his name. i always respect the regulations Of "wiki". i hope you restore it for me, and I would be grateful to you if you could consider my request,

Bassel Tawil Bassel.tawil88123 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bassel.tawil88123: Everybody can say that. Any proof of the permission? (Hint: either a link to a public page with permission or the author should mail to OTRS). And permission "to use" is not enough: we need a free license. Ankry (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i have the Receipt from the photographer that prove we bought it and we have the right to using it. i sent it to the E-mail : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but no response yet. Best Regards --Bassel.tawil88123 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Bassel.tawil88123

✓ Done: OTRS in process. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gina Cody portrait Concordia University 2018.jpg

Photo was taken by and provided by Roya Cody, Gina Cody's daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martasam (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And it was deleted because it was published prior to upload to Commons without evidence of free license. Any evidence that the photographer accepted a free license publication? For previously published photos, the uploader's declaration is not enough. (hint: COM:OTRS). Ankry (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Concentración Obrera Bandera.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These images fall under PD-Textlogo. I don't know why they were deleted under "No permission". Yilku1 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the intertwined C & O fit into the Textlogo class, even according to low US ToO. Ankry (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Yilku1: Please provide a proper source. --Yann (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request - I own the copyright

Please can you put the photo back as I own the copyright. It is on my camera, I also own the photo on IMDB which Patrick referred to in his complaint as being similar to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor422 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you speak about File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg / File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg.jpg.
 Oppose This is clearly the same photo. And for photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons, a written free license permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Also photos made during the same photo session in a serie are unlikely to be recognized as separate works. So the OTRS requiremet applies. Especially as they seem to be professional photos. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg.jpg undelete

I own this photograph. Please undelete it.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor422 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anna Benson 2018.jpg

We have OTRS permission for this image at otrs:2019012810022441. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thomas Crowther British ecologist.jpg

We have OTRS permission for this image at otrs:2019020110006293. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI Gbawden (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Prof. Andrzej Władysław Wachal.jpg

Proszę przywrócić zdjęcie, bezprawnie usunięte z Wikimedii. Osoba, ktora je umieściła ma do niego prawo autorskie, więc może je udostępniać w w Wikimedii ! Bez tego zdjęcia strona w Wikpedii Andrzej Wachal została zubożona ! Chyba moderatorom nie chodzi o obniżanie standardów ? Nie wspieram finansowo Wiki..., by jakaś osoba autorytatywnie (mylnie zresztą) decydowała o, co ma być usunięte. Proszę o natychmiastową realizację ! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.109.33.168 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Na tej stronie można składać odpowiednio uzasadnione prośby o odtworzenie usuniętych zdjęć, a nie nieuzasadnione żądania. Zdjęcie zostało usunięte wraz z innymi w związku z wątpliwosciami odnośnie ich autorstwa, które nie zostały dotychczas rozstrzygnięte. zamieszczający zadeklarował, że jest fotografem, który wykonał niektóre zdjęcia 129 lat temu. Podawanie zaś fałszywych informacji w jednym miejscu czyni wszelkie inne nieudokumentowane informacje podane przez tego użytkownika niewiarygodnymi. Zatem  Oppose o ile zamieszczający zdjęcia nie udzieli odpowiednich wyjaśnień. Ankry (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence provided that the image is free. Ankry (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jiang Shuo, Fruits of Paradise.jpg

Die Künstlerin selbst, durch ihr Atelier "Studio Wu", will das Bild veröffentlichen. --SchützFA (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)SchützFA

 Oppose I see no free license information here. And due to legal reasons, we cannot accept on-wiki license declarations for images that were published outside Commons prior to upload here. I suggest either to provide information about the declared free license on the source page or contact OTRS (following COM:OTRS). And please nota, the we likely need bote permission here: artist's and photographer's. Ankry (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:张继科 (2016-12-31) (1).jpg

@Roy17: File:张继科 (2016-12-31) (1).jpg has a cc license info , so it's not copyright violation.Puramyun31 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find the BY logo on the webpage or replicate what is depicted in your imgur.--Roy17 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: If you click one of the photos on the source page, the cc-by icon is at the left bottom of the photo(in the red circle depicted in the imgur screenshot), then click the icon, and the cc-by license info appears. MAXIM WHO'S THAT GIRL 안젤리나 다닐로바!.webm is not intended copyvio, but i seem to do not aware of license change of the video. Puramyun31 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Imgur means nothing. The source doesn't show the CC icon that you are talking about. --Majora (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
click one of the photos, and click small cc-by icon at the left bottom of photo page, and this chinese cc-by-2.5 license page appears Puramyun31 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I get when I click on a photo is a Lofter log in screen. And please indent your replies properly. --Majora (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I joined lofter website and have lofter account, other user seems to understand this situation who was also uploaded files from lofter(user:explicit her/his upload from lofter). and pardon me Majora, the removal of your comment is just accidental, since i'm busy in real life so my replies may have some mistake. Puramyun31 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: there is another way to verify cc-by license status, HTML code of source page. i think the cc-by icon doesn't seems to be properly displayed due to technical reason(s) of lofter server system.Puramyun31 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Puramyun31 and Majora: Oh now I see where the invisible button is. If the mouse hovers over about two characters to the right of 2016-12-31 ... 男朋友, there is a link to CC-BY-2.5. Perhaps the webpage is poorly designed, but I guess we could accept the file.--Roy17 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:南京东路偶遇!超激动 (窦骁).jpg ‎

@1989: click the photo on the source page, the cc-by icon is at the left bottom of the photo(in the red circle depicted in the imgur screenshot), then click the icon, and the cc-by license info appears. also there is a HTML code page of source page. (i used fifefox browser) i think the cc-by icon doesn't seems to be properly displayed due to technical reason(s) of lofter server system. Puramyun31 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markoolio97 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Clicking on the photo leads to a login/registration page. You cannot require login to verify the license. Ankry (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Markoolio97: please, describe license info location more precisely in the Permission field next time. Ankry (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Stuart HamiltonB.jpg [Ticket#2019013010023104]

File was deleted because copyright holder was slow to send email providing permission. Copyright holder has provided attempted to provide permission but there was a minor error in file name which may have caused a problem. Specifically permission email used: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StuartHamiltonBjpg. rather than: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StuartHamiltonB.jpg

I will instruct the copyright holder to resend the permission message with a corrected filename.

On Feb 4, 2019, at 12:58, Patricia Hamilton <prhamilton@outlook.com> wrote:

Roger, My name is Ben Carlson, and I’m Pat’s son. I’m helping her with this as computers are not her forte. However, I’m not sure what to do next. Please read and advise. You can get in touch with me at carlbenson@hotmail.com Thanks Ben

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:03:33 AM To: Patricia Hamilton Subject: Re: Ticket:2019013010023104 Stuart Hamilton photo etc

Dear Patricia Hamilton,

Thank you for your permission to use media files on Wikimedia Commons.

In order for us to process your contribution, we need to know the specific name or URL of the page on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded it, or the user name used to upload. The link provided doesn't work.

If you have NOT yet uploaded, please continue to upload the file(s) and let us know when done.

Yours sincerely, Arthur Crombez

30/01/2019 20:45 - Patricia Hamilton wrote:

> I hereby affirm that I, Patricia Hamilton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the > exclusive copyright of the media work > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StuartHamiltonBjpg. > I am the executor of the estate of the late Stuart Hamilton. > I agree to publish the above mentioned work under the Creative Commons CCO 1.0 > Universal. > 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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or > may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > Patricia Hamilton > 2019 - 01 - 30 Rdmoore6 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment OTRS agent: The name of the file was missing, so ticket couldn't be processed. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:H&M commercial poster for Beverly Center shopping mall.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This poster was created by the Iranian photographer, "rezasaad" for Beverly center dealership of H&M. it has no copyright and is free to use for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Moghimeslam (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

At the upload time you claimed that you are authorized to license it, now you claim that it is not copyrighted. This is a contradiction. So we need an evidence for your claims: if it is not copyrighted: then who claims so in public and which copyright law clause is the claim based on?  Oppose if no further information in 24 hours. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 15:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish-2016.jpg

I took this photo. I own the rights to this photo. It was on Wikipedia before this New Music USA post was created. Please undelete this picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor422 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo was uploaded to Commons today; the photo in newmusicusa.org was published in Jan 2015. Ankry (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files deleted from wikivoyage:User:Pbsouthwood/Gallery of images used with permission for Cape Town dive sites

Please see the revision history of the article. Three images were deleted last month because they were found on Flickr with a non-free license. However, as the name of the page suggests, the creators of the images had given permission for re-uploading with a Creative Commons license, the proof of which is available at that page. We use these images at Wikivoyage for dive sites; please restore them if possible. If there are any questions about the permission of the photos, User:Pbsouthwood may be contacted. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@ARR8: Unfortunately I see no evidence that User:MGA73 who uploaded the permission for the image at its talk page is the same person as the Flickr account owner. Can you point out a publicly available and verifiable by anybody proof that the permission originates from the Flickr account owner? Note, that any permission that is non-public must go through the OTRS system since 2007. Note also that anybody can create a Wikimedia account with an arbitrary name, so the same account name proves nothing. Ankry (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Hello, this is not the user who gave permission. The permission came from email correspondence with the photographer, who does not have a Wikimedia account, but who authorized relicensing with Creative Commons. The email correspondence is available at wikivoyage:User:Pbsouthwood/Gallery of images used with permission for Cape Town dive sites#Jean Tresfon's photos. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
:@ARR8: So such amels should be handled by authorized volunteers in the Wikimedia OTRS system and they have procedures handling such emails, as this requires to verify whether the email sender is indeed the Flickr account owner. Copyright owners have to follow COM:OTRS instructions in such cases. If they did not, we cannot keep such images in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I still do not see what it is that must be done. How does one prove that the email sender is the same person as the flicr account holder? this would probably have been much easier if it had been brought up within a year or do of uploading. Those photos have been here a long time without objections.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
OTRS team members has procedures for that. Eg requesting to publish on that site some information provided via email. And all steps of this procedure have to be documented. However, it is always simpler if the author declares free license on Flickr and the same license is used here (and verified). No OTRS is needed then. OTRS permission verification is almost always interactive and forwarded permissions cannot be accepted: they must originate directly from authors/copyright holders. Ankry (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes, it would have been nice to have had these photos pass through the OTRS process, but, at the end of the day, we did get original copyright holders to permit relicensing, and, as such, we have uploaded freely-licensed works, not copyrighted ones. These freely-licensed photos have been up and in use for many years. ARR8 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:1973 Le Comite De La Societe De Lecole Francaise award Granted to Esther Forman Singer.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I did not have a chance to change the license. This file does not have a copyright and needed to be updated to reflect that. Bhaalchild31 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaalchild31: Which license template you suggest to use here? Ankry (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Bhaalchild31

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The requested files do not have a copyright (per the date rule or the nature of the document), or or have an unlimited licence provided by the subject, and needed to be amended to show that. I did not have an opportunity to amend the files. Bhaalchild31 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaalchild31: If they are freely licensed, you need to provide source and free license evidence (eg. a link to the license page). If they are ineligible for copyright or their copyright expired already (in both: country of origin and US), you need to provide appropriate license templates (or appropriate rationale based on local copyright law). Please do this on per-file basis. And please respond in 24 hours; otherwise this section will be closed as "not done". Ankry (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lebara-logo-new.png

Hello,

I work for Lebara and I was asked to make the Lebara Wikipedia page in dutch. The logo that I added is the new Lebara logo. in wikipedia was only the old logo of Lebara. So that's why i am requesting this undeletion.

Regards Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by JvvLebara (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@JvvLebara: If you wish to upload a logo to Wikimedia Commons, it must be freely licensed by an authorized representative of the logo copyright owner (following CON:OTRS instructions). If you wish to use the logo in English Wikipedia, you can upload it to English Wikipedia following their Fair Use conditions. Fair Use logos cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. And note: en:File:Lebara.svg is stored in English Wikipedia, not here.  Oppose Ankry (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Данный файл не нарушает авторских прав. Так как данный файл есть в открытом доступе и является моим. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverLiz (talk • contribs) 13:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SilverLiz: Which file do you wish to undelete? There is no deleted file uploaded by you. Ankry (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

‪File:Mutendi.jpg‬

Permission was sought and given by both subject and photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiMufaro (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@MaiMufaro: If the photographer's permission is a free license permission conforming COM:L requirements, provide a link to it (if it is public) or ack the photographer to send the permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Otherwise,  Oppose. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob Jack Press (1).jpg

Hi we own all rights to this pic.

We sent this to the article that was wrote to use. Nothing else. We own all rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Available on several web sites, including facebook.com, presumably the photographer is somebody called "Ali Pasha". Thuresson (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose In order to restore the photo, a written free license permission from the actual copyright owner, following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob Jack 2018.jpg

Hi,

We own all the rights to the picture. No copyright, no nothing. We can use it how ever we want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Photo is credited to "Maestrographer", which is presumably the concert photographer @maestrographer. Previsously published on facebook.com. Thuresson (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Periódico "Terrassa Societat nº 124 maig 2009.jpg

I "Fdojove" as a user of Wikimedia Commons and owner and holder of the file File:Periódico"Terrassa Societat nº 124 maig 2009".jpg Previously I did not identify by mistake, it is not an internet file, it is my property, since the newspaper was free and I keep it in my documents. I only insert the cover in the article, since in this it is named. I am a new user and I hope to learn from mistakes. Fdojove--Fdojove 19:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdojove (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Free speech is not the same as free beer. Thuresson (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Newspaper would still be copyrighted even if it was distributed for free. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson & Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Peter G Demers with Hall of Fame Plaque.jpg

Hi there. I am requesting this image be undeleted. The photo was taken by B. Seibert, and they have given permission for it to be used. The content featured in the image is also used with permission of the granting agency, the Professional Hockey Athletic Trainers Society (PHATS) and Society of Professional Hockey Equipment Managers (SPHEM). Since all parties have agreed to this image appearing on this page, I request that it be undeleted, and appear in full. Thank you. MarionPB (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarionPB: You declared to be author of the photo. If you are not, then a written free license permission from the actual author is required. But the deletion reason is unclear copyright status of the plaque: who is the photo/text author? Their written permission is also needed. The authors should follow COM:OTRS instructions in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there - I provided permission to use the plaque text at the time I posted the image. I have full permission to use the image. This process is rather frustrating and confusing so I would gratefully appreciate some clear guidance. I have full permission to use this image, as well as the text of the certificate. I have had this permission for some time and have declared so. Yet the photo was deleted. Thank you for offering some clarity on this process. MarionPB (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried unsuccessfully to reload the image. This process is quite frustrating, as I have all required permissions. Thank you. MarionPB (talk)

Permission "to use" is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons requirements. We need a free license. And only authors are authorized in copyright law to sign such a permission. Also, written form is required by law. If there is more than one author, we need to gather all permissions before publishing the photo. This is legal requirement and we have to follow it. Ankry (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done proper OTRS permissions are needed. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:AEIClogo.jpg; File:herschelensismural.jpg

Hello,

My name is Brittany Gilchrist and I am requesting an undeletion of my image AEIClogo for the Ancient Echoes draft page. My reasons for this request are that I am the Executive Director of Ancient Echoes Interpretive Centre, and thus operating well within my legal means of sharing this image, which we commissioned and are the sole owner of. Please help me rectify this issue by telling me what you need as far as proof of authority goes.

I am also requesting that your request for the deletion of my image herschelensismural.jpg on the dolychorhynchops herschelensis Wiki page be terminated. I took that image on my iPhone for marketing use here at the centre, where the mural exists. Again, Ancient Echoes Interpretive Centre is the sole owner of this mural as it is part of a permanent exhibit room, and I am speaking on behalf of the Ancient Echoes Board of Directors. Please let me know what you need from me to fix this.

Thank you.

--Ancientechoes (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Brittany Gilchrist February 6, 2019

 Not done procedural close: files not deleted; please comment in the Deletion Request. Ankry (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Angel Labruna manager.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo doesn't need a permission, because it's in the public domain in Argentina since the year 2005. The photo was taken around 1980, and the evidence of this is that Angel Labruna died in 1983. It was first published by Prensa River. FairWinds (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@FairWinds: For {{PD-AR-Photo}} an evidence that it was publihed more than 20 years ago is needed. The twitter link provided does not fit this requirement. Ankry (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The twitter link provided is the official account of Club Atlético River Plate, the photo was taken by their photographers of that time. The photo had to be published in some "Boletín Oficial" since there wasn't a website by then... but I don't have the physical evidence. Angel Labruna is the biggest idol of the club so it's hard to believe that the photo was stored and never published for 38 years, in my opinion. But I understand if it stays deleted. --FairWinds (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@FairWinds: Can you find evidence of such publication through Prensa River, the subject's heirs, the club, or the club's supporters?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: @Ankry: I can't find any evidence about when and where was published, for now. If I find anything in the future, I will start a new request, you can archive this one. --FairWinds (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, request withdrawn by requester.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: , please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only  Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission@wikimedia.org which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a wikimedia.org address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case this undeletion request should be closed and we should let OTRS do its job. --Wcam (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I agree, this request should be closed. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Accipite7

File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately can’t see the deleted picture. If the map is essentially identical to the aforementioned work from 2011 (or 2010?), then further claims by Accipite7 dismissed, as coming from an untrustworthy source. But if the deleted map has no obvious third-party source, then the file should be undeleted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually these two maps are very different in design and extensiveness of the depicted information. Also, the map by Accipite7 did not claim any third-party sources but only "own work". De728631 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Accipite7: Здравствуйте, причина указана на Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. Файлы не выглядели как что-то созданное лично вами без использования чужих работ. Вам необходимо указать источники. Есть потенциальная вероятность, что данный файл находится в общественном достоянии, или хотя бы мы сможем расчитать дату, когда его можно будет восстановить. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jubileum Wilhelmina 1923.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jubileum Wilhelmina 1923.jpg

This cup, made in 1923 for the 25th anniversary of Queen Wilhelmina's inauguration, was likely made by a pottery studio for mass manufacture. From my limited understanding of Dutch copyright law Pinging @Clindberg @Alexis Jazz: , death date would not matter here, just the date of it being made available to the public, and so the object has been out of copyright for some time even with the 70 years retroactive term. This also would have not been eligible for URAA restoration since 1923 + 70 means this would have still been out of copyright in 1994. Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see it, but if there is no author named, then I think I'd  Support. The human author would need to be identified before 1994 in order for 70pma to be the term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support likely {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. (but like Carl, I can't see it, so I can't be fully confident) Also no need to think about about {{PD-1996}} when you can use {{PD-US-expired}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Acción Chaqueña.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was removed because the "logo is complex". The logo was from pixabay with a license "Free for commercial use No attribution required". I colored it blue, filled the center and shrinked it. Yilku1 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Eric Legaud guitare.jpg

Cette photo a été prise par mes soins, avec mon appareil, et m'appartient. Elle n'a pas a être supprimée de façon brutale et arbitraire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymerege32 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymerege32: Sur la page [3], il est mentionné que l'auteur est Jérémie Beck. Merci d'envoyer une autorisation via COM:OTRS/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Baluchitherium.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paraceratherium C Knight.jpg

This was a 1923 painting by Charles R. Knight, an American. Is now public domain. 2nd file is a redirect. Abzeronow (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Do we need the redirect?. --Yann (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2018091010004212

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091010004212 regarding File:27 Photo Karin-Upahl-Artist Gergo-Lengyel.tif and File:Photo Darek-Gutowski am World Bodypainting Festival.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: ✓ Done. --Strakhov (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Wikisorgiss-goernoma-orisontal-conlogo.png

I created File:Wikisorgiss-goernoma-orisontal-conlogo.png myself. --pastellina (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pcastellina: The image was deleted as it is a derivative work of a photo and somebody raised a doubt whether the photo is free. Can you provide information concerning the source of the photo or (if this is your own photo) provide that photo itself in its original form (direct image from a digital camera)? In case of such combined works we generally require providing source information concerning works used to create the DW. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pcastellina: Similar problem may concern this image. Ankry (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Tim Tam Slam.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tim Tam Slam.JPG

Flickr source changed license to CC-BY 2.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/allysther/129030131/?edited=1 Abzeronow (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Info The DR raises also doubts concerning the scope which are not addressed here. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It's kinda iffy for me as far as scope. @Alexis Jazz: for another opinion Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose @Abzeronow: duplicate of File:Tim Tam Slam.jpg. (which is in use) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Didn't know it was a dupe, thanks I withdraw my request. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JDD Still1 Bathtub.jpg

The image is entirely my own work. It is a still from my film "Joan Does Dynasty."

--Juanitavid (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Joan Braderman February 6,2019

 Oppose If this is your film, you should contact COM:OTRS if to verify this. Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Karl Feaux de Lacroix - Deutsche Weisen.pdf, File:Karl Feaux de Lacroix - Zwei leichtere Musikstücke.pdf

These files were deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Predator99. However the author, Karl Féaux de Lacroix, died 92 years ago. --Leyo 16:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So finally ✓ Done. Ankry (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File: Давыдов Евгений Борисович.jpg

Hello Please, restore the picture because the copyright for this photo belongs to me - I am a photographer. I worked at the Scientific Research Institute Mashtab (photo of general constructor of the organization) when I made this photo. --FCBool (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:First felix.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:First felix.gif

From August 1923. Now public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2018092510009609

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018092510009609 regarding File:Kane_Portrait.jpg, File:Cinzano_(Provincetown),_Oil_on_linen,_37.5_x_45.5_in._(270EBK).jpg and File:Terrace_Cannes,_Oil_on_linen,_51_x_40_in._(145EBK).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: images not deleted. Ankry (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:एक रहस्यमय प्राचीन इतिहास टीला में खोया.pdf

Being the creator of this content and also confirming that this is the original content created by me, I have already sent the mail to the OTRS team regarding the same. So, please look into it and undelete my news article. If you need further mail from my end please do let me know. Thanks & Regards - IndrajitDas 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Tennistavolo Senigallia.jpg

Hi, I send you an Undeletion request. I create the image "Logo Tennistavolo Senigallia.jpg" and I have all right to use it. Thanks, Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennistavolo.senigallia (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Personally created logo, not used in public are out of scope. And for used logos, a COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SC Rio de Moinhos Logo.png

Gostaria que restaurassem a imagem que foi apagada porque sou o designer do clube e tenho permissão da utilização da imagem do logótipo do clube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDMRDMRDMRDM (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A written free license permission from the authorized club representative needs to be send following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files

Discussion

Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 Keep Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138.

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in liesthrualens.com. If you see the url "Portfolio" in https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38, you will see that it links to http://ww1.danbowenphotography.com/.
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [4]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946 and http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847 has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha https://500px.com/monochromatique and https://www.flickr.com/photos/79376323@N03/ that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [5] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [6] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?


      • The site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [7]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [8]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          •  Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            •  Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.


            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 www.liesthrualens.com redirected to thenarratographer.com.


@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [9]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to narratographer.com ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at archive.org - http://web.archive.org/web/20160204014528/http://www.narratographer.com/ - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs. They can err from time to time, as they are human after all. UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: I am undeleting all these. I am half convinced by the arguments, but there seems to be a near consensus for undeleting. Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Alexis Jazz Please review the files. Some need a DR, and they are clearly from a third party. Yann (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to Steinsplitter for his help. Yann (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Postmates-Logo-2019.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, I represent Postmates (co-founder) and we would like our logo to be displayed on our Wikipedia page. I added the image recently but it was deleted weeks later due to copyright? I'd like to know the best way to get it back on the page. Thanks. Feel free to email me if needed. SamPostmates (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam, you have to read COM:OTRS and send a mail to Commons, not the other way. Greetings. --E4024 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
An email has now been received (OTRS Ticket #2019020710005265) and a reply will be made there in due course.  JGHowes  talk 14:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done waiting for OTRS action. Ankry (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JW cast.jpg

I own the image and I am requesting that it not be deleted. Tx!

I own the image. It's from the back of the latest volume of Jane's World. I can replace it with an image that has more property information if that would be helpful. Thank you! Pb9 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb9 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a permission in writing from Paige Braddock submitted through Commons:OTRS that she licenses this drawing under a free license. Thuresson (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission added. --Yann (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Tali Sharot.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018081710007682 regarding File:Tali Sharot.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logo CTCARLISTA.png

Se adjunta logotipo de la COMUNIÓN TRADICIONALISTA CARLISTA, identificada en Wikipedia como 'Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista (1986)". Es procedente la restauración de dicho archivo dado que el titular del logotipo, la COMUNIÓN TRADICIONALISTA CARLISTA, y en concreto su presidente actual, don Francisco Javier Garisoain Otero, ha autorizado la publicación de dicho logo en WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. Si es necesario aportar cesión por escrito, podemos aportarla.

Tabaleter1707Tabaleter1707 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:LOAD_LOGO.png

The picture is the official logo of the German non-profit-organisation http://www.load-ev.de located in Berlin. The organisation is member of the advisary commitee of the ICANN. The logo is published under the licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savange (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Savange: Could you, please, point out the where in the above mentioned service the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license is declared? Ankry (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
And note, that even if it is CC-licensed but User:Savange is not declared there as its author, then claiming that is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ExampleTheScienceofManagingOurDigitalStuff.jpg

Hi, The file TheScienceofManagingOurDigitalStuff.jpg has been released for any use by the creator, thus there is no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shem Ivri (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no such file. And no deleted contribution of the requester. Ankry (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Brexitovka on a shop shelf.jpg

Deleted by @1989: without a clear rationale. I think it could be easily cropped to avoid copyright issues. At this moment we have an article in en.wiki about w:Brexitovka but no image at all. Strakhov (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I restored and cropped the image. --1989 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not fully aware of the threshold of originality in... the United Kingdom? But... may it be possible to include a strip (even thin) of the Union Jack in the cropping without copyright concerns? (¿Commons:TOO, Commons:De minimis?). British colours are certainly significant here. Main issue is the allegorical figure below, riding those two horses. Strakhov (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:okmaps-logo.jpg

Please undelete okmaps-logo.jpg I created the pictured Logo and I gave permission for upload and use. Thank you! --Tanteuschi (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tanteuschi: The file you mentioned never existed in Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, you never uploaded any file here. Ankry (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ning Cai.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091810001255 regarding File:Ning Cai.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2018091810003941

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091810003941 regarding File:Pavel_Durov_sitting_portrait.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Semjon Bytschkow.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090610009574 regarding File:Semjon Bytschkow.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:D&D Wiki Logo.png

Said file that I uploaded yesterday was deleted as a copyright violation. I am requesting that this file be restored because of the following reasons:

1. I put it as unknown license because I was, at that time, discussing with the owner of the file what license it does have

1a. I did not wait for confirmation on what the license was because of reason 2 below, and the fact that a prompt response was unlikely

2. The owner did give give me permission to upload it

3. I did find out what license it has, and I was in fact going to add that today

4. It was first published on D&D Wiki, where everything is licensed under the GNU FDL unless otherwise noted

4a. As it was licensed before October 15th, 2018, and thus the first reason for unacceptability of the GNU FDL does not apply in this case, and Commons:Licensing says that ¨GFDL is not permitted as the only license where all of the following are true:¨ (italics added)

5. If the problem was related to the fact that the name input for the creator was a D&D Wiki username, and not a real name, I asked him which he would prefer, and he told me to use his username

6. The option for unknown licenses gives you seven days to find and add the license before it is deleted, and not even 24 hours had elapsed before it was deleted

If these reasons are not good enough, or if that license will not work (I freely admit that I am not an expert on copyright laws and licenses), please tell me what more I need to do to make it acceptable. Thank you for your consideration.

Rorix the White (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rorix the White: Could you please give the URL where a free license is provided online? Otherwise, please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes I can, it can be found here, under the first heading. Also, I would like to point out the note on the bottom of every page, and that the image itself is in the top left corner of every page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorix the White (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @Rorix the White: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1969-054-16, Reinhard Heydrich.jpg

This picture is part of the cooperation between Wikipedia and the Bundesarchiv of germany. it shouldn't have been deleted, it has to be restored immediately Norschweden (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Norschweden: Please fix the permission. --Yann (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:एक रहस्यमय प्राचीन इतिहास टीला में खोया.pdf

It's been deleted once again (Please do check the log). As I have mentioned earlier that being the creator of the content I have already sent mail to OTRS team for the same. Please undelete this article and also let me know what should I do next to resolve this issue permanently. Thanks & Regards - IndrajitDas 09:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090410006053 regarding this file. Just yesterday I put a comment on the OTRS Noticeboard alerting the chance of the file to be erased; this is one of the oldest tickets in queue. It was difficult to verified since we can't read Bengali. However, user:Yann could verify authorship, even I know nothing about the scope of the pdf. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
To stay clear: File it's a publication in Bengali, scanning and pdf format. Permission is written in English. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not Bengali, but Hindi. The newspaper article is not signed (or that part was cut), so we can't know the author. Yann (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above, but the ticket is ticket:2018082910001861. The name is at the start of the article. --Yann (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cam degree ceremony.jpg

PD-self. (Please undo the massive global delinking when undeleted.)--Roy17 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17 and Rnt20: Why is it so small? Yann (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This image was uploaded in May 2005, when cameras were much worse than now. I could see from google cache that at upload, PD-self was explicit but the info template was not used. This should not be deleted because of no source. I do not find other issues either. (Using a 2005 camera in 2018. Rnt is not active since 2012.)--Roy17 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK, make sense, althought even in 2005 cameras made bigger files than this, and there is no EXIF. --Yann (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:TimRyanSpeakingnew2.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091910008211 regarding File:TimRyanSpeakingnew2.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Please go ahead and process the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done as per above. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mahdavi.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018092010004202 regarding File:Mahdavi.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Please go ahead and process the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2018071410002621

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018071410002621 regarding File:Portraet Herbert Eulenberg.jpg, File:Hedda und Thomas Mann.jpg, File:Hedda1 320j.jpg y File:Hedda250.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Please go ahead and process the ticket. Please also beware of ticket:2018071810008511. I left a note at the OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Foto di Angelo Bruscino.jpg

I've had official permission from Angelo Bruscino to use the photo, it's a photo I own, taken during his son baptism. The photo has been deleted because found on google images, he use it (cropped) on his twitter profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValeRyo76 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per Ankry. Thuresson (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ChristianFalk-2019.jpg

I am the creator of the photo, you can see it in the metadata of the file. My name is Gerald Oppermann.

As proof, you can find my passport here: REMOVED PASSPORT IMAGE - Privacy Concern--Guziki (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you need something else or do I have to contact the Wikimedia Commons support?

Thank you for your help!

--Planet-beach (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Planet-beach

 Oppose This is what OTRS is for. Thuresson (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: permission sent to OTRS is needed. Ankry (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:OmitVPN Homepage.jpg

This image is publicly available, and permission to display the logo was permitted by their team with an email to contact@omitvpn.com[1]

--Guziki (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose No CC-BY-SA 4.0 license permission on the above-mentioned page nor information that User:Guziki is its author. Ankry (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. ↑ https://www.omitvpn.com/

 Not done This is a photo of a server hall. A permission to display does not allow me to sell coffee mugs with this photo. This should go through COM:OTRS so it is clear what exactly the copyright owner has permitted. Thuresson (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

; ;

OTRS ticket #2018081610003302
Wiki mih (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:LANCASTER SKIES .jpg

To Whom it may concern,

The image I uploaded to the Lancaster Skies Wiki page was taken down due to possible copyright infringements.

I would like to ask if I could have the file un-deleted as I am from the films Production Company.

If you would like any evidence please let me know.

Best, --B92urn (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Declaring a poster made by somebody else as an original work of a Wikimedia user is clear copyright violation. COM:OTRS permission from the poster original author in needed in order to restore the image. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the poster copyrihght owner is needed. Ankry (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Titelblatt des Charlotte Observer.jpg

Hi, this photo of Charlotte Oberserver's frontpage from October 27th 1993 seems to be up for a speedy deletion however I took this shot outside Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, where this cover is on public display in remembrance of the day Charlotte got awarded with the Panthers. You even can see me taking the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billibous (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in the United States only extends to architecture. Therefore, your photograph is a non-free derivative work of the newspaper article text and image. --rimshottalk 23:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Rimshot. Ankry (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File: Gyan Bharti Logo.jpg

Its not a voilation of copyright protection as it has been understood that school permit its usage on Facebook and Wikipedia for informations. --Includents.h (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Gyan Bharti Compound.jpg

This pic was taken for public domain and has no copyright protection requirements. It is released for public use on Facebook, Twitter and press. Includents.h (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DD-Arunprabha.png

This image was deleted without any reason as it is the logo of public sector Broadcaster and it can be used for information and education. It has no copyright protection claim. Includents.h (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Assuming this to be about File:DD Arunprabha Logo.png. Copyright does not need to be claimed to be effective. While being free requires explicite declaration. As noted by the deleter, {{GODL-India}} does not automatically apply to logos. An evidence is needed for that. Ankry (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Or File:DD Arunprabha.png. Either way, images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Prsar Bharti Logo.jpg

It is in public domain and can be shared. There is no copyright violation claim to this. Includents.h (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Which exactly file is requested to be undeleted here? Ankry (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. No such file. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:A Brilliant Monster.jpg

NO copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source9999 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Movie poster, this should go through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gyan Bharti Compound.jpg

It is in public domain and shareable for information and educational purposes. --Includents.h (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose "Copyright Š 2015 | Gyan Bharti Model Residential Complex (Hisua) | All rights reserved" is not CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Neither this is a public domain declaration for the page content. "shareable for information and educational purposes" is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons requirements: we require "free for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative work creation" Ankry (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GualaPack.jpg and File:Гуалапак Україна.jpg

Please restore File:GualaPack.jpg and File:Гуалапак Україна.jpg. We have received OTRS permission from copyright holder (Ticket:2019011610005366). --sasha (krassotkin) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: Undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kozhikode-history-01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozhikode-history-01.jpg

Artist died in 1945, so it's been public domain in Portugal since 2016. Pre-1924 painting so PD in the US too. Abzeronow (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Info Uploaded by this user with false information; just a framed version of this image (if dropping the frame then even a bit lower resolution). I doubt it is worth undeletion. But I am leaving the decission to other admins. Ankry (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
In this case, since it seems to be like a dupe with a frame, I guess it can just remain deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by ΛΦΠ

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2018072510007418). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntiCompositeNumber: Ankry (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Davidzdh uploads

Per my comment at 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC) in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm_and_so_on. The previous thread got needlessly long. Please keep this one short. Pinging User:Davidzdh. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I am a bit confused here: Do you, as an OTRS member, request undetetion (and why not just do this yourself then?)? Or do you wish somebody else to review the ticket (I do not think this is the right place for this)? Or, maybe, you request something else? Ankry (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Since I voted in the previous discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm_and_so_on, I consider myslef somehow involved, so I would rather someone else undeletes these files. I think my comments and vote were buried under a lot of text in the previous discussion. The original thread was opened by User:Davidzdh, files were uploaded by User:Davidzdh, ticket was processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. Users are clearly confused because admins ask for permission statements, but OTRS agents say they don't need permission statements. There should be more cooperation between admins and agents. Please see this diff. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Requesting a permission without reasonable doubts here seems to me to be unfair to the uploader and to the OTRS agent. Please nominate via DR if there are copyright (or other) doubts. Ankry (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Villa 5 rue de la Mignonne-Lyon PA00118139 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa 5 rue de la Mignonne-Lyon PA00118139 1.jpg

"The architect, Tony Garnier, die in 1948" Now public domain in France Abzeronow (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JHET_Wiki.jpg

I request that the picture I produced with the cover of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET) and part of an article page. This journal, which I currently co-edit, is published by the Cambridge University Press for the History of Economics Society (HES). HES is the copyright owner of the art used in the front cover of JHET. Wiki Commons deleted it on the grounds that copyright information was not clear, and I hope I am clarifying this information here. Remember that the picture is my own, using the cover of JHET. Thank you very much in advance. --Pgduarte (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Pedro Garcia Duarte

No such file. If you mean File:JHET cover.jpg it is a derivative work, of copyrighted publication; not purely "own" as declared. Written free license permission from author(s) of the original publications is needed. Ankry (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Formal portrait of Ralph de la Vega.jpg

Please undelete this portrait. This is a current high-sourced official photo of Mr. De La Vega. The old file photo used on Mr. De La Vega's Wiki page was a copy of a group photo shot at an event cropped to show only Mr. De La Vega. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeck (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Free license permission from MICHAEL B. LLOYD is needed. Ankry (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Eugène Antoniadi 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gregory 14

The first is a signature of someone who died in 1944. PD-old-70 and free from U.S. copyright if just a signature. 2nd was created in 1893 and thus PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support Country of origiin seems to be Greece. Ankry (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. This whole DR is pretty nonsense, IMHO. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Aspahbod

Per a previous nomination [10], these files either have license review tags or were own work of the uploader. I missed these files in the original undeletion request.

Streamline8988 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

First one is a redirect.  Support starting a DR for others that have a license reviev (the last two have not) as I would appreciate to see why LRs by JurgenNL are incompatible with COM:L. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support a DR per Ankry Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Files which are license reviewed should not be speedy deleted, it defeats the purpose of license reviewing. --Yann (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Minute of Silence Observance in Brest.png

As stated in the relevant DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minute of Silence Observance in Brest.png‎, this is not a personal photograph. This is a photograph of a commemoration of a historically notable event. It therefore has an intrinsic educational value as a photo of a commemoration of a historically notable event. This particular crop was made because it removes recognizable people and can be used without concern for personality rights, and was previously used in an article on en.wiki. Courtesy ping for User:‎Ronhjones. GMGtalk 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It was unused and we have the original image File:Une minute de silence Brest2016 02.jpg. Any suitable crop can be created if needed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per GMG. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Hugh Pembroke Vowles (1885-1951)

Please undelete File:Vowleshughpembrokeandhismother.jpg It is a photograph made in the UK in the 1890s (as Hugh was born in 1885). The photographer is unknown. So this photograph is PD-UK (Copyright Act UK, art. 9) and PD-US (as pre-1923). This will hold up in any UK or US court. Vysotsky (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Vysotsky and Abzeronow: Could you please add the source. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ROHAN MEHRA.jpg

THIS FILE UPLOADED BY PERMIISON BY PHOTO HOLDER PLEASE DO NOT DELET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal parmar (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sheetal parmar: . If you have received the permission please forward the permission to the OTRS team as per procedures mentioned at COM:OTRS. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). --Yann (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MARTIN-126.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verifying OTRS permission ticket:2018090410004233 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: Undeleted at your request Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Thank you for the same. I have verified the image as negative. It must remain deleted. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Gbawden (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Prasar Bharti Logo.jpg

This image is legal to share for information. --Includents.h (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The source address www.prasarbharti.gov.in does not seem to exist: unable to verify logo license. Ankry (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:IMG-20190112-WA0025.jpg

Request for undeletion Am here by kindly requesting the restoration of image in the commons that has been deleted. reasons for requesting undeletion

  • it was my own work that no body else could claim
  • it was my own kind contribution
  • it was used for as image of Wikipedia article about biography

--Ahmed Adde (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmed Adde: The question from the DR that is still left unresponded is: who is the author of the photo on your photo? Ankry (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. No answer. --Yann (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dd logo.png

It is under speedy deletion but the image is not a copyright violation as it is of a public sector Broadcaster who permits press and information sharing related uses of its logos. --Includents.h (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Includents.h: Please, elaborate where on the nonexistent www.prasarbharti.gov.in website there is the declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 (or compatible) license for this logo as you claim? And that Prasar Bharti is the logo author. If nowhere, then your claim is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:DC Headshot Photo.jpg

The image DC Headshot Photo.jpg was deleted. This image is the official biographical headshot for Mr. Canellos. It is the same JPG file that is shared with any media interviews and presentations. Would kindly ask you to reconsider and undelete the image.

--Bill Ruff (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Bill Ruff 2019.02.10

How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Uploader do not respond to reasonable enquiry. Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cat freezingtattoo.jpg

I"m Denis Moskalev (Denis Freezing), and I am the author of this tattoo and photo. My pages: freezingtattoo.com, https://vk.com/tattoofff, https://www.instagram.com/freezing_tattoo/, https://www.facebook.com/freezing.tattoo/ This photo in magazine Tattoo Master (www.tattoomaster.ru) https://www.instagram.com/p/BJyK9HrhDoF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1xofehy1tp6g9

Denis Moskalev aka Freezing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickster1009 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Fracture Mombach Bf.jpg

Reasons for request: 

File:Fracture Mombach Bf.jpg was erroneous deleted by myself.

Please accept my request for restoring the file. --Prof.Steel (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted as copyright violation, not per uploader request. An OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is needed in order to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Baku Convention Center.jpg

I am an official representative of Baku Convention Center (Baku Congress Center). The photo which is claimed to be copyright violation is from media archive of Baku Convention Center. The given source is also official facebook page of Baku Convention Center (https://www.facebook.com/bakuconventioncenter/photos/a.1607655686000087/1771659022933085/?type=3&theater). Please stop deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakucc (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bakucc: We need proof of that permission. Please send permission to OTRS Gbawden (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the DR. --Yann (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Elizabeth Arden ads by Adolph de Meyer (1868-1946)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Adolph de Meyer died in 1946, and the country of origin of these are France. They have been public domain in country of origin since 2017. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Galoski.png

It was taken from the official press/promotion pack available for using by the management and the artists directly from their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefcetodoroski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Uploader do not respond to reasonable enquiry. Thuresson (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg

The following was posted on my talk page:

"== Deletion of File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg == Hello, James.

Sometime in 2016, you closed the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg saying that we need proof that this file is {{PD-USGov}}. Well, the image appears on a state.gov site, saying "State Department photo". Isn't it enough to conclude that it is a work of a State Department employee? Razvan Socol (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)"

This seems to be an appropriate request. Ordinarily I might simply undo my deletion, but given the time elapsed, I would like at least one other set of eyes on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support Undelete and include a link to above site. Thuresson (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria.jpg

Please restore this file by Franz Grainer (1871-1948). Thanks. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo is apparently from 1939 (when the woman depicted, en:Princess Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria, shown as a bride, was married), so there is a URAA problem. 1939 photos are still protected until the end of 2034 in the US. -- Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support Also please restore File:Adalbertprinceofbavaria.jpg by Grainer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that is not the WMF point of view. They have said, when pressed, that we should not keep stuff that we know is copyrighted in the U.S. The original mass deletion was stopped because we did not have a lot of copyright history for individual countries correct -- i.e. many EU countries were still 50pma on the URAA date, and we were deleting stuff from those countries assuming the terms had been 70pma, etc. But whether something was restored by the URAA or always had its U.S. copyright, it's really no different copyright-wise, or free-wise. "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" was the wrong interpretation to come out of that. I suppose that could be a community decision from their standpoint, but our policy is explicitly that we don't host stuff which is not PD in both the U.S. and the country of origin, and in ignoring the URAA we are knowingly ignoring that policy and hosting such files under a fair-use basis in the U.S., which they also forbade us from doing. If ignoring the URAA was an actual community policy we would mention that fact on Commons:Licensing. It can be frustrating since most restored works the author will not care about once they become PD in their country of origin,but in this particular case it could very well be a copyright owner which has sued a Commons contributor in the past.(the deleted comment was in regards to some other NPG works currently under discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In m:Legal/URAA Statement, the WMF has emitted a statement saying: if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice. My point is that the copyright of nearly all URAA affected files is ambiguous, as we need to prove a negative to be sure of the copyright status of these works. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In that WMF statement, the sentence just before the one you quote says that “[t]he community should evaluate each potentially affected work [...] and remove works that are clearly infringing.” (Full quote: “The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing.”) And I don't see the US copyright status of a 1939 German photograph as ambiguous: it's still protected until the end of 2034. What is not entirely clear is the year 1939, because the upload stated no year at all. I assumed 1939 because the woman is shown as a bride and she apparently married in 1939. If we don't assume that, we'd probably have to assume 1948 as the last year in which the photographer was alive, and that would mean protection in the US until the end of 2043. --Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that we may decide to host non-US works PD in home country and copyrighted in US under URAA-restored copyright, but we need a clear community decision to do so and, as Carl has said above, to mention this in our licensing policy. I also think, that WMF would accept such community decision; they always have a chance to delete content on DMCA. This would just potentially create more work for their legal staff. Ankry (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Deciding about a copyright issue today is already quite difficult. With URAA, we need to find if a work was under a copyright some time in the past. IMHO very difficult at the minimum. So was been any case in court about URAA affected works? Because so far all this remains a theoritical discussion. I would rather that we follow actual practice. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope that by “actual practice” you don't mean any of the variations of “we can get away with it” as listed at Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle? --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No. I mean that if URAA is enforced at all IRL, who are we to do so on Commons? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the URAA has been enforced in court. A few examples from some searching:
  • Toho v. Priority Records: This was on some Godzilla stuff. There was some infringement of some sound recordings which did not need to be restored in the first place, but there was additional infringement of a restored musical composition copyright as well.
  • Toho v. William Morrow: More Godzilla; the films never lost copyright (and the character was infringed), additionally some publicity stuff was ruled to be restored, and also infringed.
  • Troll Co. v Uneeda Doll Co.: This was on some troll dolls which lost their U.S. copyright due to lack of notice (1965 case ruling), but then got restored. The restoration was not being contested, but was more about if the defendant was a "reliance party" (they were not).
  • Dam Things from Denmark v Russ Berrie Co.: This is on the same troll dolls; the dolls were restored but the case was remanded to a lower court because they did not properly evaluate the derivative works status in regards to being a "reliance party".
  • Peliculas Y Videos Internacionales v. Harriscope of L.A.: This was on some Mexican films which got restored. The ruling was again more based on whether the defendant was a reliance party (they were for 22 of the 29 films).
  • Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al: More Mexican films; the District Court ruled infringement on 81 of 88 films. The appeal addressed the remaining seven; they were ruled PD in Mexico in 1996 (by virtue of being produced before January 1948 and thus PD in Mexico due to failure to comply with Mexico's own registration requirements at the time), and thus ineligible for restoration. The infringement of the 81 others was upheld.
  • Elkan v. Hasbro: This was on the Stratego board game. It was ruled simultaneously published in the U.S. and Canada, and thus not eligible for restoration.
I'm sure there are more. Some others are mentioned by reference. The URAA restorations have plenty of court case precedence now to be valid, if restored according to all the clauses in the law. They will use foreign law on the URAA date to determine URAA eligibility, and also foreign law to determine who the authors / copyright owners are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, these are quite interesting and convincing, specially the Mexican films case, so I won't support any restoration here. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: Just FYI: @Jcb: apparently thinks that "the hypothetical copyright in US is only imaginary". --Rosenzweig τ 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My personal URAA policy preference is more in line with Jcb, but I also can see the need for consistency on how Commons approaches it (either delete all the URAA-affected files or delete none). I also notice that Commons routinely ignores U.S. copyright in for example outdoor photographs of German sculpture in public places, so ignoring a nonsense law especially for art so we can actually have a useful archive is somewhat better than making Commons U.S.-centric in how we apply copyright law to works that are out of copyright in their source countries. But doing this by proposal is better than ad hoc deletion & undeletion decisions. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The URAA is frustrating, but it is the law (and is not imaginary or nonsense -- it is the law that courts follow). The EU restorations are similarly frustrating, and result in many deletions of pre-1924 works even though they are just fine in the U.S. The policy User:Jcb linked to (COM:DIU) was quickly superseded by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. Yes, if we want to change policy that is one thing, but current policy is to delete when a careful review shows a significant doubt. Granted it should be a significant doubt -- unless there is documentation which indicates otherwise, we typically assume publication around the time of creation for example, for U.S. term purposes -- but if it is likely still under copyright, then it is a problem. Any DMCA takedown or deletion request by copyright owners would be promptly followed, as we wouldn't have much of an argument against them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: @Jcb: : At the request of Yann, I've now started a discussion about the URAA problem at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#URAA revisited in 2019. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Finally, I made up my mind. For the last 3 years, most URAA-affected images have kept or restored. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Multiple images to be undeleted

 Support A few of my images have been deleted. All were sourced and the correct licence was used for all. The administrator who deleted the images said that they were deleted for 'Copyright violation' as I had used the PD-UK-unknown licence, without giving a reason that the administrator found acceptable.

However, I explained that the majority of these images came from a company called Bassano Ltd, or companies that were affiliated with Bassano, and that Bassano had closed in the 1960's. Therefore it is near enough impossible to find the photographer for these images, as if the National Portrait Galley, which has one of the largest collections in the world, does not know the name of the original author then unfortunately it has been lost to time.[11]

I showed the deleting administrator (Jcb) evidence, that supported my using of the PD-UK-unknown licence, including these previously unsuccessful deletion requests surrounding Bassano Ltd photos: [[12]] & [[13]], which had been kept by the administrators @Yann & @Magog the Ogre, as the original uploaders of those images had demonstrated that npg.org.uk is one of the most accurate and detailed image databases and if they don't know the author, of the Bassano work, then it is not known.

The images that I was hoping could be undeleted and re-added are:

PicMonkies (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree with Yann, if the National Portrait Galley does not know who the photographer is, even though they would have looked through countless archives and done a huge amount of research, then no one will. PicMonkies (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't need another DR discussion as there is a clear consensus, from multiple administrators and editors, for supporting my stance at having the images re-added. PicMonkies (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please explain why you think US copyright is either expired or not relevant. Wikimedia Commons expects content to be free to use in both the US and its source country. George Ho (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@PicMonkies: Please see the United Kingdom in the table at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. --Rrburke (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rrburke PD-1996 states:
  • It was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) - All of these image were
  • It was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States - All of these images were published before the UK established copyright relations with the United States.
  • It was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). - All of these images, as far as we can tell due to lack of information regarding Bassano Ltd, were in the public domain before 1996.

PicMonkies (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@PicMonkies: The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 revived the copyright of works whose copyright had previously expired and which were less than 70 years old (in the case of works of unknown authorship). That revival took place on January 1, 1996. PD-1996 requires the work "was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996)." On January 1, 1996, works of unknown authorship by Bassano Ltd that were less than 70 years old were copyrighted in the UK, their copyright having been revived on that day. If you have a look at the Hirtle chart under the heading Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad, and under the subheading Works Published Abroad Before 1978, you'll see for works published 1924 through 1977 that were "[s]olely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date", the US copyright term is "95 years after publication date". Therefore, any Bassano Ltd file from 1926 or later is copyrighted in the US for 95 years after its publication date. --Rrburke (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke: pre-1926 photographs with unknown photographers in the UK are {{PD-1996}}. But a mere allegation that URAA applies cannot be the only reason to delete. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the pre-1926 files are probably fine. But it's not clear to me what's being distinguished here from a "mere allegation". At any rate, my overarching point would be that I've yet to hear an argument for why the later files should be considered PD in the US. COM:EVID is pretty clear that "the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate ... that the file is in the public domain". I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. --Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
But then you haven't shown any evidence that they were not in the public domain. The photos were taken over 70 years ago and as far as we are aware have been in the public domain, since we have no evidence to say otherwise. PicMonkies (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@PicMonkies: You have the onus precisely backwards: we need evidence that they are in the public domain. If you have any, please bring it forward. --Rrburke (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Since all of these images are in the public domain in the UK, we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in the public domain in the US aswell. The photos are more than 70 years old and as I have shown with my licence are out of copyright. PicMonkies (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
If they were copyrighted in the UK in 1996, and were published 1924 or later, they are 100% copyrighted in the U.S. It's more than "reason to believe", it is a virtual certainty. Being expired in one country often means nothing when it comes to another country. Any of these Bassano prints from 1926 or later would still be copyrighted in the U.S. one way or another, almost certainly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No, there is no certainty here. There may be several reasons for which they could be in the public domain in USA, all quite difficult to prove. The most obvious one is that if the images were published in USA at the time without a copyright notice (quite possible), they are in the public domain in USA. Then if they were published with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Please do not present anything regarding URAA as certain. Nothing like this exists. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Being simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. is pretty much the only way it is OK. If it was published just in the UK with a copyright notice (or in the US only more than 30 days later), but then never renewed, then yes it got restored by the URAA -- not sure why you say it would not. It is true there is some uncertainty with just about anything, but the standard is to delete if there is significant doubt. If there is no evidence that something was simultaneously published, then it doesn't mean we *keep* -- quite the opposite. The policy:
Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.
The part of policy regarding the URAA is mainly if the copyright history of the source country was not well enough known -- we need to do a careful evaluation based on the law at the time. France, for example, is more complicated. The UK however is known, being that they applied the EU restorations on the URAA date itself -- the current terms were the terms then. There is no way for anything created in the UK 1926 or later (and first published there) to avoid being restored, except if it was also simultaneously published in the U.S. If you can find evidence of such U.S. publication, fine, but absent of that there is significant doubt. Much like we should not delete when there is only a theoretical doubt of a work being in copyright, we should not keep when there is only a theoretical chance it is OK -- there is indeed a significant doubt that it is PD in the U.S. If anyone gets sued over such works, they would need to prove that simultaneous publication in court, and we aren't giving any help to them. Can we find evidence of any Bassano image being simultaneously published in the 1920s? Is there at least a pattern of it happening? It's the same for any work where we want to keep it -- we need to supply evidence. Many of the works may be PD-UK-unknown (though for the ones which come from the original negatives donated to the NPG in the 1970s, with no evidence of earlier publication, we don't even know that), but they also need to conform to a U.S. copyright tag. You seem to be arguing that since there is a theoretical chance it could be {{PD-URAA-Simul}}, we should essentially apply that tag with no evidence for it. Given the 30-day requirement, it seems to be we should be able to point to a dated U.S. publication of the photo at the time in order to use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment This interpretation makes a mockery of Commons:Public Domain Day‎, as we could undelete almost nothing. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No, not true -- anything published before 1924, and now PD in their country of origin, can be undeleted. If there was a UK author who died in 1948 but had a work published in 1922, that is now eligible for undeletion -- basically any such work where the author died more than 25 years after publication. That will probably be roughly 50-50. And obviously, works previously PD in their country of origin published in 1923 itself are now eligible for undeletion as of two days ago, as the U.S. copyright has now expired. It does mean that day is largely meaningless for the anon-70 types of works since the U.S. is effectively anon-95. While restored copyrights suck all around for us, they are the law, no matter how inconvenient it is. I wish we could have kept with the 50-years-from-creation term that the UK had for pre-1957 photographs through December 31, 1995, but we can't. It would have been nice if the U.S. had been allowed to get away without fully complying with Berne, but other countries would understandably not allow that (and the URAA was the result). If we want to change policy to be only be PD in the country of origin, and rely on DMCA takedowns (or explicit deletion requests) from authors who want them removed given that they are not PD in the US (given the possible WMF willingness for that), it would be different. But following the PD-in-the-US policy, which is current policy, they need to be PD there beyond a significant doubt. The policy line you keep repeating (and linking to the mass deletion) was quickly followed by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, where (per the summary) the consensus was to delete URAA-restored works where a careful review showed there was a significant doubt they are no longer PD in the US. Accordingly, the wording in Commons:Licensing was then changed to what I pasted above. The same is stated in Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. So, deleting URAA-restored works (published 1924 or later) is current policy. There are certainly times where a review needs careful investigation of the copyright law in place in 1996, as they were often quite different than terms introduced later (thus precluding speedy deletion), but the end result still needs to be PD beyond a significant doubt in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
In contrast, the recently closed DR discussion says, "Failure to enforce this policy globally is not grounds to continue to upload said content." Even when a mere allegation wasn't the sufficient ground for mass deletion, unwillingness to enforce URAA isn't sufficient to keep an individual content. If anyone here disagrees, he or she should request undeletion of that image. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
That deletion request has absolutely nothing to do with this undeletion request. PicMonkies (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I do not see any effort on the part of the uploader to contact the National Portrait Gallery to ascertain that the authors are indeed anonymous, or conduct any other inquiries. There are also concerns about the status of these images in the US. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: I don't see how contacting the NPG would make any difference. They already gave all the information they have. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman and Yann: For anything made available to the public more than 70 years ago, figuring out the author *now* would not matter -- they would still be PD. The author had to become known within 70 years. If the NPG has no author information, then presumably there was no author information with the material -- they would supply that if known. (By EU rules, since these were works for hire, the author should have been required on the initial publication, with no 70-year grace period -- but the UK missed implementing that part of the EU directive.) So I have no problem assuming "unknown" status on them, if the NPG page lists no human author. However, I am wary of images based on the original negatives donated in 1974, as opposed to prints distributed by Bassano at the time of making -- that could mean that the 70-year clock started in 1974, if they were never previously made available, and that a valid UK copyright still exists. For anything based on 1920s prints, they would be PD in the UK today. However, any of the prints from 1926 or after would have had their U.S. copyright restored, and would still be under U.S. copyright for 95 years from their publication. The only way out of that would be to show simultaneous publication in the U.S., but that would need some explicit evidence. So if any of the above are based on *prints*, and are from before 1926, I think they are OK. Otherwise though, I have doubts. The NPG has in the past sued a Commons contributor (granted over a large number of images), so I would prefer to not give them a valid copyright argument. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I contacted NPG @ rightsandimages-at-npg.org.uk and here's what they said:
It is up to Wikimedia if they can accept the CC BY-NC-ND licence or not. As I say, we are happy for them to use this, but if they feel they cannot, then this is a matter for them. With Bassano images, even if the underlying photograph is out of copyright, we (NPG) will hold the copyright to the digitised copies we have made, and which are available on our site under the CC licence.
What this apparently means that (1) NPG's BY-NC-ND licence is not compatible with Wikimedia's licence; (2) To claim that an image is out of copyright in the UK, the uploader would need to find a different source other than NPG. Separately, US copyright is still an issue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Show me where it is incompatible, as some editors and administrators have been saying that it is fine. You do realise that a CC licence means the work is free right? Wikipedia states 'A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work"'. So I fail to see what point you were making here as the NPG has basically said we can use the images. PicMonkies (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Not all Creative Commons licenses are considered "free" for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons. This one forbids commercial use and derivatives, but licenses on Commons must allow both. For Creative Commons licenses, the means only CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0 are acceptable. See COM:L for more. clpo13(talk) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Commons ignores NPG's claim of copyright on digitised copies as policy has us follow the Bridgeman case. Obviously, under current policy, a BY-NC-ND license is not acceptable for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: The NPG is claiming copyright on the digitization. Commons (following the Bridgman decision) does not recognize those claims -- we follow just the copyright of the original in this case. The UK government said this as well: However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases. However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. So, even by EU law, their claim is probably invalid as well. If Brexit happens, it may allow their old precedents to take over again, and it would become a more gray area in the UK -- but probably just the UK, and places like Australia which have the same law. But I don't believe it has been tested in court there. But, policy is Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, so any NPG claim of copyright / license on digitization is not grounds for deletion. If any of the above are from before 1926, and have no named author, they are probably OK. For ones since 1926, NPG may however have a valid copyright claim on the original in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: what I was trying to say was that the uploader would need to demonstrate that the image had been published elsewhere. Meaning that if NPG was the first to publish the image on its website, then we can't really say that the UK copyright has lapsed simply because the image was taken prior to 1926. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Possibly, yeah. A number of the NPG images from Bassano were taken from prints, i.e. copies that Bassano made decades ago. For those, that shows publication at the time, which means any NPG digitizations should be OK if they are more than 70 years old and no author is named. For the ones which came from the original negatives, where we have no evidence of publication, yes the answer could be different. I can't see which is which for the ones here. Most of the time, I'm sure Bassano published them, so it would be a question if the lack of publication evidence amounts to a theoretical doubt or significant doubt in the minds of the admins. For me, I'd tend to be careful with NPG stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment - what was clear from day 1 has been confirmed in the meantime, involved uploader is a sock of a LTA, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron - Jcb (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It only shows that I have an IP address in an area that is nearby to a sock, so nothing is 'clear' so don't make stuff up. I mean your reasoning for deleting my images on wikimedia, because you doubted 'that the authors of all these works would be unknown', turned out to be wrong. Indeed if you look at my edits on wikipedia they are only to add the images that I uploaded here to their respective articles, nothing more. @Jcb. PicMonkies (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: All images are PD-UK-unknown. URAA status is at best uncertain. For the last 3 years, most URAA-affected images have kept or restored. Some are PD-US-expired, and some are PD-1996. Beside, there wasn't a regular DR, and it seems there is a majority for keeping these. And the identity of the requester should not be a factor in the decision. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Biderketak-multiplications.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This video has been made by students and is completely legit. There was not any reason for deleting posted anywhere. Theklan (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Theklan: We cannot host media without a free license. And due to legal reasons a license can be granted only by the video copyright owner(s) (author(s)) in a written form. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The video has been uploaded by the creators directly. The video is totally free license as they created specifically to upload to commons. -Theklan (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Two issues:
  1. if there are multiple authors/copyright owners then the video cannot by "uploaded by the creators" as Wikimedia accounts are personal and cannot be shared.
  2. no author/source/license information was provided by the uploader: this information is required and cannot be fixed by anybody else,if the uploader is copyright owner.
Ankry (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The authors is: the one who is recording and the one who is speaking. The video was uploaded to commons by the one who recorded.
I can't see the information of the video aa it was deleted. But I assume that the uploader said it was her content.
Currently there's no reason to delete this video, so I ask for undeletion.Theklan (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Theklan: The author/license/source fields were empty. And we cannot assign the work to uploader as the uploader's own work basing on third party (yours) declaration. Due to legal reasons, the authors have to sign the licence declaration themselves. I suggest them to contact OTRS: COM:OTRS.  Oppose on this basis. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I have asked her to re-upload it filling all the information. -Theklan (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As the uploader says, "This video has been made by students". Therefore we need a license from all of the students involved as they all are copyright holders. That can be done via OTRS if the uploader thinks it is worth it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File: File:RafaelG.jpg

Desearía solicitar que se restaure la imagen File: File:RafaelG.jpg para la entrada Rafael Guerrero, ya que esa es la imagen que tiene en sus perfiles y tengo los persmisos para su uso. Gracias--ArielAmos (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: @ArielAmos: Necesitamos que el fotógrafo nos envíe una autorización para publicar la foto bajo CC BY-SA 4.0. Mirate COM:OTRS para ver como se hace. Gracias. Ruthven (msg) 13:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Sammie Kporaro (in purple top).jpg

It is obvious that I shouldn't have nominated this file for DELETION. I appreciate it that someone took time to respond to my request for DELETION. If it is not undeleted, I will comprehend and thanks to you all, I am enjoying these projects and will try my best to offer relevant contributions (I am sourcing for files concerning Nigerian cities such as Warri, Asaba and others but I desire better images for such articles and even want to wait until some infrastructure are fixed but till then, thank You) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroubledOne (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been nominated for DELETION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroubledOne (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Was speedy deleted "Personal photo by non-contributors; see COM:SELFIE". Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Your DR nomination was correct: personal images of Wikimedia users without significant contribution are out of scope. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Contest Thank You all but I might not need to contest the DELETION if not that firstly, I assume that I don't comprehend the word non-contributors as applied in reference to me. I think I should just contest the DELETION since it is not closed and most of all, I love the white human race and the photos seems of clearer and fairer skin to me so I will contest the DELETION until it is closed. Secondly, if the reason for the DELETION include something about non-contributors then that doesn't apply to me for before my recent uploads, there was an upload about Asaba Interbau and then a request for DELETION (that file is not personal, it concerns an entire population of different ethnicities and not just me. If that did not concern just me that should imply that I am not contributing to WIKIPEDIA or uploading to Commons for irrelevant useless reasons. It was meant to improve the article about Asaba and was not about me). Is that not a contribution to the project? I prefer to be a powerful magical occultist and maybe I must learn lessons first so I will not be trying to do this so that it will seem as though those of you who have contributed to correct my foolishness on the projects are fools, I am the real fool and will need their help (thanks none of them have blocked or banned me yet so thank You all) but now, did I really not contribute any contribution before now? If I have made any contribution before now, though the DELETION of my three personal uploads may not be undone, just please consider and change the reason provided for the DELETION though I might want the DELETION undone but I comprehend why (TroubledOne (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)) Please if the DELETION should not be undone please close the discussion. Don't delay please so I can move on (I should not be participating just about or for myself so if the undoing request is closed, I will be sure and concentrate on other articles, files and whatever else I can or should add or improve upon). Thanks (TroubledOne (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC))

Significant contributors are users who provide significant amount of wikipedia articles, wikisource text, wikinews articles, wiktionary pages content, educational images or similar content. Personal images, not suitable to be used to illustrate content pages in Wikimedia or discussion participation is not considered to be content. Ankry (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to me. Even if my uploads are deleted and not undeleted, I now get an idea concerning significant contributions (Significant contributors are users who provide significant amount of wikipedia articles, wikisource text, wikinews articles, wiktionary pages content, educational images or similar content). Thanks, since I desire to participate relevantly, I will try save that somewhere else so I will be referring to it. Thanks (TroubledOne (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC))

 Not done: Per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 13:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Walt Pub Photo.jpg

I am Walt Odets, the subject of this photograph. This photo was taken by a friend, Bradford Smith, and he and I have used it for many purposes online, including on the Amazon Author page. I do not understand why it was assumed to be copyrighted, as Amazon does not create or copyright the images from authors, who are the ones who provide the content for the author pages. Please restore this image, which is also used on Facebook, LinkedIn and the websites of both Farrar, Straus & Giroux and Penguin Random House. The image is all over the Internet, and it belongs to Bradford Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:644:500:73C:19B8:91E1:A11B:6C07 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Which file (exact file name) you are talking about? Every photo is copyrighted up to 70 years since the photographer death (unless some special reasons for it to be PD can be proven). Did your friend die before 1949? Did he work for US government when making the photo? Was it published in US before 1977 without copyright notice? Another valid reason? Ankry (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Alexis Jazz: I responded in VPC. Still no evidence for PD. And we do not accept images under Fair use, without clear evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bradford Smith: if you contact COM:OTRS I support direct undeletion while OTRS permission is pending. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Calboyperfoming.jpg

We are currently in the process of having our Artist's wiki page built out. We allow the pictures to be used in the Wikimedia Commons. This image is not subject to copyright and can be used freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaperGangMusic (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost every photo is subject to copyright. Permission for free use is not enough. We need a free license from the actual copyright owner (presumably the photographer). Ankry (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. See COM:OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 13:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Calboyperfoming.jpg

We are currently in the process of having our Artist's wiki page built out.

We allow the pictures to be used in the Wikimedia Commons. This image is not subject to copyright and can be used freely.

PaperGangMusic (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@PaperGangMusic: Please send that permission to OTRS Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Gbawden. Ruthven (msg) 13:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:MBrown-Headshot2018.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken by us! We have sent the photo into others and others have used it on their websites, however, this photo is owned by us, and was taken by us. Ehyman3 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ehyman3: Who is us? Since it was published outside Commons before being uploaded here, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Beerech-main.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the photo Beerech-main.jps is a photo which copyright's belong to me, and though it was used on several websites, it was provided to those websites by me, therefor i believe this photo should be restored

Thank you Comedymaster (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a license via OTRS from the actual photographer or other copyright holder. User:Comedymaster, it is a serious violation of our rules to recreate an image that was deleted without going through the UNDR process. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ParkhomenkoVM.jpg

The file is a photo of V. M. Parkhomenko downloaded from http://sev-pravda.ru/. I labeled the file as my own as I was not sure how to upload it under fair use and because I was not able to find the name of the author. As it was published on a news site, I believe it uses a free license and can thus be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Please undelete the file and edit the license accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parasite03 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose. Parasite03: Fair use content is not permitted on Commons, finding a file on the Internet does not make it your own work (and claiming to be the author of someone else's file is not only against the rules of this site – it's also illegal), and http://sev-pravda.ru/ is not published under a free license. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no evidence of a free license on the source site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File: La Voz Logo.png

Please undelete this image from La Voz (Estados Unidos) wikipedia page as it is an official logo provided by the Telemundo Graphics Department. As you can see by my email, I work for NBCUniversal, and Telemundo is a television networked owned by it.

--An.Perez1 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 2/11/19

@An.Perez1: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Dj yyy.jpg

I think the photo previously uploaded was not violated any copy right and I got that photo from the owner . He permitted to me every right to use his photo . So please consider and check it again.

Thanks

--The Great Yan (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Yan Naing

@The Great Yan: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Another Yann (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files by MS Alpaka

File:Harald Weiss-Bollandt.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File is presendeted by the Hessen police (Polizei Hessen) as an official photo of the former Frankfurt police president. MS Alpaka (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Knut Müller.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File ist presented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen as an official photo of Knut Müller as first president there, used in an article commenting on his decease. MS Alpaka (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Zu beiden: Hallo MS Alpaka, natürlich sind das "offizielle" Bilder, aber das heißt noch lange nicht, dass diese Bilder rechtefrei sind. Beide Fotos sind so "jung", dass anzunhemen ist, dass der/die Fotograf/in noch lebt. Und solange das der Fall ist PLUS 70 Jahre nach seinem/ihren Tod brauchen wir zwingend 1) eine schriftliche Erlaubnis des/der Urhebers/in oder der Rechteinhaber für 2) eine freie Lizenz. Du kannst diese gerne einholen, wie das geht, steht auf COM:OTRS oder auf de:WP:Bildfreigabe. Viele Grüße, --Emha (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, na wenn das so ist, dann will ich mich mal bemühen, ob ich sowas nicht bekomme. Danke für die Info. :) --MS Alpaka (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The fact that the images were provided by the police does not make them free of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Richard Harman Luce 1928.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Harman Luce 1928.jpg

Bassano Limited photograph from 1928. National Portrait Gallery doesn't name an individual photographer so {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:3632 km séparent Chambéry de Ouahigouya.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work. I took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Lying about Google Earth is not going to win you any favors here. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:5937 km séparent Chambéry de Bisoro.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. I took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:5944 km séparent Chambéry de Blainville.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. I took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:148 km séparent Chambéry de Turin.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. I took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:377 km séparent Chambéry de Albstadt.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. I took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:169 km séparent Morteau de Vöhrenbach.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose You forgot to remove "(C) 2019 Google" from The English Channel, The Irish Sea, The Bay of Biscay and the southern part of The North Sea. Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:1969 km séparent Nouméa de Sydney en Australie.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:En ligne droite, seulement 261 km séparent Gilley de Clausen.png

Good evening ǃ

This file is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not your own work. This is Google Earth. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:En bleu, le Venezuela et ses principales îles sur la carte de l'Europe de l'ouest avec la ville de Caracas placée sur Paris.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion but it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not your own work. You can't take copyrighted maps, overlay them with something, and then call them your own. --Majora (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:En bleu, l'île de Cuba et ses principales îles sur la carte de l'Europe de l'ouest avec La Havane placée sur Paris.png

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion but it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not your own work. You can't take copyrighted maps, overlay them with something, and then call them your own. --Majora (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:En rouge, les principales îles de Polynésie française sur une carte d'Europe avec l’île de Tahiti placée sur Paris.png

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion but it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not your own work. You can't take copyrighted maps, overlay them with something, and then call them your own. --Majora (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Taille de l'Île de Saint-Barthélémy par rapport à la Ville de Paris 3 11 2018 Bis Saint-Barthélémy∝Paris.png

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion but it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not your own work. You can't take copyrighted maps, overlay them with something, and then call them your own. --Majora (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Taille Nouvelle-Calédonie Par Rapport à la Métropole 2 11 2018 Bis Nouvelle- Calédonie∝France.png

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not your own work. You can't take copyrighted maps, overlay them with something, and then call them your own. --Majora (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Nicolas Sarkozy à Gilley lors du lancement de la campagne des élections régionales le 5 septembre 2015.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Alex Polizzi.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for you understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:"Modulation entre harmonie et mathématique" par Roger Pfund (Rolex Learning Center EPFL Lausanne Suisse).jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Jourdan’s Villa located 1139 Maybrook Drive in Beverly Hills Inside Dining-room 2017.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Jourdan’s Villa located 1139 Maybrook Drive in Beverly Hills Inside Living-room 2 2017.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Jourdan’s Villa located 1139 Maybrook Drive in Beverly Hills Inside Living-room 1 2017.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Jourdan’s Villa located 1139 Maybrook Drive in Beverly Hills Outside Backyard and Pool 2017.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Jourdan’s Villa located 1139 Maybrook Drive in Beverly Hills Outside Front Door 2017.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Jourdan’s Villa located 1139 Maybrook Drive in Beverly Hills Outside Driveway 2017.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:RoboAction(s) A1 K1 Performance de Dragan Ilic avec le robot industriel Kuka lors du Festival Ars Electronica, Linz, Autriche, septembre 2015.jpg

Good evening ǃ

This file has been deleted or is proposed for deletion although it is my own work/ my own creation. It took me a lot of time to create it.

All my files are the result of a far-reaching research -which can sometimes be lengthy and cumbersome- and of a great deal of creativity intended to facilitate the understanding of any given matter.

Deleting them would be a big loss for Wikipedia and for us all. Moreover, this is an arbitrary decision.

Therefore I kindly ask you to cancel the deletion/the nomination upon receipt.

Thank you for your understanding.

Louis-Fabrice Jean (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Not yet deleted. Comment should be made at the deletion request. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:1-msr-agrippa-postumus-5.stl

The source is now under a CC BY-SA licence --Christelle Molinié (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Christelle Molinié: I am going to undelete this but the licenses on myminifactory do not amount to a Creative Commons license unless it is explicitly listed somewhere else that I'm not seeing. It actually has to say "Creative Commons BY-SA" and it must include a license version. Right now that website does none of that. I remember license reviewing a lot of these previously and they amount to an {{Attribution}} type license. If these could be corrected to be more like File:68-msr-portrait-of-a-man.stl that would be great. Going forward it should also be more like that example. --Majora (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. --Majora (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:10-msr-bust-in-armor-repaired-repaired-cut-2.stl

The source is now under a CC BY-SA licence --Christelle Molinié (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored (not CC though, {{Attribution}}). --Majora (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mapa kan Sur-Subangan na Asya.jpg File:Mapa kan Subangan na Asya.jpg

hi, may i request to retrieved those file because thats the only file i have and it is my own work, i hope you can understand it.Its a map written in Bicol central language. thanks --ShiminUfesoj (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@ShiminUfesoj: Could you please indicate which map you use as base map? Because your files are derivative works of the original map(s). Regards, Yann (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kw_main4.jpg Replace photo mistakingly taken down, I have been granted the rights to put it here

I have been granted the rights to publish this with permission for it to be in the commons. My photo was flagged because it was used in an article without stating where they got the photo from. The assumption made by the person who flagged me is that person must own the photo. They do not. Please continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoDiego (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, if the photo was published outside Commons prior to upload here we need a permission following COM:OTRS from the copyright owner. You may need to explain there whether some rights to the photo were transferred to USA Herald or not. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ivy-Matsepe-Casaburri.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The owner of the file gave full permission for non-commercial use. And I linked the page where they granted permission. https://www.gov.za/terms-and-conditions-use-0

Please stop deleting these files for no reason. Read the permission link that was specifically placed on the files page, before you randomly decide to delete files. Rooiratel (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose So why did you make up a Creative commons license? Non-commercial use only at gov.za. Thuresson (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't make it up. I couldn't find an option for non-commercial use, so I chose the closest option that I could find. Why are you opposing this? Is wiki commons commercial use? How are we violating the terms of use? Why not just change the license to the correct one instead of deleting the file? - Rooiratel (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rooiratel: All files on Wikimedia Commons need a free license, or to be in the public domain. Non-commercial licenses are not free, and are not accepted here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
What you just described would pretty much be the definition of making things up. You cannot claim that someone has made a work available under a set of terms and conditions that they have never actually mentioned in any way. Doing so is not only against the rules of this site; it also constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: NC licenses are not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

the user JuTa said at the DR :"The youtube video is deleted, the license here not confirmed yet. There is no chance ever to get it confirmed." However, it has archived page and license info html screenshot. so I open undeletion request here. Puramyun31 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I was going to contact JuTa about this closure as well. The initial undeletion request, which was linked in the deletion request, addressed the license concern as it was archived and is visible in the page's source code. This discussion was ultimately about whether performer rights was a valid reason to delete this file, which was never properly addressed in any instance when this file was deleted. ℯxplicit 04:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 Support undeletion and reopening the DR as I see no further deletion rationale besides "There is no chance ever to get it confirmed" that may be false. Especially, as no input from JuTa here. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
My response you can see here. --JuTa 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Thanks. Ankry (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Just deleting of the video on the specific website such as Youtube does not necessarily mean the cc license is invalid (There is archived page and license info html code screenshot). and there is a user at this discussion (user:Explicit) who seems to be aware of this. also CC license is irrevocable. Puramyun31 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Puramyun31: I do not oppose undeletion; I just do not support it. The deletion at the origilnal site constitutes a "reasonable doubt" (per COM:PCP) here: we do not know the deletion reason (maybe the original uploader realized that they have not rights to freely license the video?) nor I think we can reliably prove the free license in case of a third party claim (and one of our goals is to protect reusers against such claims). However, if another admin disagrees with me, I will not oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
When I uploaded the video, I removed the sound of the video. the youtube user's behavior does not blanketly affect here.Puramyun31 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As for over 2 weeks nobody declares to review the license on this rationale, I suggest closing this section as not done. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Just saying the period "over 2 weeks nobody declares to review" is too speculative, so i don't agree your argument.Puramyun31 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Now it is over 4 weeks and I still see no such declaration here by any admin. I think there is no point in waiting any longer. Ankry (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry --- PRP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:RunawayGirlWAKenton.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:


1st is a US photograph from 1897. PD-old-assumed. 2nd is an 1880s photograph from Europe. Would seem to meet PD-old-assumed. 3rd is for a 1898 event, just aged into PD-old-assumed this year. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Restored 1 and 3, but not restored 2, because author is mentioned: Albert Harlingue (1879-1964) - Jcb (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Photographs of Quezon Memorial

Uploaded files were nominated for deletion due to no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines and that the artist died in 1989 so the work will not be in public domain until 2039.

Requesting undeletion since the artwork is a work commissioned and controlled by the government and created by a government employee and that no copyright subsists in such. This is also the case for NFoP that no copyright subsists for Government-commissioned and controlled property.

Quoting user Seav:

The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed. —seav (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Markoolio97 (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also PD-PhilippinesGov tag applies to all these image files: {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}

Markoolio97 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored finally all but File:Quezon memorial marker.jpg, File:8095jfQuezon Memorial Circle City Monumentfvf 15.JPG and few others which contain tables with some text description; unlikely covered by the same license.
Also probably some duplicates, maybe copyvios provided as {{Own}} but they need separate case by case resolution. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Loose Connection.jpg

we own This work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakkath Studio (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sakkath Studio: If this is unpublished poster made personally by you, it is likely out of scope (or evidence off beeing in scope is needed). If it was alredy used or published outside Wikimedia Commons, then COM:OTRS permission is needed. Which one applies here? Ankry (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There are six copyrights here -- one for each of the photographs and one for the whole poster. In order for this to be restored, it must be proven via OTRS that each of the six copyright holders has freely licensed their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Reus Imperials Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the logo from an Spanish Football club and as a player and staff member from this team I have the rights from this logo. If you need anything else you can request it.

So, please, let us publish it on our Wikipedia's Profile. Thanks. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reus_Imperials Silinde87 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Silinde87: unfortunately we cannot and may not verify your identity on-wiki. And also, to publish the logo in Wikimedia Commons we need a free license, which is a legal contract and only the authorised representative of the logo copyright owner can sign it. Please ask them to send a free license permission via COM:OTRS in order to restore the logo. Ankry (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ozguroz2.jpg

Kendi şahsıma ait fotoğraftır. herhangi bir hak talebinde bulunma durumu söz konusu değildir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgurozonline (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kirk Taylor Smiling.jpg I am the owner of this picture/copyright. Please undelete.

This picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kirk_Taylor_Smiling.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 was flagged and deleted from Wikimedia for allegedly belonging to IMDB: ttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm0852722/mediaviewer/rm4024423936.

Please undelete as I hereby affirm that I Kirk Taylor the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photograph of Kirk_Taylor_Smiling.jpg, as shown here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kirk_Taylor_Smiling.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

and 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.

--Beech-Rose (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Kirk Taylor Copyright holder

02/12/19

 Oppose @Beech-Rose: There are few problems here.
  1. CC-BY-SA license requires information about the author (protographer), which you did not provide and who you are not
  2. for images published elsewhere prior to their upload here we require permission from an identified copyright holder (presumable author): this cannot be granted on-wiki as anybody can claim here to be any person and this is not verifiable
  3. if the copyright holder is not the author we need an evidence of copyright transfer (eg. via a contract)
Theese all can be resolved contacting OTRS; read COM:OTRS for details. I am afraid there is no simpler/faster way here. Ankry (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Frederick Leonard.jpg

Is it possible for the image to be reinstated and the proper copyright holder then credited. I obviously do not live anywhere near were I can get permission from Mr. Leonard himself for use of his images on the article i am writing but i assume there is an option here to use certain copyrighted material under fair use if the original rights holder is cited. I could be wrong but please advice. Thank you so much for the help.

(Mpho Snail (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

Fair use media is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons since all media here is shared across all Wikimedia projects. You may be able to localy upload the file to a Wikimedia project if their fair use policy permits it. If you tell me where you intend to use the image either I or other users may be able to help you. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As noted, fair use is not permitted here. In order to restore this image, we would need a free license not from Mr. Leonard, but from the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


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

User:FBCDurham created Andy Davis (pastor) page

I used citations and planned to add many more to my page. It was supposed to be saved as an unfinished draft. Could you please restore it so I can continue working and add the needed citations? I am a new Wikipedia user so I do not know my way around the platform that well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBCDurham (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikisource, not English Wikipedia. Please see en:User talk:Fastily if you need more assistance about your deleted text. Thuresson (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a Commons page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:홍준연.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gazzzang#File:%ED%99%8D%EC%A4%80%EC%97%B0.jpg_2

You dispute the removal of that image.

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=Daegu&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmwEJl91G6ckash0ajwELEKjU2AQaCAgXCD0IQggVDAsQsIynCBpiCmAIAxIo_1x_1-H6ofqR-yGvYPtRrVGrMa-A_1aOus_1xi7ZOscuzj6NLsQuwi60LhowLiwmzm9OMhvhfO67r1N5Tz2Ni07jRf4scYDWLNE_17YsahNBNn-nTp66FnflrUFI3IAQMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgRTI9oXDA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZxu_njLLgAhW8TxUIHSayBWAQ2A4ILCgB&biw=1465&bih=946#imgrc=l91G6ckash2rMM

The basis of copyright infringement given by you is the article of "Kyungbuk Ilbo" which is the Korean media.

This image is not a work of the media company.

The original work of the image is declared to be the "DDAEGU JUNG GU COUNCIL", a local council of the Republic of Korea.

http://www.junggucouncil.daegu.kr/source/main03/main01.html?d_th=8

In other words, it is recognized as "public copyright" in Korean law.

Ultimately, according to Korean law, the image is freely available to Korean nationals.

I attach the Korean copyright law as the basis of my claim.


COPYRIGHT ACT of Republic of Korea Article 24-2 (Free Use of Public Works) 

(1) A work produced as part of official duties and already made public by the State or a local government, or a work of which the author's economic right is owned in its entirety by the State or a local government under a contract, may be used without 
 permission: Provided, That the same shall not apply when the work falls under any of the following cases:
  1. Where it includes any information pertaining to national security;
  2. Where it corresponds to an individual's privacy or confidential business information;
  3. Where it includes any information of which disclosure is limited under other Acts;
  4. Where it is registered with the Korea Copyright Commission under Article 112, and is managed as State-owned property under the State Property Act or as public property under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act.

https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=42726&lang=ENG

This image does not correspond to each sub-paragraph of the act, so it is informed that it is freely available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzzang (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment As the deletion nominator (2nd upload) please note that a Google Images search result page is not a valid link. I've found the file at http://www.kyongbuk.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=1050021 at higher resolution than at http://www.junggucouncil.daegu.kr/source/main03/main01.html?d_th=8 --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose At the bottom of the cited page,
http://www.junggucouncil.daegu.kr/source/main03/main01.html?d_th=8
there is
"COPYRIGHT © 2010 DAEGU JUNG GU COUNCIL ALL. RIGHTS RESERVED"
A similar notice appears on the page cited by Patrick
It appears that exception 4 applies here and that the image is not PD.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Es_Devlin_Poem_Portraits_1.jpg

I was unaware that this file had been deleted due to copyright concerns. I have permission of the copyright holder to upload this image and can provide such permission via e-mail.

--Kazimir101 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, the copyright holder himself, not you, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:TF FanID.jpg

Dear Sir/Madame:

Would you please undelete the a.m. photo since there is no any copyright violation. We (Tatiana and myself) made this photo by ourselves three years ago, and, afterwards, have been using it frequently for various purposes (profile photo on Facebook, ID badges, etc.) You can also find this photo at her Berlinale Talents page: https://www.berlinale-talents.de/bt/talent/tatiana-fedorovskaya/profile https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1000621983337794&set=a.117394424993892&type=3&theater

Thank you in advance,

Best

Rustem

--Rustem Samigullin (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on the Web without a free license, Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Welle Erdball logo.png

Same as File:Sachsenring logo.svg but rotated. Finnusertop (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: if rotated, why is it in scope? Ankry (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: It's the logo of a band. In use as a local copy I'd like to replace with the Commons one at en:Welle: Erdball and could be used in all other language versions as well. Finnusertop (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored and reopened the DR. @Finnusertop: please comment there. Ankry (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Garcia Bento, Ilha da Boa Viagem (Nictheroy), óleo sobre madeira, 17 x 27 cm, Photo Gedley Belchior Braga.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garcia Bento, Ilha da Boa Viagem (Nictheroy), óleo sobre madeira, 17 x 27 cm, Photo Gedley Belchior Braga.jpg

Deletion rationale was erroneous. Brazil was pma 60 years in 1996. This was {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} since the artist died in 1929 Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Good catch -- thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:CADET JOHNSON SHANEA TUSSHANNON.jpg

This image has been deleted 3 (three) times, but it is an official portrait image of a (possibly former) member of the military of the United States of America, I'm not actually requesting undeletion as I nominated it for deletion earlier today, however it is my understanding that works made by official employees of the Federal government of the United States of America are in the public domain, does this also apply to military portraits? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close: Image is not deleted as of right now but is back at DR. Let that run its course. --Majora (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anton Vezuv 2018.jpg

Permission arrived: 2019012310009652. Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Regasterios: Ankry (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:BzRFuZ Halle S.jpg

Was tagged as "no source", but did have a source. It was claimed as own work by Jobakampe. No proof to the contrary was provided. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose - own work very unlikely - useless anyway, due to large watermark in the center - Jcb (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no watermark. No proof of any kind to counter the "own work" claim. The visibility of the text description could be reduced. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's what we call a watermark here at Commons. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
What "we" call a watermark has actually been written down! Commons:Watermarks: "A watermark is content embedded in a creative work that is not part of the creative work itself, and is used by the creator and/or copyright holder of the work to assert authorship and/or copyright, and to support the identification of unauthorised copying of their work." The text on this picture is none of that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support undeletion and processing through the standard DR procedure. Ankry (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose We certainly call this a watermark. The cited page is a proposed policy that has not been accepted and therefore has no official standing. If it had been accepted, then this would be deleted under
"(1) Destructive watermarks, which significantly obstruct use of a work."
If someone wants to remove the watermark, I would support restoring the image for that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: okay I removed the text. The text is a description of what is shown btw, no useless authorship claim. As such it doesn't really obstruct the use of this work. But it's less than ideal, I admit, so I removed the text. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Nicely done, Alexis Jazz. Thank you. Please upload your new version using the same file name and I will close this as "Done". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: The original uploader's name should be preserved as the photo author. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: ✓ Done please restore/merge history or however that works. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: see discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Enrique Ortiz Martinez

EugeneZelenko nominated these for deletion with the rationale "Out of Commons:Project scope: unused charts and diagrams. Should be in MediaWiki Graph or SVG if useful".

The files are in scope, "unused" is no argument (let's delete 95% of Commons because unused ) and EugeneZelenko didn't create any MediaWiki Graph or SVG for these. Also, how exactly EugeneZelenko plans to convert animations to MediaWiki Graph or SVG, I have no clue. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Number of charts are infinite. Why should every one of them uploaded on Commons considered useful? See w:en:Linear function as example. SVG charts already there. There ara plenty of media in Category:Fourier transformation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
And if you keep nominating them for deletion using invalid reasons, at some point none may be left. Why aren't they useful? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If you wish to use the files, please elaborate about their scope. If you wish to present COM:POINT, please refrain. I abstain from handling this request regardless of your response. Ankry (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Being "in use" or not is not relevant. If Enrique Ortiz Martinez uploaded these to hotlink them on his own website to explain math or is using them through InstantCommons, that is perfectly within our scope and such use won't be reported here. Commons has a liberal hotlink policy and that is on purpose. Pinging @Bocardodarapti as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose These are the only contributions of this user who has not bothered to defend them either here or at the DR. Although a Google search on the first one did not have any result, given the numbering and the identification letters in some of the images, I think it likely that they were all copied from a book. COM:PRP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 2

[14] The reasons for the lawsuit desision are published. The court only named §§ 249 and 280 of the German Civil Law Book, to forbid the upload by the fotographer. This is only about damages by the uploader for the breaching of the contract. In the lawsuit there is nothing decided about the WMF. See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_72#Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit deletions --Habitator terrae 🌍 16:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC) PS: I wasn't right with my thought, that this couldn't be rouled by the constitutional court, because there are many thoughts about the constitution in the reasons PPS: If the BGH argue with a (non existing) "durchschnittliche Museumsbesucher" (Seite 16)/"average museum visitor" (page 16) I would really go to the constitutional court

I forget a @Pajz: --Habitator terrae 🌍 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC) and @Yann and Jrogers (WMF): --Habitator terrae 🌍 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Info Images were deleted per courtessy to the uploader. IMO, they should be rather reuploaded by somebody else, if needed than undeleted on a third party request. Ankry (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: It is clear who upload the pictures. So why don't undelete? There is only a decision, that the fotographer isn't allow to upload them, but he did it and an undeletion wouldn't be an upload by the fotographer. Habitator terrae 🌍 18:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not so clear: technically, undeletion is just reverting to the state before the deletion. The admin doing it is not mentioned anywhere as contributor.
However, if there is consensus for that, the files could be undeleted and the original uploader changed or masked. As the photographer is the copyright holder here, we can't remove his copyright without his approbation. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
We could agree that an upload by a single use account would be acceptable. Especially if we agree to respect the principle of anonymity. --Fæ (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

To make clear, what the courts sentenced (translation by me, and I know that they aren't the best):

The Federal court of Germany sentenced [15]:
The revision against the judgement of the 4th Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart at the 31th May 2017 is refused. The defentand has to pay the costs"
The 4th Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart has sentenced [16]:
a
The defendant is sentenced on threat of [...], to don't provide the following fotographs to the public or to let provide, by scaning this fotographs out of the publications of the plaintiff by himself or another and upload them to the Media database Wikimedia Commons and making them there aviable to download by the public, like it was happened in the internet on the platform Wikimedia Commons:
[all images in the deletion requests of Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 1 without this]
b
The defendant is sentenced on threat of [...], to don't provide the following fotographs to the public or to let provide, by uploading this fotographs, that was made by him at the 5th July 2007 in the rooms of the museumbuilding Zeughaus, by the defentand to Wikimedia Commons, like it was happened in the internet on the platform Wikimedia Commons:
[all images in the deletion requests of Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 2 and the images in the category without this (I don't know why)]
c
In the case of the picture [...] the lawsuit is refused.

I hope that you understand my translations. So the uploader wasn't sentenced to remove the pictures, if he don't can. Habitator terrae 🌍 18:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. I think we have a problem because of the text "or to let provide". Even if anyone else would upload these images, Andreas might get into trouble. Am I reading this right? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Not really, I would recommend Andreas to make an edit war with you so that he will get an block , because then he wouldn't provide or let provide them to the public, that's why we heard nothing by him in this case, because he could say many things wrong. But after a little bit thinking, there could be a problem if a public domain-licenses aren't juristical possible, so that Andreas could a start a lawsuit. Then it could be, that a he must start a lawsuit. But in my opinion the sentence is very specific, with the "by..." in the section b) (about the cat:lawsuit 2), that is only about a upload by him, so the section could only about an upload by him. Habitator terrae 🌍 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC) DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT AN JURIST

Hmm. This is a difficult one. It is clear that the court has no jurisdiction over WMF, although use of images within the jurisdiction of the court might be a problem. Therefore, the issue here comes down to the effect that our decision might have on Andreas. On the one hand, Andreas has granted us an irrevocable license, so "let provide" does not apply -- he provided them (past tense) before the court order and by our rules and the license he granted he cannot do anything about the images here.

On the other hand, however, judges like to see their rulings obeyed and I can certainly imagine the judge citing Andreas for contempt because the images remained on Commons even though Andreas does not have any right to demand their removal. If the judge were to do that, Andreas should win, but defending against it would require him to spend more time and money. Andreas has been a prolific contributor over the last 14 years, with almost half a million edits on Commons and WP:DE. I think it is appropriate that we should minimize the potential damage he suffers because of these uploads and not restore them. For the same reason, I don't think we should keep them if they are later uploaded by a third party.

Therefore, I  Oppose restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to restore. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Eva Kruse CEO and President Global Fashion Agenda.jpg

also:File:CEO Agenda 2019 image.jpg

I am uploading the image on behalf of Global Fashion Agenda. We own the copyright to the image and grant consent for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Taylor 11 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we have no way of knowing who User:Alice Taylor 11 actually is and whether or not she is authorized to give away the property of Global Fashion Agenda, policy requires that an authorized official of GFA must send a free license using OTRS. Note that this policy is in place to protect GFA's property from fans and vandals who might upload it here without any right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


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

אישור העלאת תמונה

התמונה אותה דחיתם מאושרת להעלאה על ידי הצלם ועל ידי השף. ניתן קרדיט לצלם: צילום: רמי זרנגר

אנחנו, משרד קרבט & וייס מייצג את יובל בן נריה והזכויות על התמונה הן שלנו. הפרסום ב"גלובס" כפי ששלחתם לנו הוא מטעמנו באמצעות עבודת היחצ שלנו. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אופק ערן (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Since all users on Commons and WP are anonymous, we have no way of knowing who you actually are or whether you actually have the right to give away the rights to this image. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


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

FileTosches Rosa - Interno con pianoforte .jpg: - FileTosches Rosa - Ragazzi che giocano a birilli.jpg: - FileTosches Rosa - Vecchio che fuma la pipa.jpg:

Chiedo di ripristinare i sopraindicati Files.

Sono l'User DIRARTE. Le immagini di 3 dipinti della pittrice ROSA TOSCHES ( da me tempo fa inseriti in Wiki Commons ) sono state indicate come "uncategorized" e poi cancellate.

I Files dei Dipinti sono i seguenti:

- Tosches Rosa - Interno con pianoforte.jpg - Tosches Rosa - Ragazzi che giocano a birilli.jpg - Tosches Rosa - Vecchio che fuma la pipa.jpg


Allego ad ogni effetto la Dichiarazione del Detentore dei diritti d'autore (Guido Marzulli = Detentore del Copyright) con preghiera di provvedere al corretto reinserimento. DIRARTE --Dirarte (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Permesso di pubblicazione Il giorno lun 11 feb 2019 alle ore 12:33 <guido.marzulli@virgilio.it> ha scritto: permissions-it@wikimedia.org Posta in arrivo guido.marzulli@virgilio.it Allegati lun 11 feb, 12:33 (3 giorni fa) Permesso di pubblicazione Sono Guido Marzulli e sono il detentore del copyright sulle immagini dei FILES ALLEGATI . Autorizzo la pubblicazione delle immagini con licenza CC BY-SA 3.0 ed in merito: Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che concedo a chiunque il diritto di usare l'opera in un prodotto commerciale e di poterla modificare a seconda delle proprie esigenze. Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che resto comunque titolare dei diritti d'autore della mia opera e che mi venga attribuita in accordo alla licenza scelta. Le modifiche all'opera fatte da altri non saranno attribuite a me. Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che la licenza riguarda solo i diritti d'autore, e mi riservo il diritto di muovere azione legale contro chiunque utilizzi quest'opera in modo diffamatorio e calunnioso, o in violazione dei diritti d'immagine, delle restrizioni riguardo i marchi registrati ecc. Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che non posso ritrattare questo accordo, e che l'opera potrà essere o non essere conservata permanentemente in un progetto Wikimedia. Milano, 13/2/2019. Guido Marzulli.

Note that the second file never existed. I suspect it should be:
File:Rosa Tosches - 'Ragazzi che giocano a birilli' - prorietà Pinacoteca provinciale di Bari.jpg.
 Oppose The paintings are still under copyright. Since we do not know who Dirarte actually is and, unfortunately, people who forge documents and make false claims are present on Commons, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must provide a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - Nackte liegende Frau - 1931.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:


Kirchner died in 1938. These were already PD in country of origin and an URAA allegation shouldn't be the only reason for deletion Abzeronow (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose That is not correct. Please refer to the third paragraph at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, which reads, in part:

...it was decided that files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.
[emphasis added]

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Reverol shares information of Requesens and Borges as suspects.png

Also pinging @B dash:

This file was tagged as non-free because it is a screenshot - that was the only reason given! It's a screenshot from a free video. On the page you can click the link here and see that the video has been freely released (with attribution), and the YT channel is Nestor Reverol - the one in the video, you can't say he doesn't have the right to release it as such. The page was restored at the last undeletion request, accidentally deleted then restored by one user, and then randomly deleted again by Ymblanter (talk · contribs). Kingsif (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done, you could have just contacted me at the talk page with these arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that was an option! Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: see discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Chancy Squire Logo (2017).png

Hallo, mein Name ist Michael Koers. Ich bin Manager und Mitglied der Rockband Chancy Squire und habe das Bandlogo (siehe gelöschter File) kreiert. Dieses Logo ist auf meinen Namen als Wort/Bildmarke beim Deutschen Patentamt angemeldet. Somit bin ich alleiniger Inhaber der Urheberrechte. Aus diesem Grund liegt keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vor und ich bitte darum, die Löschung rückgängig zu machen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Michael Koers (Chancy Squire (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

File:Wort-Bildmarke - Chancy Squire Logo.jpg

 Oppose All Commons and WP users are anonymous, so we have no way of knowing here whether User:Chancy Squire is actually related in any way to the group. The user could be a fan or vandal -- such claims are common. Therefore, in order to protect the rights of the copyright holder, we require that in such cases the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2019 (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:Battles of the Isonzo

These files should be OK with {{PD-anon-expired}}. Pictures from Italy may even get {{PD-Italy}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Udo Dahmen Foto Arthur Bauer.jpg

Der Urheber hat nun selbst eine E-Mail mit der Genehmigung und Lizenzangabe an permissions-de@wikimedia.org adressiert. Bitte Foto wieder freigeben. Danke (MKBam (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2019 (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) 16:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Fritz eisel mosaik dvz potsdam 3.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fritz eisel mosaik dvz potsdam 3.jpg. Ping deleting admin Natuur12. The given reason for deletion was wrong licensing, but this file was part of a series, cf. Der Mensch bezwingt den Kosmos (Fritz Eisel). Judging from the other files the actual issues are that there is no hint to the artist of the mosaic models and a missing {{FoP-Germany}} template; the given license is not wrong in my opinion, but for the photograph itself. If the image would be undeleted I would for all images of this series replace the template {{Information}} with {{Art Photo}} like I already did with File:Potsdam Art GDR.jpg (this edit). — Speravir – 00:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record. I have no objection against undeleting the file. Thanks for the ping btw. A ping is always much appreciated :). Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support I agree that these appear to be out of doors and therefore qualify for FOP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see also this image, northern and left western panels of this mosaic can be seen on right bottom. — Speravir – 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW if you decide for undeletion, then please ping. — Speravir – 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per {{FoP-Germany}}. @Speravir: Ankry (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Open_Knowledge_Maps_Logo.jpg

I have created the Logo for Open Knowledge Maps and have given permission for use (in this case I licensed the image under cc0). We are a charitable non-profit - by default all our content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License this includes all the images I create for Open Knowledge Maps. We are also partnering with the Open Science Fellows Program and thus we used Wikimedia commons to upload our Logo. Please undelete this image. Thank you. Maxi--Tanteuschi (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support User:Ronhjones,User:Arthur Crbz, the source page clearly has a CC-BY license, "Unless otherwise noted, all content on openknowledgemaps.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." I see no reason why this should not be restored. Am I wrong? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  1. There was no source link on either upload to show a cc license.
  2. The license I saw was Self-cc-zero, clearly wrong for a logo of an organisation - you can have "self", but you would need to go though OTRS to prove it.
  3. If there is a cc-by-4.0 then that's what should be on the image, not cc-zero.
If all that is fixed then restore. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and license info fixed. Ankry (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Brabham Hall 1923.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SandHills

1923 photographs from the United States. Uploader's original "own work" assertion was obviously bogus. Abzeronow (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the base of the assumption that they were published in 1923? Ankry (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I can always put "Undelete in 2044" for when these photos would be over 120 years ago. Would suppose Carlisle Military School would have published the photographs soon after they were taken. @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't see them, but is there a reason to believe they were not published in 1923? The only file in that DR not deleted was a cover of a 1923 publication; were the images from there? Most often works are published soon after creation, so unless we have reason to think that publication was delayed, we do often assume that. COM:PRP would require a significant doubt that they were not published in 1923, not simply that it's theoretically possible they were not published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done @Abzeronow: please fix the source/author info to avoid future redeletion. Ankry (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:PIRRO.jpg

La foto in oggetto è stata scattata dal sottoscritto nel giugno del 2008 e utilizzata da testate varie giornalistiche negli anni seguenti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilosergio (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, policy requires that you, or the actual copyright holder, must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gilbert Macarthur Goldfinch -4388 - 23 June 1917.jpg

australian file from World War I. out of process, no Deletion Review. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored. The deletion by Jcb seems to be completely out of process: the images already had a valid copyright tag and uploader was not notified. Ankry (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Australian soldiers marching in Queen Street, Brisbane.jpg

australian file from world war I, out of process, no Deletion Review. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored. The deletion by Jcb seems to be completely out of process: the images already had a valid copyright tag and uploader was not notified. Ankry (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:EOV.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo was sent by Eberhard Voit to my email to use. It is the same photo that he uses as his personal photo on his website, and was taken by family. It should be attributed to Eberhard Voit and the website http://www.bst.bme.gatech.edu/ . Tienbien44 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tienbien44: How did it come about that you first claimed that you took this photo? Thuresson (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, not you or Mr. Voit, must send a free license using OTRS. 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..

Note that the photo must be attributed to the photographer, not the subject..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Uploader do not give consistent information about provenance, OTRS should be used to clarify who the copyright owner is. Thuresson (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ariel at 2013 Nationals.jpg

I own this file. Yinlu (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description shows:

|source=Internet
|author=Bruce Liu

Which suggests that you are neither the copyright holder nor the photographer. Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:FlatVsSkeuomorphism.png

Hello. I just mixed 2images of wikipedia to make this file: https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/پرونده:IOS_6_Home_Screen.png#mw-jump-to-license https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/پرونده:IOS_7_Home_Screen.png#mw-jump-to-license So what is wrong whit it? I can't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudy798 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Well, for starters, you claim that the images are your own work when that does not appear to be the case. Second, while the images appear at WP:FA, they might not actually be free to use unless the uploaders actually created all of the icons shown on both. Some of them are not complex enough to have copyrights, but others certainly do. As a general rule, images which are a combinations of other images should have all of the other images on Commons before uploading the combination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Those fawiki images are not free and have been uploaded per fa:ویکی‌پدیا:محتوای غیرآزاد. But Wikimedia Commons does not host fair use media files. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:indexsajto1.jpg

The owner of the photos(indexsajto1.jpg, indexsajto2.jpg) deleted from Index.hu wiki is Gerényi Gábor co-founder of Index.hu as you can read on Wikipedia https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ger%C3%A9nyi_G%C3%A1bor. He gave me the pictures to upload to the wiki website of Index.hu.

Szegedi Juli --Szegfu76 (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) February 13, 2019

 Oppose In that case, Gerényi Gábor must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Szegfu76: And please note, the above-mentioned delay applies to English language OTRS queue; the Hungarian one may be shorter. Ankry (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Mass TechCrunch restore request

Previous requests:

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-04#Mass TechCrunch restore request

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-05#Mass TechCrunch restore request

Please restore all images deleted in the following DRs and the following individual images:

More related DRs:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Getty Images photos from the TechCrunch Flickr account
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "getty images" techcrunch
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"Andrew H. Walker"
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Getty Images for Yahoo News"
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/Getty Images for Delta Air Lines/

As I explained on Commons:Deletion requests/Getty Images photos from the TechCrunch Flickr account: management of rights is an important part of Getty's services. They actively scan the web for violations and act when they find them. To even think they are unaware of those Flickr streams and files that were uploaded to Commons and used on Wikipedia is a terrible insult to Getty. It would suggest they are incapable of using Google. To suggest they are aware but just a very sympathetic company that doesn't go after the little man.. oh stop you're cracking me up.

The only realistic explanation: TechCrunch, Yahoo, Delta and any others in a similar situation have the right to distribute these images on their Flickr stream with a Creative Commons license. I suggest we do follow the attribution as they provide it (for example: Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images for TechCrunch) as this may be part of the deal they have.

Pinging @Yann, Majora, Jeff G., Jcb. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Jcb, it is quite a twisted view. The last UDR failed only because you closed it negatively inspite of a near consensus for restoring the files. And there is no failed OTRS ticket. That's an invention. There is an OTRS from TechCrunch saying basically "we own the rights, WTF?" Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Jcb trying to overrule everyone else - nothing new indeed. Nobody has presented any scenario in which these files are not freely licensed, at least no scenario that doesn't involve saying "people from Getty are retarded morons" or some massive improbable conspiracy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There is still enough suffient doubt as to know the proper licensing status of these files as to keep them. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted."
There is no significant doubt, there is mostly FUD from Jcb. Can you provide any scenario in which these files are not licensed with Creative Commons? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Calling on the experts, some of our active license reviewers: Pinging @4nn1l2, Gone Postal, GRuban, Roy17. What do you think? Is there any non-outlandish scenario in which the license for these images would be invalid? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (Two cents from an amateur:) There is doubt on whether TechCrunch could freely license these John Doe/Getty for TC images. This should be clarified by either Getty or TC, otherwise all files should be deleted. Take [17] for instance. Photographer is Brian Ach, who mentions only freelancing for Getty, but not TC.--Roy17 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    John Doe/Getty Images for XYZ is actually quite common. https://www.gettyimages.de/fotos/getty-images-for?family=editorial&phrase="getty images for" : six million images have such credit lines. Does Getty still own the exclusive rights, or if the other parties own the rights? This question can only be answered by Getty.--Roy17 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: on Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"Andrew H. Walker" Andrew H. Walker said "I believe that Getty Images pens the copyright, but Yahoo has a usage agreement, the specifics of which, I wouldn’t know".

Photographer grants to Getty Images the exclusive right under copyright to license and grant sublicenses in and to the Assignment Photos to the applicable Customer.

— Getty Photographer agreement for global assignment
The photographer is the copyright holder on paper, but grants Getty an exclusive license. The photographer is still allowed some self-promotional noncommercial use, but can't sell their work or license it to us. This leads us to

Industry-Leading legal protection - Offering uncapped indemnification, our team of legal pros make sure your imagery won't cause unnecessary rights and clearance headaches.

— Custom Content & Event Coverage Assignments

The information seems to end there. http://studioatgettyimages.com/ just has a phone number. And we have been unable to establish a way in which I (or anyone else) can contact Getty and we can trust that what has been said is true. I could contact Getty by mail, could probably get the info we need, but I wouldn't be trusted to relay that information intact. Inserting the info into the OTRS system is also problematic. Me forwarding communication to OTRS is considered worthless because I can't be trusted. So we can't talk to Getty. I can think of only one other way to settle this: we keep some images (or leave the DR open and mark it not to be closed under any circumstance) and inform legal at wikimedia about the images also being sold on Getty. This gives them actual knowledge about a possible infringement. If legal believes the images are not properly licensed, they will create a new topic on Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices and delete the images. If that happened, I would also be supportive of the deletion. If they don't, we should undelete all. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Er. Nothing I'd like better than to support the undeletion, those are some great images, but, unfortunately, that Andrew H. Walker email implies strongly that Getty owns the rights. Now I've run into cases where Getty claims rights they outright don't have, but this isn't one of those. Alexis, if you ask Getty, and they say that TechCrunch, etc, has the rights to release the images as free I'll believe you. But until then, it's not an outlandish scenario to say that there might be justified disagreement from Getty over whether TechCrunch, etc, can merely use the images, or can give them away to others. Sorry. --GRuban (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban: with any other party, one might claim "they didn't know". But there's no way Getty doesn't know, and they would have filed takedown requests to both Flickr, WMF and any other re-users as well as kicked TechCrunch's ass before I could have finished my candy bar. But in 5 years, they haven't. And they continued their relation with TechCrunch. I would be more than happy to contact Getty, but there's no way I can relay that communication to Commons without having the opportunity to tamper with it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
But you haven't actually communicated with Getty, and are putting up hypotheticals about how we won't trust you. Honestly I estimate an 80% chance of no response, and a 20% chance of "yes, we do own the copyright, please go away; or rather, please pay us large sums of money for using this image in the past, and even more for all the other images you've ever used, or considered using, because even if they don't say Getty, we own the copyright for those too". If you actually get a response from Getty disavowing ownership of copyright, I, personally, will trust you, and those who don't will be able to find an OTRS agent to follow your lead and email the person who emailed you, for verification. But, again, I estimate that's about as likely as Mexico paying for a certain wall. What might be more useful would be your trying to get in touch with TechCrunch or some other publisher; there I estimate only a 60% chance of silence... --GRuban (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support TechCrunch is an American million-dollar publisher which is supposed to be familiar with copyright and comply with it. They have published these images on their Flicker account under a free license (while they could simply publish them ARR). They have also expressed that they know what they are doing in a correspondence with Wikimedia (ruling out the possibility of a mistake): Ticket:2018041510004936. I don't find it plausible that some volunteers on Commons think they are more knowledgeable about copyright than real publishers who have something at stake and something to lose. Seriously, why so concerned? Are you concerned for re-users? But what can you do with their Flickr account? Commons is not as popular as Flickr, I guess. So, we are doing re-users no favor by removing these images from Commons, because they can easily grab them from Flickr. Anyway, sending a DMCA takedown is not that difficult. If the party in question was an individual person (in contrast to a big company) or a company based in one of these countries where copyright means nothing (in contrast to a Bay-Area publisher), I would think about COM:PRP, but not in the current conditions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2: But why would Getty Images send a takedown request to Flickr or TechCrunch if TechCrunch paid Getty for a usage license? "Getty Images for TechCrunch" indicates Getty has a licensing agreement that allows TechCrunch to republish Getty-owned photographs on TechCrunch's site and social media. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Ytoyoda: Because in that case, TechCrunch only had usage right, not licensing right. What TechCrunch Flickr account does is giving anyone the right to use the images for any purpose, not only using those images themselves for "publicity" reasons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Right, but you're assuming that Getty is looking at the license status of individual photographs. What they're concerned about is actual copyright infringement, which happens regardless of settings on Flickr, and TechCrunch (and other Getty-licensees on Flickr) are pretty thorough in how they credit Getty-owned photographs in the image descriptions. Plus, you might be overstating the reach and thoroughness of Getty's license enforcement, considering obvious Getty photos can sit on Commons for years without detection. In any case, I just don't find the "Getty Images hasn't taken legal action against an outlet whose use on Flickr appears to be within the licensing agreement, therefore Getty Images does not own the photograph." to be a really convincing argument. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, the fact that they "are pretty thorough in how they credit" photographers in the image descriptions shows they are well-informed about copyright and licensing. I don't find the idea that TechCrunch (itself a publisher) staff are ignorant about copyright or the company is engaged in some sort of copyright infringement for no cause (and no pecuniary purpose) really compelling. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per 4nn1l2. Hanooz 08:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Could you please remove https://www.flickr.com/photos/techcrunch from the Commons:Questionable Flickr images? Hanooz 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Alexis Jazz and 4nn1l2 above, and other experienced users in the numerous DRs. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MirrorKhabar_Logo.png

This is the legal submission for MirrorKhabar's logo. used for mirrorkhabar's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padamraj.joshi (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Padamraj.joshi: For copyrighted logos used elsewhere in the world, a written free license permission from the authorised representative of the copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. This is the legal path for such a submission. However, if you intend to use the logo only in English Wikipedia, it likely can be uploaded directly to English Wikipedia, following their Fair Use rules. Ankry (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sangam World Centre Logo.png

This image was created by Sangam World Center. I uploaded the image of our purple logo, which I've agreed to publish under creative commons license, so I don't understand why it was deleted. Please help

--Mari.soto0420 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mari.soto0420: For copyrighted logos used elsewhere in the world, a written free license permission from the authorised representative of the copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. However, if you intend to use the logo only in English Wikipedia, it can likely be uploaded directly to English Wikipedia, following their Fair Use rules. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:NUSEIR YASSIN (Nas Daily).jpg

On 29.1.2019 I sent the Israeli OTRS team a request for approval for the picture, which includes correspondence with the owner and approval in the required document. The following is the text of the confirmation found in my email:

I hereby affirm that I Nuseir Yassin, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work[2] as shown here in this email thread and 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.

NUSEIR YASSIN

FOUNDER AND CEO January 27 2019

Please let me know what I need to do to return the image to Wikimedia Commons. Ronen.gb (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:andrimo.png

Hello,

I uploaded the logo about the company andrimo. This is official logo of company and i have permission to add on wikipedia because the official page of andrimo logo linked from here.

So please recover the logo.

Thanks in Advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aversomecreator (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for company logos to appear on Commons, an authorized official of the company must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per my comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sanam Re Poster.jpeg

It is a poster pic from catchnews.com . It's real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabah Azman Nahean (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Perhaps you did not see the explicit copyright notice in the lower left corner of the catchnews.com main page? The poster cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Explicit copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Feodor Chaliapin LOC 37847u crop.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Feodor Chaliapin in photographs

Source is http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2014717995/ Library of Congress says "No known restrictions on publication. For more information, see George Grantham Bain Collection - Rights and Restrictions Information https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/274_bain.html" No photographer is named so this would be public domain in the EU since Chaliapin died in 1938 and this definitely would have been published before 1938. Abzeronow (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support --Yann (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per LoC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Deeptidsati.jpg

This photo was taken by me "Sivakrishna R" on 12/1/19 Time 19:12 in mumbai during the screening of the movie "luckee" this photo is of the lead actress of that movie "Deepti sati" and the same photo has been uploaded by her on the her official website The file was uploaded by her PR team to be set as her wiki profile image please undelete the file because there is no copyright violation.

--Moonlight149 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)sivakrishna 17/2/19

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the DR. --Yann (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files by Mostafa Azizi

It was my mistake. We could keep these photos with some help from com:Graphic lab (by blurring the background):

And I don't remember why I voted delete to File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg. We could have it too. Hanooz 12:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the first two because the image behind the subject is sufficiently cropped and obscured that no copyright issue arises. In the case of the others, it would easier and better to crop them somewhat rather than blurring. If someone is willing to do that, please say so here and I will temporarily undelete them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Why not remove the background completely to transparency with https://www.remove.bg/ ... it is a free tool that removes the background 100%, about 9 out of 10 times, and once in a while a light touch up with the eraser tool completes it if the background matches the image in color. Other than copyright, the background in these cases is especially distracting. Don't forget to add the image to the Wikidata entry for each person. Here, I created one: Naser Mamdoh with background removed RAN (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done non-blured versions hidden. Ankry (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Reverol shares Wanted images of Caracas drone suspects.jpg

per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-02#File:Reverol_shares_information_of_Requesens_and_Borges_as_suspects.png - I believe the same free video standard applies. Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The source link provided in the article ([18]) is dead. So the answer is: No, this is not the same case unless a link to cc-by-sa-compatible licensed source is provided. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:POLVO EN EL VIENTO. VATICANO. HUGO COYA.jpg

Good day, You have removed the cover of a book by Hugo Coya. I am the person in charge of uploading content on his Wikipedia page. I have been working with the writer for a long time and he has trusted me to edit the content. Therefore, Hugo Coya can also spread the covers of his own books. I hope you do not eliminate it anymore. Please. I wait your answer. Thank you.

Luis Cáceres Álvarez 16-02-2019--Luiscceres (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Luiscceres: As the book was not published under a free license, in order to undelete the image, we need a written free license permission from the cover copyright holder send directly to our OTRS system. Read COM:OTRS for instructions. Ankry (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Series of Tubes - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg

This is public domain as a work of a US government employee as a part of their official duties, as File:I Got it Yesterday - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg is. Raymond1922A (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: I am surprised: whose permission was expected for a USGov work? Ankry (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
No authorship information was given regarding the recording and it came from an non govermental website, so that at the time (and even now) it is unclear whether this would be PD-USgov. Jcb (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support I commented on the DR of the file above. The upload was from 2006 on a site which vigorously puts out stuff with Creative Commons licenses anyways (in 2006 and today), and the source website has since changed. But looking at web.archive.org links it apparently was a copy of a webcast from commerce.senate.gov, so even the recording should be PD-USGov. The source should have been more carefully documented, but it was from 2006 before when a lot of practices were not yet standardized, so should probably have qualified for COM:GOF anyways. Unsure if the source website was still there when the file was transferred from en-wiki to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support per Carl's comments. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per Carl. @Abzeronow and Raymond1922A: Ankry (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:USS San Carlos seaplane tender G72576.jpg

world war II ship launch photo, out of process no DR. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per Carl. @Abzeronow and Slowking4: Ankry (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Annamanna Orsós

Permission arrived: 2019020210005023

Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Regasterios: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Solaris 624.jpg

W związku z prowadzoną działalnością informacyjną o komunikacja miejskiej w Tarnowie i potrzebie korzystania z tego zdjęcia zwracam się z uprzejmą prośbą o usunięcie zdjęcia. Przez usunięcie zdjęcia chce uniknąć wszelkich niedomówień ze strony odbiorców strony np. zamiast robić własne zdjęcia bierze zdjęcia z Wikipedii. Odnosi się to również zdjęcia, które zostało "podmienione" na to które widnieje teraz. Proszę o pozytywne rozpatrzenie wniosku. --Wiktor0610 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: this is not DR nomination page. Ankry (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2018090810003352

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090810003352 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done - please process the ticket - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Galaxy superclusters and galaxy voids.png

The file_talk page records that the file was nominated for deletion but kept, yet the sysop 1989 deleted it without discussion as allegedly non-free screenshot. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wasn’t aware of the DR. ✓ Restored 1989 (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:CBmother.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:CBmother.jpg

1895 photograph from an unknown photographer would fall under PD-old-assumed. Probably was disseminated to the public before 1924 (subject died in 1923 and Clara Bow was a notable actress in 1923) Abzeronow (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Берко Йосип Миколайович.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%99%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87.jpg Please dont remove this image because i changed my mind. This image true and i dont wonna remove this.

Hana.fok (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 18.02.2019

 Not done: Not deleted. Please answer in the DR. --Yann (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Syed and Anne-Marie Waliullah.jpg

I am the daughter of Syed Waliullah and I don't understand why it has been deleted ! I would like this file restored. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.5.67.48 (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support undeletion of File:Syed and Anne-Marie Waliullah.jpg. The deletion reason provided in the DR is not (or no longer) valid as the photo in the source site is clearly attributed to the uploader. So I  Support undeletion unless another reasonable copyright doubt appears. Ankry (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose undeletion of File:Syed Waliullah.jpg as it seems to be professional photo made in a photo studio. COM:OTRS permission from the photographer is needed in this case. Ankry (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syed Waliullah.jpg is in error. It reads:

"stolen from https://www.thedailystar.net/news/in-focus/tree-without-roots-1623145 Md.altaf.rahman (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
----
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd

However, the cited newspaper page gives credit to Wikimedia as the source, so there is no copyvio there -- it was our file. The DR for the second file is the same.

That being said, however, there is no reason to be sure beyond a significant doubt that the uploader, User:Simewali, is the photographer as claimed in the uploads. If User:90.5.67.48 is User:Simewali and, as claimed, is the daughter of the subject, it is entirely possible that she was the photographer. On the other hand, it is much more likely that she does not understand that her status as daughter of the subject and as owner of a paper copy of the photographs does not give her the right to freely license them. That right almost always remains with the photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OT discussion
@Jameslwoodward: Please do not suggest that I said what I did not: I never suggested that the 2nd photo should be undeleted. Placing a link to this photo above my opinion is unacceptable. IMO, the copyright status of these two photos is completele different: the 2nd photo was clarly made by e profesional photographer in a photo studio and It was not attributed to the Wikimedia user (at least when I was chacking for that). Unlike the first one, which seems to be an amateur photo. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. Of course, I did not intend to misrepresent what you said. I was simply trying to eliminate duplicate discussions. Perhaps you could edit your comment above to make it clear that it applies only to the first image and comment separately on the second image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. Ankry (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yann,Ankry, I have opened a new Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syed and Anne-Marie Waliullah.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MyCompanyLogo.png

Hello,

I have the copyright of this logo, and also I sent an email from my official email @oshtekkwarriors.com but no respond.

best regards,

--Raedruwaili (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:18GD2813 (28996015977).jpg

@Jameslwoodward: What I left unblurred was enough to be able to see what the plaque was about while remaining PD-ineligible. I could blur the whole text if really needed. Cropping was also possible (but less pretty), the resulting half-sentences would be COM:DM. Pinging @Mindmatrix, E4024, Taivo. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We often forget that text has a copyright, so leaving even a single sentence of the text unblurred leaves a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a threshold for text to become copyrightable. Regardless, I can blur the full text if that's what it takes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support undeletion if the text is blurred. Ankry (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Undeleted. @Alexis Jazz: Ankry (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it, I would guess the top paragraph is copyrightable, but the name and text underneath would be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I blurred the text before I saw Clindberg's comment. I could unblur the bottom paragraph. (already have the file) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Your opinion? Ankry (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say that of everything on the plaque, only the large name is definitely OK. I don't know the status of the Logo in the lower left and, remembering that Commonwealth countries have a lower ToO than the USA and a single sentence is copyrightable here, I would not keep any of the text. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done versions with text hidden: no consensus to keep a version with anything but name here. Ankry (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logo WebSPELL.png

There is no copyright on this image. 17/02/2019 --Kyrela (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support I agree. It is simply a stylized "W". Type fonts, no matter how individual or complex, do not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Leander working down the Cumbrian Coast.jpg

Reason for request: The Flickr link on the image in the description under the name David Moyle is to my own flickr page and isnt stolen, the image is ok to be used on Wikipedia as advertising to show what is done for certain routes like the cumbrian coast line including the section on the cumbrian coast wiki article which discusses excursion trains. I am allowing the image to be used on Wikipedia. User:Moylesy98 (User talk:Moylesy98) 12:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: If you wish to upload to an image from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons you need either (1) to ensure that the license declared at Flickr is the same as you wish to use on Commons (faster way), or (2) follow COM:OTRS procedure to grant appropriate license and prove your authorship (slower way). Ankry (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And this applies also to images mentioned below. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Assuming that User:Moylesy98 is, in fact, Flickr user David Moyle, although you put CC-BY-SA licenses on the files above, your comment above:
"I am allowing the image to be used on Wikipedia."
suggests that you do not understand that files licensed that way are available not just to Wikipedia, but for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use.
Ankry's comment is spot on. We sometimes get people here posing as Flickr users in order to upload files here that are marked ARR on Flickr. Although I assumed it above, we actually have no way of knowing whether User:Moylesy98 is Flickr user David Moyle. Although OTRS will work, it will probably take close to six months before your request comes to the head of the queue and the files are restored. It would be far better to change the license on Flickr. If you do so, drop a note here (in the next 24 hours) or on my talk page or Ankry's and we will restore the files. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored as freely-licensed in Flickr now. Waiting for license review. Ankry (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

FlickreviewR 2 has checked them and found that the Flickr license is CC-BY-2.0 while the license here is CC-BY-SA-4.0. Having a more restrictive license here is OK, the opposite would not be OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files Uploaded by Richard Norton

Please restore the following images:
File:100 0915.JPG
File:100 0916.JPG
File:100 0918.JPG

Reason: Images of a cemetery of the graves of the family of person in Wikipedia and their family members. I will change the name to something more descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):
915 was deleted in 2010 as "no source": File:Grave of Eddie August Schneider, Fairview Cemetery 100 0915.JPG. Did it contain some sort of artwork or sculpture? If so, could those elements be blurred? (I can blur)
I assume that is the one displayed as File:Eddie August Schneider grave marker.JPG and I want to restore the original with the metadata. Can I get the other three temp restored so I can download them to my backup drive.
916 was deleted as it was considered a duplicate of File:Grave of Emil A. Schneider, Fairview Cemetery 100 0913.JPG.
918 was considered a duplicate of File:Grave of Emil A. Schneider at the Fairview Cemetery 100 0920.JPG.
919 still exists as File:Grave of Emil A. Schneider, Fairview Cemetery 100 0919.JPG. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

915 has no artwork. A pretty simple inscription with name and birth/death dates (the one to the left of this one). Thing is... it had no source (2006-dated upload). I do not know how these things were managed back in the day. Can you confirm you are the photographer of File:100 0915.JPG, @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): ? Strakhov (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my camera, image of my family grave plot, they are all in a series with matching file names and matching metadata. RAN (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: [19] [20] [21]. Seems far-fetched to think Richard gave his camera to someone else between 913 and 919. He couldn't update the description for 915 because that had already been deleted in 2015. But let's hear it from Richard. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): OK When you are done, please give a warning. Strakhov (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. Stalled. --Yann (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Como ministro, Gustavo Rocha participou de Prêmio Direitos Humanos 2018.jpg

Não concordo o motivo da exclusão. Encaminho uma solicitação de exclusão.--Hellen Lopes dos Santos (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hellen Lopes dos Santos: The photo is not marked in Flickr as freely licensed. Only freely licensed photos can be copied from Flickr to Commons. Moreover, the {{Own}} template can be used only for unpublished images. For images already published there is COM:OTRS/pt procedure. Please follow it. Ankry (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Nuevo_estadio_de_beisbol_de_san_luis_rio_colorado.jpg

Please restore this file.

File:Nuevo estadio de beisbol de san luis rio colorado

Reason: (Bot: Eliminando "Nuevo_estadio_de_beisbol_de_san_luis_rio_colorado.jpg". Borrado en Commons por Storkk. (Likely copyright violation, see c:COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on [[:c) The photo of this stadium located in San Luis Rio Colorado, was taken by me (Ramón Armando León Pérez), i'm the photographer, the license is mine, i work for the communication department of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyuntamientoSLRC (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose For already published photos we need either (1) clear free license evidence at the initial publication site, or (2) a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder send following COM:OTRS instructions. And note, that at the moment we do not know whather you are or your employer is authorized to send the permission. This could be resolved in communication with an OTRS agent, however. Ankry (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Marigold Gardens, Chicago, 02.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Circa 1923 United States work. Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @Abzeronow: Please fix the licenses. --Yann (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Achomawi basket-maker.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Achomawi basket-maker.jpg

1923 image from the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Abzeronow. --Strakhov (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:khimraj.jpg

Kr soni rana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimraj soni (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The DR suggests it is out of scope and no evidence provided that it is in scope. Ankry (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Mates (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Чорновол Т.М.jpg

This foto - it's my own work. Please, restore this file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaoris (talk • contribs) 08:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivaoris: Unfortunately, as you earlier uploaded few images taken from Internet and claiming them to be your own original work, we cannot rely on your on-wiiki declaration. Please follow COM:OTRS procedure to prove your authorship for this photo. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sharon Grace with her Sony CV Porta Pack c 1970.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sharon did in fact send the OTRS permission with valid copyright license at the time of upload. She CC'd me when she sent it, and I can supply a screenshot or forward the email with the OTRS permission signed and approved by Sharon Grace the original copyright owner. Olivettilly (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2019 (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. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rajiv Pant, CTO of Wall Street Journal at The World Economic Forum.jpg

Reason: That photo was taken with Rajiv's smartphone, no one else has a copyright on it, and it is public. For example, it also appears on: http://en.gravatar.com/rajivpant. --Amarkovblanket (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As you say, it appears at http://en.gravatar.com/rajivpant. Since there is no free license there, it is subject to copyright and cannot be uploaded here. Also note that it does not appear to be a selfie, so "That photo was taken with Rajiv's smartphone" simply says that whoever actually pushed the button holds the copyright. In order for it to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Platonides (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Qua Tours.jpg

The picture belong to my personal company and the copyright is my own — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.190.31.65 (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose. Please follow the procedure of COM:OTRS and send a permission via e-mail. If you have already sent it please note that resolving your request may take a longer time due to the length of request queue. Thank you for understanding. --Mates (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Mates -- needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files framed for deletion by Cherkash

For Túrelio’s information as well. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: For better or worse, all of the files are active, so I see nothing for us to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Giovanni Sacheli.png

why? it's a picture i did

why? it is the picture of my twitter profile... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentorino (talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giovanni Sacheli.png - Platonides (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per DR -- nothing has changed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:WorshipatWLBC.jpg

This is an appeal for the file/page File:WorshipatWLBC.jpg (Previously deleted file File:Wlbc.jpg) deleted by User:Ronhjones, be restored as an email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS. Thank you.

Regards,

RoyalBlessing (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ticket found in system. Restored for OTRS to process. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: ticket found. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MacLeodRaasay Nov2016.jpg

This is a crest belonging to the MacLeod of Raasay Clan. I have permission from their Clan Chief to use the crest for the page about their clan. --RaasayHistory (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

How did it come about that you licensed this image with a Creative Commons license? Thuresson (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose A permission "to use" does not allow anybody to make the image freely licensed. The copyright owner must do this personally or via their official representative. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File: Gustavo do Vale Rocha assume o comando da Sejus.jpg

--Hellen Lopes dos Santos (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Não concordo o motivo da exclusão. Encaminho uma solicitação de exclusão.

 Oppose This file was previously deleted as File:Gustavo Rocha é o novo secretário da Secretaria de Justiça e Cidadania do DF.jpg. It is a serious violation of Commons rules to reload a file that has been deleted without going through the process here. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

This file appears at http://www.sejus.df.gov.br/gustavo-do-vale-rocha-assume-o-comando-da-sejus/ without any indication of a free license. As a general rule, photographs published by the Brazilian government are not freely licensed. See {{PD-BrazilGov}} for those works that are PD, which does not include recent photographs such as this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cauer_Wilhelm_1900-1945_1935-06-00.jpg

This photograph has been deleted. I request undeletion, because deletion has been done using a false assumption.

I am the grandson of Wilhelm Cauer and this photograph of him taken 1935 is a family heritage. I own all rights on this photograph.

Rudolf Polzer

Rudolfpolzer (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not mean that you own the rights to freely license it. That right belongs to the photographer or his heirs. This appears to be a studio portrait, so it is unlikely that you are an heir of the photographer. Unless you are an heir of the photographer, you must have a written license from the photographer or his heirs to upload it here. Do you have such a license? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Band SANAM in Tel Aviv the day prior to the concert in Oct 2017.jpg

File:Band SANAM in Tel Aviv the day prior to the concert in Oct 2017.jpg is own work.

Please restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanka Bhambhani (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But how can you prove that? Especially as the photo is low resolution and published elsewhare (DR). Ankry (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Apaloderma narina00.jpg

This file was deleted because apparently I omitted to give explicit permission for its use - I hereby give the necessary permission Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Thank you Brian Radford (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that we do not know that User:Brian Radford is actually the person whose explicit copyright notice appears in the image. It is not uncommon for vandals to use the name of a creator to upload images without permission. Images with explicit copyright notice watermarks are a problem -- it would be best if you uploaded the image again, using the same filename. If you do so, please drop a note here so we can close this as "done". Alternately, you may send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Emil Starkenstein bookplate.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emil Starkenstein bookplate.jpg

I can't see the file(Starkenstein died in 1942 so it's PD in the Czech Republic) but 1.) a missing publication date is not enough evidence that URAA applies and 2.) image might not even meet TOO in the US. Bookplates tend to be simple. Does it match this?: https://www.flickr.com/photos/58558794@N07/11048743915

Actually 3.) looks like it's the most important, Czech Republic was 50 years pma on January 1, 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights and so copyright on this wouldn't have been restored under URAA. (Found this info while I was typing this) Abzeronow (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ydzhu.jpg

Because this is my grandfather's picture. Yuanding Zhu was my mother's father. The picture was taken by my uncle, my mother's oldest brother in 1930s. So please undelete it. I need to use this for create wikipedia entry for my grandfather. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnqyu (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

First, as noted above, signing your posts is required, You have been told that several times.
Second, as noted earlier, when you uploaded this image, you claimed that you were the photographer. Since that is apparently incorrect, that is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you continue to break Commons rules in either or both ways, you will be blocked from editing here.
 Oppose Now you claim that the photographer was your uncle. This looks like a formal studio portrait, so, given that you have already named yourself as the photographer, I wonder if your claim that your uncle is the photographer is correct?
However, assuming that he was the photographer, then he must give the free license. If he is dead, then one of his heirs must do it. As a general rule, you would not be an heir of your uncle, so you probably did not inherit the right to freely license this photograph. In order to restore the image to Commons, your uncle, or, if he is dead, one of his heirs, must freely license this image using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:V.Sinkevicius_UM.jpg

I am doing an intership in government and I was asked from copyright owner to upload this image to V. Sinkevicius wiki page.

--Uparadauskaite (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, policy requires that either the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must upload the image himself or he must give a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Moeda chapéu Malásia.jpg

The file is available on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bancocentralbr/27513595996/in/album-72157668479598526/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmela Fonseca (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)  Oppose Yes, with an NC license, which is unacceptable here, see COM:L..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dan Meis Models.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of file File:Dan Meis Models.jpg. This image belongs to us (MEIS Architects) and was taken by us. It is featured in an article online (http://www.cladglobal.com/CLADnews/architecture-design/Were-embracing-the-future-of-English-football-without-forgetting-the-past:-Architect-Dan-Meis-on-designing-a-new-home-for-Everton-FC/336943?source=news), but only because we provided them with the image to use. I understand that Wikicommons has highlighted this article thinking that we have taken the photo from them, but actually the photo belongs to us. I would like to get it onto Wikicommons in order to use it on a wikipedia page. --Meisarch (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case you can either (a) change the license on the page, or for the specific image from © Cybertrek 2019 to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or (b) have an authorized official of the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ninjago Masters of Spinjitzu Pilot Season.jpg

It is free material and I want to use it for a page I’m creating, but since I’m neither autoconfirmed nor confirmed I can’t upload it to the regular Wikipedia.

NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Advertisement for Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu. Wikia is not a credible source for "free" images. Thuresson (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Alice Sheldon aka James Tiptree, Jr. with Kikuyu people.jpg

This file was deleted (DR) on the basis that it was tagged {{PD-old}} but the author hadn't been dead 70 years. However, Leserättin has since found that it was first published in On the Gorilla Trail by Mary Hastings Bradley, which was published in the US in 1922, making it {{PD-US-expired}}. The photo can be seen at https://archive.org/details/ongorillatrail00bradgoog/page/n344, and the copyright notice at https://archive.org/details/ongorillatrail00bradgoog/page/n12.

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:PortlandHotelConstruction.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:PortlandHotelConstruction.jpg

1889 photo would fall under PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. This should never have been deleted. It is in the public domain in USA even if unpublished, as per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Yann (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:2005 WSOP Championship bracelet.jpg

Source should be www.lasvegasvegas.com, like for many other poker images, e. g. File:Cliff Josephy (johnnybax).jpg. This is a valid source. -- M-B (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This domain no longer exists so license review cannot be performed unless somebody points out an archived version of the source page. However, per this archived version of license terms and this archived version of description page I tend to  Support undeletion. Despite they are not from the same time period. Ankry (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support per Ankry. @Alexis Jazz: Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Anna May Wong-Thief of Bagdad.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anna May Wong-Thief of Bagdad.jpg

Thief of Bagdad is PD-US-not renewed. The film was even a MOTD here on Commons File:The Thief of Bagdad (1924).webm Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Calvin Coolidge-Garo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Calvin Coolidge-Garo.jpg

1923 United States photograph. Can someone check if it matches this File:Calvin Coolidge-by Garo-1923.jpg? Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, same photo; both photos uploaded by same user within a few hours. Size is 1266x1801, has been cleaned up by a commons user. Thuresson (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess this can stay deleted unless they're some compelling reason why we should also have this file. Abzeronow (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing, request withdrawn. Thuresson (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Iqra Khalid Picture.jpg was deleted due to an error in understanding the copyright holder.

The website linked for the copyright violation is https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/opinions/should-jews-support-m-103-a-cjn-debate, a news website which used the iamge with attribution to the original source. However, the original source is NOT in-fact CJnews but RawalTV, as can be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/rawaltv/photos/a.1035789083145149/1035797263144331/?type=3&theater. I was granted permission by the copyright holder to use the image for this page, and in the details of the image I had included the attribution. While I respect the work of the user, Patrick Rogel, who flagged this image as a copyright violation, I don't believe they performed their due diligence and instead deleted it as soon as they searched for it. I am happy to provide any and all evidence required, including the original, non-watermarked version of the photo.

Thank you SaugaLaddie

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob Markey.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo found on Flickr, from the subject's own stream, and was marked as Attribution-ShareAlike. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rgmarkey/5708233645/in/datetaken/ Elvira100 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Flicker is higher resoltion than the clamed source of coyvio & EXIF claims subject as copyright holder. --MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Elenita.jpg

A request for deletion of this file was made because I did not include who was the artist (I'm the artist). I explained that I'm a new user and I did not know how to fix the entry to reflect it was my artwork. The file was still deleted, with another original artwork. Please un-delete my files, that are my own. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamexis (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tamexis: as it is stated in the DR. The deletion reason was missing COM:OTRS permission which is required in case of art of living or recently died artists. Ankry (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it, how am I supposed to prove that I'm the artist? --Tamexis (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Providing an info on the artist's official site that the Wikimedia account User:Tamexis belongs to them? No way to do this on-wiki. You can also follow the procedure(s) described in the next section. Ankry (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: This has now a permission. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tamexis. --Yann (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Arttherapyprocess.jpg

Some user requested ALL my files to be deleted- when they are my own original artworks. EugeneZelenko and ChristianFerrer deleted them (after my explanation). What do they need another picture of the artwork hanging on my house or a selfie with the artwork? Please undelete. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamexis (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose. Contact COM:OTRS to verify that you are the artist. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I sent an email with new pictures of the artwork in my wall, because having them on my website www.tamaraliz.com apparently didn't suffice to prove to these guys that I'm the artist. I mean, what else do you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamexis (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC) --Tamexis (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tamexis: Only freely licensed images (see COM:L for details) can be stored in Wikimedia Commons. For already published images, an evidence of free license from the identified author (not on-wiki declaration made by anonymous user) is needed. This can be done either (1) providing a clear free license information on the official author's website (faster way) or via COM:OTRS procedure (slower way; this may take few weeks or months). Ankry (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: This has now a permission. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tamexis. --Yann (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:PresidentofPakistan.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the publicly available portrait of the President of Pakistan - it has been uploaded without copyright and is permitted to be used publicly - can be located on the Govt of Pakistan website http://president.gov.pk/ and the direct link to the image available here http://president.gov.pk/imgs/presidentofpakistan.jpg - please kindly undelete and allow this to be used on Wikipedia on the President of Pakistan page Drawab (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The website which you cite, http://president.gov.pk/, has an explicit copyright notice in the center of the bottom. Also note that "it has been uploaded without copyright" is irrelevant as well as being incorrect -- almost all things are copyrighted from the moment of creation, so the lack of a copyright notice would be meaningless. As a general rule, the only images that can be downloaded from the Web to Commons are those that have an explicit free license. See COM:L. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Buster Rocket.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buster Rocket.jpg

Related to 1923 American film Our Hospitality Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Abzeronow. --Strakhov (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Alan Fine Concert Hall in Ukraine.jpg

The reason I am requesting this image to be undeleted is that the image is from the artist's facebook page and their youtube performance, and I have their permission to use this on Wikipedia. --Rmozes (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please note that "permission to use this on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. Second, in order for the images to be restored, the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify, the image was taken from the photographer/individual that gave me the photograph and gave me consent and permission to use it for the individual's Wikipedia page. I am still not sure why this is not being accepted if the photographer, or "copyrighted" person has said they are allowing the photograph to be used on Wikipedia, for free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose. Why is this an issue?

Sincerely, RM --Rmozes (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are forgers and liars in the world. We do not know who Rmozes actually is, so we require that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. OTRS volunteers are sworn to strict secrecy and will investigate to their satisfaction any claims that are made there. And, again, you have said that is was given to you for the individual's WP page -- that consent covers only WP and not the broader use noted above. Third, you say "photographer/individual ... individual's WP page". The subject, Alan Fine, your "individual" is obviously not the photographer in either case and therefore if, as you say, he gave you the image and the permission, it is not adequate. The copyright is owned by the actual photographer, not the subject. If the subject has licensed use of the photograph for his own promotional purposes, the license almost never permits the subject to freely license the image as required here. Finally, the two images are very different. I suspect that there are two different photographers, so both must write to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Wimans ZTV.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My photos of the Swedish TV-show Wimans that I uploaded were deleted for some reason. Could it be because of incorrectly named files? The photos were taken by me and I was a producer of the TV-show shown in the photos. I would be happy if they could be undeleted.

Thanks and best regards!

AkroZ2000 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

AkroZ2000 Sweden, Stockholm AkroZ2000 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AkroZ2000, they were deleted because they are screenshots of a copyrighted TV show. Unfortunately there are liars and forgers in the world, so we cannot take your claim that you are the producer of the show at face value. In order for the images to be restored, you must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:TAKREEM_LOGO_FB.jpg

Logo of TAKREEM, no permission was given before as we were waiting for the official trademark registration document for the logo. Now permissions can be made/given. --Madalina Lichaa (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Madalina Lichaa 21/02/2019

@Madalina Lichaa: Only freely licensed logos can be stored in Wikimedia Commons. A free license permission from authorised official of the logo owner following COM:OTRS is needed for this. And this is long procedure. However, Arabic Wikipedia seem to accept Fair Use logos, so you can try to upload the logo there. More information can be found here. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:LevermannTalks.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the owner of this picture. I am Anders Levermann and the picture was taken at my Institute. Please use this picture for BOTH the German and the English Wikipedia site. You can email me at: anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de or check out my website http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/ or call me +49 331 288 2560 Redondo10 (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It is irrelevant where the picture was taken. It is claimed to be copyrighted by Klemens Karkow, so we need a written free license permission from Klemens Karkow or a clear proof that this copyright claim is fake. Neither of them can be provided on-wiki, so I suggest that Klemens Karkow should send a free license agreement following COM:OTRS or another copright holder should provide a proof of copyright transfer the same way. This is standard procedure for images that were published without evidence of free license prior to their upload to Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Mansingbhor

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were nominated for deletion in December 2018 with the explanation that they were unlikely to be the author's own work. However, I see nothing to suggest otherwise. This user has continued to upload files at the English Wikipedia and added them to the Chas Ghodegaon article. All the images were uploaded shortly after they were taken, assuming the date in the metadata has not been modified. In addition, reverse image searches have shown that these photos have not been used elsewhere. All this suggests Mansingbhor (talk · contribs) is indeed the copyright owner. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Info Unlike the enwiki images, the above images are low resolution and without EXIF. I think, the DR decision might be different if the user provided at least few images in full-resolution with EXIF. But they did not respond. Ankry (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point. As a non-admin, I can't view deleted content and can only guess what it was. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no reason to undelete. And full-res photos can be still uploaded. Ankry (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:RH .jpg

I am representing Rob Holland, whom is photographed in this photo and uploading this image of him to be included on his Wikipedia page upon his request. Jmariewny (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 OpposeIn that case, policy requires that either the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must upload the image himself or he must give a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 163 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

Note also that is a serious violation of Commons rules to claim "OWN WORK" as you did here when you are not the actual photographer. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:CoupeCachou.jpg

As nominator. @Laurent Bélanger: has brought important information to light at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michoucachou.jpg that I was woefully ignorant about. Laurent has also created the eponymous Category:Michel Girouard and that is where the deleted image belongs. Please let me know if you'd like more information. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll also @Gbawden: in case the closing admin wishes to comment (or perhaps they are notified automatically?). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    •  Question The file File:Michoucachou.jpg is in scope, and does not qualify for deletion as it is used in frwiki. Was File:CoupeCachou.jpg also used outside Commons? Ankry (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi. As I mentioned at the closed XfD (thank you for that) I don't believe it was used. And it was a wider shot of the trophy/sculpture where the small inset image of the journalist (and his dog) really wasn't terribly visible. The kept image was only added to the French article today, concurrent with Laurent's !vote today at the Xfd. I'm relatively inexperienced at the Commons but thought that since the editor has created an eponymous Commons category for this writer and TV personality, there might be some archival value in keeping the other shot, too, of this hommage to Girouard? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Is this whole thing a hoax? There are no Google hits for "Coupe Cachou" except this image. That strongly suggests that the cup is out of scope for Commons and WP. There are two references listed in the WP:EN article. One of the two has no mention of Girouard and the other is a photo of a gay wedding cake from 1972. Among the Google hits, there is a very short IMDB entry which might or might not be this person. There are no relevant LinkedIn hits -- I would expect that a notable person would appear on LinkedIn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No, well, it's not a hoax, in that there is a notable Quebec journalist named Michel Girouard with articles at enwiki and frwiki. But yes there is no realworld trophy or cup. Someone took a photo of this person and a dog (he's a notable doglover) and created this piece of self-made artwork as an hommage, far as I can tell. But I just realized another possible issue with the photo that is in use at fr:Michel Girouard -- the image on the statuette looks to have been clipped from a commercially published photo, in which case we don't have rights? In which case File:Michoucachou.jpg would need to be renominated for permission concerns? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Shawn in Montreal, you say, "there is a notable Quebec journalist named Michel Girouard with articles at enwiki and frwiki". If there is actually such a person, then why is it that there are no relevant Google hits on the name and neither the WP:EN nor the WP:FR article has any relevant references. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, again, I'd never heard of him but that's my own woeful ignorance (I thought) of Quebec French-language TV. But you find nothing? My Gsearch reveals this episode on him in an independently produced TV series on Quebec TV personalities, for one. And the articles bear his Virtual International Authority File. That said, an Afd on his articles at frwiki and enwiki might find him insufficiently notable, I don't know -- but I'm sure this is no hoax. Anyway, Yann has renominated the kept image on the basis of COM:DW and if that's successful this deletion should stand, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There is nothing further to be done here -- see discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Raaed Haikal 2017.jpg

ارجو استرجاع الصورة المحذوفة --RAAED-PC (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This was deleted as an unused personal; image of a user whose only contribution was a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:jd_nov.18_portrai_1_web.jpg

I first uploaded the file in December 18 with linking the source jugenddelegierte.dbjr.de. The wikimedia commons admin said that he deletes the photo because the license was not given at the website I referred and that I should talk to the admin of jugenddelegierte.dbjr.de. I just contacted her and she changed the website now and you can see that it is really a cc-by-sa license. So please undelete the file. --JD SD19 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Info The photo is declared now "© Kristoffer Schwetje Fotografie / cc-by-sa". I cannot identify license version, however. May it be interpreted as 1.0 or newer? No link to the license text either. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what I was asked for. I thought this would be enough to clarify, that it is really a photo which is free to use. I mean it is a photo of some official German youth delegates and we need it for our wikipedia article. What must be done that the photo can be undeleted? --JD SD19 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@JD SD19: See {{Cc-by-sa}}. And AFAIK, CC-BY-SA licenses require providing URI to the license text (which I could not find). So I am waiting for others to comment on this. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

can anyone else help use with this topic? I really need the photo for the article and I did all the changes the admins originally asked me for. --JD SD19 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose unless and until the license on the website matches the license on the file description page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info It seems also to me that @Yann doubts whether the CC license was granted by the photographer. The license info appears on a Flickr account that is not linked to the photographer's page. And the above mentioned link is a subjects' (not the photoghapher's) website. I think we cannot go further without COM:OTRS contact from the photographer or an evidence that copyright to this photo was transfered (this also needs OTRS). Any comment? Ankry (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PCP Ankry (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

file: Memorial piller .jpg

file: Memorial piller .jpg

pls delete file: Memorial piller .jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by U L DAS (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close; this is place for undeletion requests, not for deletion requests. Nominate using this procedure and providing a reason. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket#2018091010004212

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091010004212 regarding File:27_Photo_Karin-Upahl-Artist_Gergo-Lengyel.tif and File:Photo_Darek-Gutowski_am_World_Bodypainting_Festival.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close: files not deleted; @Ganímedes: they were restored two weeks ago on your request ;P Ankry (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SS Empress of Russia 1918.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SS Empress of Russia 1918.jpg

Photographer Edward Stewart Bale died in 1944. Been public domain in the UK since 2015. PD in the US since published 1918. Abzeronow (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Already PD. Ankry (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kryxos Parliament.svg File:Nurondi Parliament.svg temporary undeletion request

May I please have these temporarily undeleted so that I may retrieve the files and transfer them to my computer? I was not aware of the "out of scope" rule. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageHenri (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support temporary undeletion. You can also mail me via wiki to receive the images back in a response. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @SavageHenri: Temporary undeleted. Ruthven (msg) 09:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Wenqing Yu.jpg

Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAMMJ (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@PAMMJ: Deletion reason visible in the deletion log. Ankry (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an original work. No issue with violation of copyright.--PAMMJ (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As pointed in the deletion log, the photo was earlier published elsewhere. In order to undelete it, we need either (1) an evidence that an earlier publication was under a free license, or (2) a written permission send to OTRS by the actual copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jean-Jacques de Felice.jpg

C'est bien moi le créateur de l'image, j'ai encore les négatifs. Pouvez-vous la rétablir, s'il vous plaît ? --GDechesne (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support I don't see why this cannot be own work. Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Fête du Garm au Mont Vedun le 19 juin 1971.jpg

C'est bien moi le créateur de l'image, j'ai encore les négatifs. Pouvez-vous la rétablir, s'il vous plaît ? --GDechesne (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support I don't see why this cannot be own work. Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request + discussion. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Groupe d'action et de résistance à la militarisation.jpg

C'est bien moi le créateur de l'image, j'ai encore les négatifs. Pouvez-vous la rétablir, s'il vous plaît ? --GDechesne (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support I don't see why this cannot be own work. Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MAN OF THE MATCH - Mario Götze - The 2014 FIFA World Cup Final - 140713-9202-jikatu (14498020747).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I will add the source link Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ibrahim.ID: If you can provide a link proving that the image displayed on the billboard is under cc-by 2.0 compatible license, please provide it here. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I can't remember this photo, I uploaded many photos from this album on Flickr in 2015 (all album BY-SA 2.0), I think this maybe the link of photo (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jikatu/14498020747/in/album-72157644863752290/) but I'm not sure --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 12:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly this photo. And it is doubtful whether the photo author is authorized to make the billboard content freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The photo by the Flickr user may be freely licensed, but the Flickr user does not have the right to freely license the photo on the billboard. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:EAltieri2018.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Mariah Miranda was the photographer who took the photo for NORML, the organization, who has the right to use this photo for these purposes. 2603:3003:36FD:1000:7D3E:9ADA:ACF4:CCD5 15:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose According to our rules, an organization cannot grant free license while upploading. Only the account owner, who is the author and owns copyright personally can. In this case the authorized official of the copyright owner should send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions together with an evidence that copyright has been transferred from Mariah Miranda to the organization. This cannot be resolved on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dinosauria wa Tendaguru.jpg

Munfarid1 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Ronhjones

Please restore the following page: File:Dinosauria wa Tendaguru.jpg

Reason: I am a new user, working on my first article for wikipedia. when I uploaded this file, I was not aware of the necessity of adding the Free Art Licence. I do have the copyright owner's consent for this licence and can add it, as soon as you restore the file or tell me some other way of uploading it with the licence.

Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Munfarid1

As this is a published book, a free license permission send by the cover image copyright holder directly following COM:OTRS instructions is needed unless you can prove that the image author died more than 70 years ago or you can provide a proof that it was earlier published under a free license. Ankry (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:CSI enacted.jpg

Participants modeling as crime investigators interrogate a volunteer (playacting a crime suspect) in a simulated interrogation room, as a part of an event of Inquivesta, the official annual flagship fest of Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, an autonomous science education and research institute. The photograph was taken by me during Inquivesta 7, the seventh edition of the fest, on March 3, 2017. Note that the event is named "C.S.I.", but it has nothing to do with the TV crime series of the same name, except that it has been inspired by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinash dash1997 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Avinash dash1997 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo was published on Facebook by Inquivesta IISER Kolkata. Generally, while publishing a photo on Facebook, users must declare that they own copyright. And we have no evidence that User:Avinash dash1997 is the owner of this Facebook account. This can be resolved while contacting OTRS as suggested on your talkpage. Generallu, we require a written permission send to OTRS for any photo that was published elsewhere without evidence of free license prior to upload to Commons. And Facebook is not a freely licensed site. Ankry (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires permission as noted above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Babak nahrain.jpg

این یک اثر شخصی بوده و پردازنده آن خودم بوده ام ، و از اشتراک این اثر با همگان رضایت دارم. MohammadKourehpaz (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 2019/02/24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohammadKourehpaz (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Aethelthryth-Head.jpg

The usage of the image is fair use. It has no commercial nature and I don't gain profit from the usage of the picture. Also I can use the picture because it is in the public space where everybody can get and use the same picture. Also I have permission by the author of the photograph to use it in his own wikipedia page. How that interferes with his copyrights? --BeckMega (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use images are not accepted in Commons, see COM:FU for details. Ankry (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Let see, how many ways is what you say incorrect?

  1. As a repository, Commons cannot permit "fair use" because we cannot know what the use of our images will be.
  2. "I can use the picture because it is in the public space where everybody can get and use the same picture" -- yes, but that says nothing about its copyright. Books in a library are in a public space, but you certainly understand that you cannot copy them and sell the copies.
  3. The image comes from Facebook, which is copyrighted.
  4. "I have permission by the author of the photograph to use it in his own wikipedia page". That's nice, but in order for an image to be kept on Commons, it must be free for any use, anywhere, by anyone, including commercial use. Permission for use on a Wikipedia page is insufficient.

In order for this image to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. 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.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per above. Thuresson (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:New york restaurant by edward hopper.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:New york restaurant by edward hopper.jpg

"Most sources list the date as 'circa 1922'. We know that it was accepted for a prominent annual exhibition in the spring of 1923" I think that shows it was first made available to the public in 1923, and I think that's enough for it to be shown as PD-US-expired. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 1923 publication make this art PD-US. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:500px photo (49407980).jpeg

Seems to have been nominated and deleted by mistake. It is true that the file says "all rights reserved", but the same person credited there made it available under a free license at 500px.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support. According to information provided the file was imported as a result of 500px.com licensing change. Despite changing of website terms CC-licensed files uploaded to 500px before the new conditions remain under free license as Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --Mates (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 Question The license seems OK if we are able to ensure that this photo was indeed published on 500px by the autor. Any hints how van this be proved? Except https://500px.com/jayantcyril I also found https://500px.com/cyriljayant linked from here. Do both profiles belong to the same person? Ankry (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm prepared to assume that the "Cyril Jayant" whose name appears in the upper left corner of the image is the person who has the 500px account with that name. However, I question whether it is in scope. An image of unknown people in Paris, at an unknown time and place, is not very useful. Also, there is the French right to privacy:

"Therefore, even though the privacy right in public exists in France, a photograph of a specific identifiable person in a public place can still be taken and published without the subject's consent as long as it can be shown that the photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions to such a degree that would make the photographer's freedom of expression right more important to the public interest than the subject's privacy right." (from Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France
It's not at all clear that this image meets that requirement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mates and DarwIn: Any comments about scope issues raised above? Ankry (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I was focused on copyright issues, I thought DarwIn knows where to use it. I checked file description however it says nothing but "Untitled (Paris, People)" so I tend to agree with Jim. --Mates (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Denial-Survival cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My real name is Mikko Myllykangas, founding member of the band Antipope. I own to rights to this artwork, as I commissioned it from the artist Tiina Kaakkuriniemi. Here's the facebook page of Antipope that I also administer. You can see that I've used the same artwork also there: https://www.facebook.com/Antipope/ I apologize I didn't provide the proper copyright info as Antipope as the rights owner. Gurthnar (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In most countries the copyright to a commissioned work remains with the artist. Copyright transfers require a separate written license. Even in cases such as this, if Tiina Kaakkuriniemi granted you a written license to use the work in your marketing, such licenses very rarely give the recipient the right to freely license the work as required here. The easiest way to have this restored on Commons is to have Tiina Kaakkuriniemi send a free license from an email address traceable to her using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Philippe de Rigaud, marquis de Vaudreuil.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philippe de Rigaud, marquis de Vaudreuil.jpg

1923 painting by Canadian artist Henri Beau. Has been public domain in Canada since 2000, just cleared URAA this year Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Luvelli.jpg

Article and image for Jon Luvelli had been deleted by a now banned editor, who participated in several dishonest and negligent actions on multiple Wikipedia articles; including this topic. I am preparing to publish a new Jon Luvelli article and would like to use the said image in the articles Infobox as it is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. --MarPatton (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Info The user who deleted the photo is not banned. Thuresson (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the shoe is on the other foot here. I'm not sure you could have named four editors about whom your accusations would be less true. The editors who participated in the two deletions here are User:Krd, User:Túrelio, and User:Jcb, who are three of our most active and most respected editors -- Krd is a Bureaucrat and Checkuser, and all three are Administrators, with over a million actions among them.

On WP:EN, User:Timotheus Canens, who deleted the article on WP:EN and subsequently restored it to User:MarPatton/Jon Luvelli is an Administrator, Checkuser, and Oversighter, again a highly respected member of the community.

On the other hand, the person who uploaded the image. User: KatrinaMcCaffery, did so twice. the second time in violation of our rules prohibiting the upload of a deleted image. She also uploaded a variety of now-deleted copyright violations.

And you, MarPatton, have uploaded the subject image as File:Luvelli-biography-2-web.jpg without any right to do so and without telling us here that you had done so. Commons editors are expected to act according to Commons rules and to be clear and straightforward in their actions here. If you continue along the same path, you will certainly be blocked from editing here.

I think an apology is in order.

The image appears at https://www.jonluvelli.com/biography/. It is said to be a self portrait by the owner of the site and bears a CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license. If the image met all of our other requirements, copyright would not stand in the way of restoration.

However, since the WP:EN article has been deleted twice for lack of notability, I think we should wait until we see whether the article there is allowed to stay before we restore the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Jim comments above. It is unclear whether the image is in COM:SCOPE at the moment. Also, the tone of the request and insinuations therein are unacceptable. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unaware of the above, these were definitely not my intentions. What would you recommend I do as I've spent alot of time over the years working to make my input valuable and accurate. I would greatly apperciate your assistance and input. Thank you.--MarPatton (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please request again when there is an article about the subject in Wikipedia or some other evidence of subject's notability. Ankry (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Casasbajas-conciertoInaugural (2018).jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019021110003731 regarding File:Casasbajas-conciertoInaugural (2018).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: please note, that there was another ticket related to this image earlier. Ankry (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Amir Annie Taylor (cropped).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: https://www.picsunday.com/p/Amir-Abbas-Fakhravar.html is a random automatic image aggregator site that hotlinks an image from Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Mhhossein never trust deletion taggers blindly. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose This file is a crop of File:Amir Annie Taylor.jpg which has no EXIF and is only 192x329px. The uploader, User:Aafakhravar has only 3 uploads, of which another is also small with no EXIF and the third is full size with EXIF. I agree with Alexis Jazz that the image's presence on picsunday is not a reason to delete, but I think it very likely that the parent image is a copyvio. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aafakhravar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Besides the source website mentionned by User:Aafakhravar is now down. Is there any evidence that it has been under CC one day? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: That website is available through archive.org. This is a custom at English Wikipedia to indicate if and where your own work has been published prior to uploading to Commons/Wikipedia. There was never supposed to be a free license there. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 I withdraw my request, picsunday.com was a bad rationale but now we should await the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aafakhravar. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Roma in 'Olangthagee Wangmadasoo'.jpg

Dear Sirs,

I kindly request your kind attention for undeletion of the said image file. Precisely, the copyright owner of the film stills belong to my uncles and I happen to be his legal heir. Hence, in good spirit, request the undeletion of the said file.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely, Lamjingba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamjing19 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lamjing19: Unfortunately, everybody can say this. And our rules allow on-wiki licensing only for personal, unpublished works by the uploader; not for already published works of an uploader's testator. We need a proof of your rights. And as I do not think, that they can be proven basing on publickly available data, I suggest following the procedure described in COM:OTRS and provide appropriate information there. Ankry (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


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

StarKiller

Hi, I have permission from the person herself and all the photos were given by her. Is there a way to upload the photos onto Wikipedia without copyright issues? Thanks. StarKiller-HM (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@StarKiller-HM: We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder (probably the photographer) for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Adolfo Suárez, Esperanza Aguirre y Luisa Fernanda Rudi.jpg

Esta fotografía está sacada del canal OFICIAL de YouTube de Esperanza Aguirre que está en la licencia Creative Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campeones 2008 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 February 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It is obviously not a selfie made by Ms Aguirre. Thuresson (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 Weak oppose if it were a recent photograph and we had some clue on the photographer working-for-hire for Mrs. Aguirre in that time... maybe. Thing is ...this is some weird static background with a 2001-dated photograph inserted into a "nostalgic" 2014-dated video. Too many ifs. Strakhov (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment BTW, I think i's not meaningful, since multilicensing exists, but this photograph is published also in esperanza.ppmadrid under a CC BY-NC 3.0. No data about the photographer, unfortunately. Strakhov (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: NC licenses are not allowed here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Henri Ramberg.jpg

This photo is under Creative Commons license. It has been used over the internet (ex. Linkedin) by Henri Ramberg, because hi is in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hensukki (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hensukki: How did it come about that you claim that this is your photo? How did Henri Ramberg get hold of the photo? Thuresson (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Would this help? https://ramberg.fi/blogi/pressphoto/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hensukki (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyrigt owner should use Commons:OTRS to verify the Creative Commons cc-by-sa-4.0 license that explicitly allow commercial use. Thuresson (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cinematographe Lumiere.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cinematographe Lumiere.jpg

Louis Lumière died in 1948. He appears to be the only one credited on w:L'Arroseur Arrosé. His brother Auguste Lumière died in 1954 but not sure if that is relevant especially to the 2007 version of this file. File is already PD in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ✓ Done --MB-one (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:A Szikszói és Debreczeni Szikszay-család 1643-as nemesi címere.JPG

Permission arrived: 2019022610006595. --Regasterios (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Regasterios:

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

File:Живков - 10 номври.png

The image is from The National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria in 1989. There is no rights for the picture because it is something national and free to use by the nation itself. And that's why I added as source "Пленум на БКП" and pointed out as an author the person from the image- 'Тодор Живков'(Todor Zhivkov). -BeckMega (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Your assertion about the copyright status of this photograph is incorrect. Bulgaria has a very limited copyright exemption for government works and photographs are not included, see {{PD-BulgarianGov}}. Also the image is badly out of focus, so I doubt we would keep it on Commons even if it were not under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mvr-gerb.png

This image shows a coat of arms of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Bulgaria and it is public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckMega (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The claimed source is mvr.bg. Terms and conditions: "Съдържанието на уеб страниците на Министерството на вътрешните работи е със защитени авторски права. Всички права, дори да не са изрично упоменати тук, са запазени. Забранено е копирането, предаването, разпространението и съхраняването на част или на цялото съдържание в каквато и да е форма без предварителното писмено съгласие на Министерството на вътрешните работи освен в случаите, когато това не противоречи на изложените тук условия."
Google Translate: "The contents of the web pages of the Ministry of the Interior are protected by copyright. All rights, even if not expressly mentioned here, are reserved. It is forbidden to copy, transmit, distribute and store any or all of the contents in any form without the prior written consent of the Ministry of Interior unless this is not inconsistent with the terms set forth herein."
See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria. Thuresson (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Vasamadam.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi , I have taken copyrights release permission from the owner and followed the Wikipedia copyright release process for the image. Please find the below ticket number as acknowledgement from Wikipedia as reception of an email in required format. Ticket number: 2019022310004271 Kindly inform me if anything else I require to do. Regards, Suyog Suyogbhatkhalkar (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs to wait for OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:N.Ermekbayev.jpg

Добрый день. Вы удалили изображение N.Ermekbayev.jpg. Указанное изображение является общедоступным без ограничееий авторскиx прав и взято с официального интернет ресурса mod.gov.kz. На фото изображен Министр обороны Также мы разместили указанное изображение на вики страницу Министра обороны. Нарушений авторскиx прав нету. Прошу восстановить или дайте знать что сделать чтобы указанное изображение можно было вставить на вики страницу министра оборны. Спасибо за понимание. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.133.60.158 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QZRustemmedia (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo is not marked as freely licensed at https://mod.gov.kz/rus/rukovodstvo/ministr_oborony/ "2009 – 2019 © Министерство обороны Республики Казахстан. Все права защищены" is not a declaration of free license. Ankry (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Shmotova-marina.jpg

This photo was made by the friend of Marina Shmotova. Marina Shmotova herself asked to set it on her personal pages on the web-sites of different organizations (school, clubs etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmalkova (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose as I can see 3 problems here:
  1. you claimed previously that you are the photographer; why should we believe you now?
  2. our rules do not allow for on-wiki licensing by a non-author
  3. the photo was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons; we need a free license permission evidence in such cases.
In order to restore the photo, we need a written free license permission from the photo copyright holder (presumably the photographer) send to us following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Juan_Carlos_Izpisua_Belmonte.jpg

I own the copyrights to this file.--L1zh1ncks (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Liz Hincks 02/24/2019

 Oppose EXIF says: "Author: Salk Institute 2018". There is no evidence that User:L1zh1ncks is "Salk Institute 2018" nor that the "Salk Institute 2018" is the person who owns copyright (according to our rules, only a photographer who owns copyright personally can grant a license on-wiki). The actual copyright holder (or their official representative) should send free license permission following instructions in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Voucher Vietcorset màu hồng.jpg

Reason: I -the author agreed to license the file under the given license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suho226 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close: file not deleted. Comment in the Deletion Request, if you disagree. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Plutchik-wheel jp.png

Illustrates the Japanese Wikipedia articles--Doomdorm64 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doomdorm64: Which one for example? Ankry (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I found them. ✓ Done per above: invalid deletion reason. Ankry (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Patten.jpg

No copyright violation. File not under copyright & use is permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber Chapman (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 February 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Nonsense. With a limited number of exceptions, none of which apply here, everything has a copyright until it expires, which is usually 70 years after the death of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Book deleted that has an explicit CC dedication

See http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/an-introduction-to-ray-tracing-is-now-free-for-download/:

Update: Andrew was asked what sort of license the book is under. We discussed it and he chose the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, the most liberal of the CC licenses.

This is frustrating. I also don't see any log of it being delinked by a bot but I know for a fact that it was used on en.wp and one of the Bulgarian language projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose - I don't find the message at the blog convincing. You were already told in the ticket that we don't accept forwarded permissions, the message at the blog is even worse. Please make sure that the author contacts us directly at OTRS as requested. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't find it convincing? Why? What is "unconvincing" about someone posting his own content at his own website saying, "This is CC BY 4.0"? Do you not find CC declarations at Flickr or YouTube convincing? You were sent the entire email exchange with the author and he updated his own website accordingly. What is the confusion here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The blog states: "Andrew was asked what sort of license the book is under.". This is apparently nothing like "he updated his own website". Jcb (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The rights were owned by Glassner and a co-editor. The two collaborated to release the book via a CC license. Again, OTRS was sent this entire email exchange, so nothing here should be new information or confusing. Nor is it really very bizarre that sometimes multiple individuals own the rights to a work corporately and so they have to agree together to change its licensing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
You have been told in the ticket by an OTRS agent that we don't accept forwarded permissions. They requested that Glassner would contact us directly. What exactly is unclear to you? Jcb (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: proper OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Shreedev Bhattarai.jpg

This photo was taken by hiring a professional photographer by the person (Shreedev Bhattarai) himself. It was a paid service, so photographer does not own the copyright. Shreedev Bhattarai, himself asked to set it on his personal pages on some web-sites of (facebook, etc.). I contacted him and asked him for some photo of his that could be posted on wikipedia without any violations of copyright, then he provided me with this one. (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose If copyright does not belong to the author, then our rules do not allow for on-wiki licensing. COM:OTRS permission is needed in such cases. Moreover, even if copyright has been transferred in a contract, claiming authorship by a non-author is against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. Ankry (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:M-1.jpg

This photo was also taken by hiring a professional photographer by the person (Madhab Raj Kharel) himself. It was a paid service, so photographer does not own the copyright. Madhab Raj Kharel, himself asked to set it on his personal pages on some web-sites of (facebook, etc.) I contacted him too and asked him for some photo of his that could be posted on wikipedia without any violations of copyright, then he provided me with this one.(talk) 07:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose If copyright does not belong to the author, then our rules do not allow for on-wiki licensing. COM:OTRS permission is needed in such cases. Moreover, even if copyright has been transferred in a contract, claiming authorship by a non-author is against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. Ankry (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Also, the rationale above is incorrect. Even if the work was commissioned and paid for, the copyright remains with the creator. This is well established law in almost every country. Even if the subject has purchased from the creator a separate written license to use the photograph, such licenses very rarely allow the licensee to sublicense the photograph as broadly as we require. Finally, note that permission for it to "be posted on wikipedia" is insufficient. Commons (and WP) require that the image be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use. In order for this to be restored the photographer must send a free license using OTRS or the subject must prove that he holds a license from the photographer that allows him to freely sublicense the image, also using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Plutchik dyads.png

Not a copyrighted file - free content--Doomdorm64 (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Alignment Chart Colours D&D.png

Uncopyrighted --Doomdorm64 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose unrelated to deletion reason. Also this contradicts earlier uploader claims.Ankry (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Water Bush.jpg

Deleted for no reason--Doomdorm64 (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose false. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Star Fox 64 Map.png

Deleted for no good reason, not a copyrighted image--Doomdorm64 (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose false. The deletion reason unrelated to copyright. Also this contradicts earlier uploader claims. Ankry (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg undelete

Hello,

The association just created a page presenting Robert Fouchet. Its picture was deleted because it was already posted on other websites using this picture. But it originally comes from our photograph, therefore it does belong to the association that created the Wikipedia page.

Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marseille Concerts (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 February 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I assume you mean File:Fouchet-buste©DR.png which is the only upload of the unsigned editor who created the request above. It speeds things up if you both sign your posts and tell us what image you are talking about. The image appears without a free license at https://www.myprovence.fr. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS or that the association which you claim owns the image must send sufficient documentation to OTRS to prove that they have the right to freely sublicense the image. Note that a license to use the image for the association's marketing is not sufficient -- the license from the photographer must allow the association to freely license the image for use by anyone for any purpose anywhere, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Fouchet-buste©DR.png undelete

Hello,

You deleted a picture because it was already on a website talking about Robert Fouchet. Indeed, this picture was taken by the association Marseille Concerts. But this website used our picture without putting our copyright.

I hope I responded to all of the criteria that you need to undelete this file.

Best wishes,

 Oppose For an already published image (regardless whether with or without your permission) a written free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Knowledge is Global!.jpg

The photo shows a poster at the Wikimedia Conference 2017. All materials were shared under free licenses, and obviously this poster as well. Could this photo please get undeleted? Thank you, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support The same text is available at Wikimedia Conference 2017/Documentation/Movement Strategy track/Day 3, item #17, licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0
 Support per above. Abzeronow (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:DavidArata.jpg + File:David-Arata-Screenwriter.jpg

The permissions originally designated for this photo on Flickr were incorrectly marked by mistake. The copyright on the original photo source has now been updated with the correct permissions (The new license is sharealike.)In addition, the photographer himself (scenic1)has also directly uploaded the photo himself but did so after it was posted to Flickr so it was removed again. File:David-Arata-Screenwriter.jpg

You can see the updated permission here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/145801137@N04/31419770587/in/dateposted-public/

I am new to this so please let me know if there are any other steps that need to be done. Thank you!

Drsammyjohnson (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson

 Oppose Phhoto by Steve Gerard while permission by David Arata. Unlikely valid. If copyright has been transferred, then evidence for that is needed; shhold be resolved while contacting OTRS. See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Sojol Rana 1.jpg

It's my own work and all copyright me.Please undelete this picture...Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 118.179.76.9 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This is unrelated to deletion reason. Ankry (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done out of scope. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Rafał Wiśniewski.jpg

National Centre for Culture has uploaded this file on CC BY-SA 4.0 licence: https://nck.pl/dla-mediow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiarav (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose From EXIF: Copyright ALL RIGHTS RESERVED; Creator BARTEK BARCZYK.COM
As BARTEK BARCZYK.COM is not Narodowe Centrum Kultury, an evidence of copyright transfer is needed. The actual copyright owner should contact OTRS following COM:OTRS/pl. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logotip-nspi1.png

Это изображение эмблема нашего института. Изпользуем на страницах инститтута в Wiki. Любой может изпользовать. --Xadji (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose When uploading, you claimed to be the copyright holder of this logo, which is doubtful. In order to restore the logo either (1) you need to provide a link to an official information frem the logo copyright holder that the logo is freely licensed under the specific license, or (2) the logo copyright holder's authorized official should send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Oman Observer.jpg I am part of the editorial team. Kindly undelete

Hi,

I am the Digital Editor of Oman Observer Newspaper. We have uploaded a screenshot of the Front page of our newspaper with the permission of the management. Kindly undelete the image.

Thank you, Midhun Raj Digital Editor midhun.raj@omanobserver.om 26/2/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midhunalpha (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose For any media that was already published without evidence of free license (and I can't find publicly available information that this issue of Observer is freely licensed), a free license permission from copyright owner(s) following COM:OTRS instroctions is needed. The sender(s) should prove that they are exclusive copyright owners for the text/media/layout visible here. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. 15:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:EuropeDiectMV to undelete.jpg

I accidently did not mark the picture as my own as I uploaded it. --EIZRostock (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You did, but you apparently didn't respond to requests to confirm that claim. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


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

I forgot to mark the logo as my own property, because I created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EIZRostock (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

--EIZRostock (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@EIZRostock: Personally created, unused logos are out of Wikimedia Commons scope. And for logos user in the real world, a written free license permission from the logo copyright holder following COM:OTRS is required. Ankry (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02&oldid=340947564"